“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
So.... no, you haven't promised it to them.The conditions and stipulations in the contract describe what services can be denied, when they can be denied, and under what conditions.
Thus, I ask again:
Presuming that the service in question falls under those conditions, what's wrong with denying a service that will cause you to lose money? After all, you, the insured, agreed to the terms and conditions of the contract.
Last edited by Goobieman; 01-25-10 at 03:35 PM.
Maybe a little bit, but that's due more to the polarization itself than to actual ideological shifts toward more extreme views. For example, the Democratic Senate health care bill is to the right of where Nixon stood on the issue nearly 40 years ago, and Bush's spending policies were well to the left of Carter's.Originally Posted by Ockham
In general I'm not opposed to reforming the filibuster. At the very least, there need to be ways to circumvent it as there once was, when it becomes an endurance round with both parties camping out in the Senate as someone stands up and talks for as long as they can. That at least offered the prospect of important legislation passing with majority support.
Last edited by Kandahar; 01-25-10 at 03:38 PM.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016
But ofcourse, that was republicans standing up to the nuclear-option. That was more bipartisan than democrats ever will be.
Especially now with the whole so-called health care reform thing they wanna use the nuclear-option on. And it's not even judicial nominees, it's the option the democrats use to direct control over our/corp health care system.