The greatest obstacle to an intellectual debate on the right to end one’s life is the fear that it will spill into the arena of abortions. This, therefore, is a proxy battle on the right to abort a fetus.

I agree with Prof. Culhane that this ruling is better grounded in the law but maybe this case could be a pacesetter for other courts to address the issue. I sincerely hope that it will lead to non-uniformity amongst jurisdictions so that our Supreme Court would be left with no choice than to get called up!

http://www.ismp.org/pressroom/injustice-jailtime-for-pharmacist.asp

The truth is that both sides of the aisle agree on probably 85% of the changes that need to be made but the remaining 15% is the gigantic bone of contention. Furthermore, both sides have coined words that have varied meanings depending on who you ask, e.g. “robust” public option vs. (emanciated- I guess) public option vs. “trigger” vs. “socialized medicine” etc.

Another factor is that the climate of the 90′s is very different from that of today. For example, there may have been less of a debate if there was a surplus rather than a recession.

The entire HC reform debate is not about reforming health care; it is about politics- members of both Congress and Senate trying to get re-elected AS USUAL! Democrats and Republicans have been protecting their interest groups and wasting the time of citizens on their circular debates.

Hence, if one looks at those driving the debate, one would realize that the so-called centrists/moderate/conservative/blue dog democrats are significantly influencing the proposals.
The answer to the question will depend on whether Republicans think these centrists will carry the day. If negative (that is the final bill will be more liberal), then Republican ideas have not changed so much hence just a strategic move. On the flip side, if these provisions make the final bill, could be business as usual on the Capitol, attacking anything the Dems propose.

On one hand, it may seem that the mammogram recommendation is logical because the test has a sizeable number of false positives (leading to “anxiety”) and false negatives (oh..oh..medical malpractice liability). Furthermore, there is the argument supporting the Task Force’s report that the breast tissues of certain age groups make mammography a not-so-useful screening test. BUT, I agree that the point solidly against this report is WHAT IF IT IS YOU, YOUR WIFE, DAUGHTER, MOTHER, SISTER etc? The latter is reality!

To further illustrate when theory can “dump and break up” with reality is a situation like a drug advertised as a wonder drug for hypertension but lowers the blood pressure by just a point. Yes, on paper and in theory it may be great but practically it is useless.

Worse still is the timing of the report- dropping an iceberg of something that smells like rationing in the turbulence of memories of “death panels.”

So let’s talk about the middle…The Stupak amendment was smartly crafted by including the “socially juicy” exceptions of “health of the mother, incest and rape”, exceptions very favorable to many who are against abortion but do not support a blanket ban. The political reality is that, at least for time to come, those against abortion in one form or the other will continue to win because there are more democrats from red districts who cannot afford to be seen as endorsing abortion.

Even just analyzing the label warfare: if you are not pro-life, are you anti-life or con-life? In contrast, it is easier to spin the “choice” debate- what choice? To have an abortion or to take preventive measures such as, in blunt terms, make the dude wear a condom. To think abstinence is the, or in fact a solution is like getting stuck in the stone age times. However, the graphic advantage of an anti-abortion argument will ensure that the debate leans right on the ideological scale: uhm ending a life (described as cocktail abortion) versus denying a woman a right to make decisions on her body.

Maybe, it is time the Supreme Court decides once and for all at what point life begins but this debate in the HC bill only heralds the divide in the majority party.

Having a public option will solve one problem and create another. The problem is more behavioral..the patient with coverage has no incentive to save costs while the provider would rather cover all the bases, all leading to unnecessary tests etc.

There is no real HC reform without tort reform! Why do the proponents of HC reform shy away from that? Plain hypocrisy or politics as usual since the ATLA has to be “taken care of.”

They resent the new Federal guidelines and will do all they can ,locally, to shut the shops down.

As to the shop owners, a spokesperson opined that the Federal easing of restrictions shows we are maturing as a society. With all the domestic and international headaches, nay, nightmares,why can’t we just put this issue deep in the trash bin. Meanwhile, I’ll just meander(literally) over to the wine and spirit shop and load up for the winter………

I BELIEVE THAT STATES LIKE OKLAHOMA AND OTHER CONSERVATIVE JURISTICTIONS WOULD LOVE FOR A REALLY RESTRICTIVE STATUTE TO BE CHALLENGED AND GO UP THE S/C. JUSTICE KENNEDY IS GENERALLY INCLINED TO ” PRO LIFE” VIEWS ON ABORTION AND I FEEL A NEW DECISION BY THIS COURT COULD FURTHER ERODE A WOMANS CHOICE.