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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (16956)	4/17/2010 9:44:40 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42652

The Power of Federal Funding from Jeffrey Miron by Jeffrey Miron President Obama mandated Thursday that nearly all hospitals extend visitation rights to the partners of gay men and lesbians and respect patients’ choices about who may make critical health-care decisions for them, perhaps the most significant step so far in his efforts to expand the rights of gay Americans. The president directed the Department of Health and Human Services to prohibit discrimination in hospital visitation in a memo that was e-mailed to reporters Thursday night while he was at a fundraiser in Miami. Administration officials and gay activists, who have been quietly working together on the issue, said the new rule will affect any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding, a move that covers the vast majority of the nation’s health-care institutions. Obama’s order will start a rule-making process at HHS that could take several months, officials said. The concern this story raises is not the visitation rights for partners of gay men and women; I share President Obama’s discomfort with current practice, and I would like to see hospitals change their policies. But I find it frightening that a president can, at the stroke of a pen, dictate policy at practically every hospital in the country. This is possible because of federal funding of health care via Medicaid and Medicare. Once this power exists, it can be exercised in ways that supporters of the President’s recent decision might not like. What, for example, prevents a future president from decreeing that hospitals with federal funding cannot provide abortions? jeffreymiron.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (16956)	4/17/2010 10:52:33 AM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Respond to of 42652

like healthcare the energy thing is just about CONTROL. The dems hate people deciding things on their own

To: Lane3 who wrote (16956)	4/17/2010 11:41:21 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Dunno if that gives me any more confidence, though, in their commitment to energy independence, particularly when gas prices go up. What the hell does the fact that gas prices go up have to do with the dems commitment to energy independence? ' Al

To: Lane3 who wrote (16956)	4/17/2010 7:03:01 PM
From: RetiredNow	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Well, Lane, here's my take. From my perspective, I think the issue IS oil independence and that global warming is a nice fringe benefit of tackling that one issue. I think we should be good stewards of the Earth and I do believe in man-made global warming, but I'm unsure as to the urgency. I'm more concerned about the immediacy of our oil dependency and the ill effects on our economy and national security. Happily, this is one of those win-win-win. Oil independence means taking away the possibility of oil shocks to the economy, taking away funding from terrorists, and polluting less. It's a trifecta and a no-brainer. The only ones against it are the GOP, who are bought and paid for by the oil companies. If you don't believe me, you should spend more time on the Politics of Energy thread. It's where the GOP die hards live and they are very much against anything that would get in the way of oil profits.