checkmate Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 First, let me say that I am a Democrat, and a Liberal one at that, but I don't understand how Bush can say that he supports a government that stays out of the lives of its citizens and then says he wants to make abortion illegal, wants to make gay marriage illegal, and wants to limit recovery from doctors who commit medical errors costing people lives and limbs. Can anyone explain that to me?
Alaska Darin Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 First, let me say that I am a Democrat, and a Liberal one at that, but I don't understand how Bush can say that he supports a government that stays out of the lives of its citizens and then says he wants to make abortion illegal, wants to make gay marriage illegal, and wants to limit recovery from doctors who commit medical errors costing people lives and limbs. Can anyone explain that to me? 16828[/snapback] Not alot different than the Democrat "ideas" of abolishing the 2nd Amendment (the reason this country even exists), forcing people to contribute to Social Security, taxing us at a nearly 50% clip (add them up), forcing parents to keep their children in failing public schools, etc. Sorry. Neither of these parties are doing the individual any favors.
checkmate Posted September 3, 2004 Author Posted September 3, 2004 Not alot different than the Democrat "ideas" of abolishing the 2nd Amendment (the reason this country even exists), forcing people to contribute to Social Security, taxing us at a nearly 50% clip (add them up), forcing parents to keep their children in failing public schools, etc. Sorry. Neither of these parties are doing the individual any favors. 16844[/snapback] I like the second amendment (and I don't have a gun and suspect I never will), but remember the purpose of the second amendment is to be able to take arms up against your own government. That is not allowed today in our war against terror. Social security--I don't have any great ideas, but we need something to take care of working class without pensions in their old age. Taxes--I am not sure how you get 50%, but I do live in SC that has a low tax rate (I am in the highest category for both state and federal). But I think the scaled tax rate based on income makes some sense. Schools--What we learned in SC about vouchers for private schools is that standards in private schools get lowered. That's unfortunate, because the plan was to use vouchers to make the public schools better. I don't really have a solution.
Arondale Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 First, let me say that I am a Democrat, and a Liberal one at that, but I don't understand how Bush can say that he supports a government that stays out of the lives of its citizens and then says he wants to make abortion illegal, wants to make gay marriage illegal, and wants to limit recovery from doctors who commit medical errors costing people lives and limbs. Can anyone explain that to me? 16828[/snapback] I'll try to answer it. First of all, when you believe that abortion is killing innocent, unborn children (as I and GW do) it is not an issue of staying out of the lives of citizens. It is a matter of life and death. I'm assuming you are pro-choice, in which case you only view it as a matter of individual choice in which you think GW is then trying to apply laws to a woman's right to choose. I won't get into an abortion debate, but as you can see it is a fundamental difference in how each side approaches the matter. In one way you can say that GW is not staying out of the lives of citizens, but in this case he is doing so to give a voice to the citizen that has none - the unborn child. The same goes for gay marriage. If you believe that God created us and that he designed marriage to be solely between man and woman ( as I and GW do), gay marriage is an attack that threatens the foundation of society - the family. It is not something that I or GW can sit back and let happen. Again, you are approaching it from the perspective of choice and individual equality. Finally, limiting malpractice suits is not as much about staying out of the lives of citizens as it is about the entire medical field. If these lawsuits are allowed to run rampant and not somehow controlled, they will continue to harm healthcare. When doctors and hospitals can't stay in business because of extraordinary malpractice insurance, due mostly to these suits, that is not an issue of the individual, but of the good of society. That is my take and my belief, I can't speak for GW though.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 First, let me say that I am a Democrat, and a Liberal one at that, but I don't understand how Bush can say that he supports a government that stays out of the lives of its citizens and then says he wants to make abortion illegal, wants to make gay marriage illegal, and wants to limit recovery from doctors who commit medical errors costing people lives and limbs. Can anyone explain that to me? 16828[/snapback] Doctors and hospitals should actually be ACCOUNTABLE when they permanently injure someone because of their own negligence, and if there is a cap it needs to be set by INDEPENDENT PEOPLE who are not tied to the medical field or the insurance field. No one will care about abortion or gay marriage when the seas rise up and engulf parts of the continent, we are engulfed in war in the Middle East, Social Security falls apart, we are threatened by nuclear weapons from terror groups, few elderly can afford medical care due to high drug prices, and our educational system finally breaks down. These examples are all a part of REAL issues that should be in the forefront, NOT these other issues which only divide the nation, and seem miniscule when compared.
Alaska Darin Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Doctors and hospitals should actually be ACCOUNTABLE when they permanently injure someone because of their own negligence, and if there is a cap it needs to be set by INDEPENDENT PEOPLE who are not tied to the medical field or the insurance field. No one will care about abortion or gay marriage when the seas rise up and engulf parts of the continent, we are engulfed in war in the Middle East, Social Security falls apart, we are threatened by nuclear weapons from terror groups, few elderly can afford medical care due to high drug prices, and our educational system finally breaks down. These examples are all a part of REAL issues that should be in the forefront, NOT these other issues which only divide the nation, and seem miniscule when compared. 17044[/snapback] Amazingly, almost every one of these situations has been made worse BECAUSE of government intervention.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Amazingly, almost every one of these situations has been made worse BECAUSE of government intervention. 17052[/snapback] We could start by making gambling legal in the U.S., and making the drinking age 18. THAT would make me feel much better right now. I know they are not the issues I spoke of, but HELL, this is still America, right?
Alaska Darin Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 We could start by making gambling legal in the U.S., and making the drinking age 18. THAT would make me feel much better right now. I know they are not the issues I spoke of, but HELL, this is still America, right? 17058[/snapback] Can't say I disagree with that, though I'm not sure either of those should be controlled by the federal government.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Can't say I disagree with that, though I'm not sure either of those should be controlled by the federal government. 17062[/snapback] How did it end up that way, anyway? When did the federal government get the control to set the drinking age to 21? I missed that. I'm asking because my buddies who are under 21 can be on a ship for months without a port, and then not be able to have a beer when they get home.
Alaska Darin Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 How did it end up that way, anyway? When did the federal government get the control to set the drinking age to 21? I missed that. I'm asking because my buddies who are under 21 can be on a ship for months without a port, and then not be able to have a beer when they get home. 17065[/snapback] By threatening to take away federal matching funds for highways if states didn't raise the drinking age. Pretty much blackmail. I think Wyoming was the last holdout. You're right, it's pretty fugged up.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 By threatening to take away federal matching funds for highways if states didn't raise the drinking age. Pretty much blackmail. I think Wyoming was the last holdout. You're right, it's pretty fugged up. 17067[/snapback] SEE? I knew there was something fishy going on. sad...
checkmate Posted September 3, 2004 Author Posted September 3, 2004 I'll try to answer it. Finally, limiting malpractice suits is not as much about staying out of the lives of citizens as it is about the entire medical field. If these lawsuits are allowed to run rampant and not somehow controlled, they will continue to harm healthcare. When doctors and hospitals can't stay in business because of extraordinary malpractice insurance, due mostly to these suits, that is not an issue of the individual, but of the good of society. That is my take and my belief, I can't speak for GW though. 16899[/snapback] I won't address the abortion issue because, as you recognize, we have a difference in opinion that fundamentally does not allow us to have a discussion where we can persuade one another. As for gay marriage, really, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all. I know that is quite Libertarian of me, but I believe that should be with respect to only the church and let the church make the rules to govern that institution. As for the malpractice suits, you are just wrong. Most states have insurance funds for medical malpractice and charge doctors pro rata by specialty. Unlike Auto Insurance where you have to pay higher premiums for getting into an accident where it is your fault, malpractice insurance does not really increase when you make a mistake and are at fault. The good doctors are penalized for the mistakes of bad doctors. In states where there are caps on non-economic damages, insurance rates for medical malpractice still continue to increase. This is an insurance crisis. As for frivolous lawsuits, statistically there are very few. With respect to medical malpractice, there are virtually none because of the high cost a lawyer must undertake to prosecute them--many times spending upwards of 100k for experts, etc. The days of filing a lawsuit for medical malpractice for a quick settlement have been gone for years.
checkmate Posted September 3, 2004 Author Posted September 3, 2004 Doctors and hospitals should actually be ACCOUNTABLE when they permanently injure someone because of their own negligence, and if there is a cap it needs to be set by INDEPENDENT PEOPLE who are not tied to the medical field or the insurance field. No one will care about abortion or gay marriage when the seas rise up and engulf parts of the continent, we are engulfed in war in the Middle East, Social Security falls apart, we are threatened by nuclear weapons from terror groups, few elderly can afford medical care due to high drug prices, and our educational system finally breaks down. These examples are all a part of REAL issues that should be in the forefront, NOT these other issues which only divide the nation, and seem miniscule when compared. 17044[/snapback] I agree, abortion and gay marriage are not critical issues in light of the issues you point out.
IUBillsFan Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Doctors and hospitals should actually be ACCOUNTABLE when they permanently injure someone because of their own negligence, and if there is a cap it needs to be set by INDEPENDENT PEOPLE who are not tied to the medical field or the insurance field. 17044[/snapback] That's a good thought but only if the doctor hospital are negligent. If you get a lawyer that plays on peoples sympathies that changes things.
Recommended Posts