Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (510058)	9/3/2009 10:07:39 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577019

I think they are both on the table. I think you're dreaming. The Administration has already disclosed that they intend to silently drop it from the agenda. The new attitude is not "a public option is essential"; rather, it is "I don't care if we have a public option or not, but we must have SOMETHING". They can't even get 51 votes in the Senate now and they know it, and they're not even going to consider legislation that has it. It would be a waste of time and a squandering of the opportunity for Obama to save face. And I still don't see how you do tort reform without stepping all over states rights. What, something like 20 states already have limits on malpractice? 28 is the number, I believe. The practice of defensive medicine is costing the COUNTRY billions -- probably $100-200B/year. If a federal bill is necessary to put a stop to that, fine. It isn't a huge states rights issue anyway. Where you have been confused on this issue, IMO, is that while half the states have imposed some limitation, it takes years, perhaps a decade or longer, for patterns of care to be modified by physicians. You don't just pass tort reform then, over night, physicians start practicing less defensive medicine. It doesn't work that way.