Well, we do have a separation of church and state in this country. This post seems to have really bought into the idea that the government, and not the healthcare provider/doctor will be deciding om the best course of action. And it just won't.
Printable View
Well, we do have a separation of church and state in this country. This post seems to have really bought into the idea that the government, and not the healthcare provider/doctor will be deciding om the best course of action. And it just won't.
i didn't say anything about government control which is unequivocally bad and i am all against it
i am saying a lot of doctors are so much in debt from medical school bills, insurance, frivolous lawsuits etc and they need money SO BAD that they will do anything to make money even if its unethical
look at michael jackson case...dr conrad murray was like $500,000 in debt, his house foreclosed, same thing with arnold klein, the dermatologist, he defaulted on his rent, etc...
lots of doctors are desperate for any kind of income...and turn to unethical deeds to procure it
for some doctors tho, it's living beyond their means that's the problem...
I'd like to hope that what Ray said is true and that stuff wouldn't happen...but I've seen Republicans becoming crazier and crazier.Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahG
In principle, not in practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by raybbaby
Tell me, why did Obama flip flop and say that "no tax dollars will go towards any plan that will pay for abortions"?
Because and only because its trying to appeal to all those religious pro-lifers out there who won't allow their democrat OR republican representatives to vote for any plan that lacks such a clause.
The fundamentalists know that if they can keep abortion out of the plans, they'd be taking it away from the millions of americans who get those procedures, TODAY, paid for under private insurance policies.
He didn't flip flop. There is already legislation on the books that prevents taxpayer money from funding abortions.Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahG
Actually the Hyde Amendment is a rider on the medicaid appropriations bill, consquently the subject comes up for renewal every year when the medicaid budget is calculated. The wording of the bill itself regularly changes because it is not set and stone, and has to be annually renewed.Quote:
Originally Posted by raybbaby
It also only applies to medicaid funding- which this proposed system would not be using.
This proposal could have very easily included funding towards plans that cover abortions. The reason why it does not, and the reason why the hyde amendment has been renewed time and time again over the last thirty years, is because the social conservatives are powerful enough to force the rest of the country to abide by their will on this issue.
Did you hear of the Capps Amendment? The dems were going to include abortion coverage originally... they caved to get more support on the reform.
Can't say as I'm surprised.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/14/news...ion=2009091404
proves exactly what i was saying...insurance companies and greedy lawyers are robbing the doctors
Compare the percentage of research.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho