(North Fork Buffalo Creek Reservoir Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
83,606 messages
Updated 4/30/2024 9:09:31 AM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(North Fork Buffalo Creek Reservoir Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
Yankee06
|
|
Subject:
|
Time For The Truth
|
|
Date:
|
8/17/2009 2:42:32 PM
|
|
Martini Man,
-1. Yes, I agree that the wording on pages 424-425 of HR3200 means that the consultations are mandatory. I believe that 99 out 100 lawyers would agree.
-I agree with most of what you said on how Fed laws are implementd by agencies. Depending on how tightly a law is worded, those who execute the law can have a signifiant effect on the impact of a law. That is why it is important for an administration to get as many people of its persuasion into government positions, either through political appointments or teh normal government hiring process. I have found that government agencies overtime tend to take on their own ethical code. This code is developed and protected by the long-term government professionals who often offer resistence to significant change by government appointees. Thus it is important for an administration that wants to begin an agency or institute new policies to pack the new agancy or poicy implimentation group with people who beleive as the administration believes. This goes for all administrations of both parties.
-No, the scenario you present is not hard to imagine. Given that the proposed bill is significantly based on teh Brit system which has a track record we can evaluate, and based on democratic party policies and proclivities that we can evaluate, and based on the kind of health advisors the administration has in the white house like Dr. Ezikial Emanual, and based on the words of the president himself, your scenario is not hard to imagine. However, other less drastic courses are also possible. This is why the bill has to be as clear and definitive as possible in its wording, and the American people should have an opportubity to read it, or at least have faith that their elected leaders have read it and believe that their leaders think it reflects teh ideals of th majority of their constituents, while at the same time protecting the rights of the minorities within their constituents like teh disabled and the elderly.
---As an aside, Oregon is a very liberal state that provides some instruction on where heath care may go. Oregon now allows its doctors to participate in assisted suicides, with more people taking the option every year. Most are cancer patients that just don't want to spend their endtime (whatever that may be) in pain or drain their monies for eventually ineffective treatments when that money could be given to their children.. That's all good and well and there are good arguments for and against these government-sanctioned suicides. But one of teh things that happens is that such deaths become more "normal" and eventually mainstream. Then something like the following happens: last year one cancer patient was not responding well to treaments. Her doctor recommended she try an experimental treatment. She was on federal and state aid, so she requested approval from teh state. The state denied her funding for the treatment because it was too costly for teh likely results for her particular case, but told her that the state would provide funding (about $500 was stated if I remember correctly) for hospice and other end-of-life treatments. In my view, this is the kind of stuff that happens when the state gets involved because its focus is on cost savings. The question that comes up is would a health insurance company have done the same to her? I guess it all depends on what kind of policy she had.
-The problem I find with all these dicussions about HR3200 is that it is apparent to me that most of the congressmen/women I see on TV, as well as the TV commentators have not read teh bill. These people are just yammering party talking points. In my mind there should be two trails of arguments: 1) on what's in the bill and the wording of what's in the bill, and 2) a more general discussion on the possible and probable impacts of the bill, the long-term administration goals for US health care, and the records and writings and speeches of Obama and his health advisors which one would think will significantly impact the future health care system. Most of teh discussions we get now have all these elements jumbled together with people talking past each other and going nowhere. I think teh American people have a "right" to know what's is being planned for them in detail, ---but more importantly, they have a "responsibility". True , lots of people don't care about the bill or won't read it, or can't read it; ...but these town halls show that there are also lots of people who do care, can read, and want answers.
|
|
Reply
Back
Search
Off-Topic Forum
»
Texas Lakes
»
North Fork Buffalo Creek Reservoir
Login
|
Home
