Yes! Once again, this healthcare system that Obama wishes to pass will be a beneficial system. The House of Representatives have passed the bill so now; it’s time to get the Senate on board. This bill still raises a lot of controversy as to how current insurances will work under this system. Citizens can be assured that it will not affect their current insurances, as they will be able to keep their private insurance should they choose. The major change will be the option that will be available to those who are not insured and to those who are insured but seek a better policy. Though there are concerns over the amount of money being spent for this bill, the end results may just justify the means. After all, if we can save money in the long run, then it seems as though this would prove to be beneficial.

So let’s embrace this change! Other countries have universal healthcare. It’s time we join those countries in embracing this very socialist idea. This could help save lives of those who are less fortunate and cannot afford decent healthcare or any healthcare at all.

On November 4th, Maine voters rejected a bill that would have allowed same-sex marriage to be legal. It is a shock that no matter how advanced our society becomes, we still are not as tolerant as we preach. Is it really a big deal whether it’s called a civil union or it’s called marriage? Either way, it’s the binding of two individuals to each other who wish to express their love to one another.

The major issue with civil unions is the fact that it does not grant the same rights as a marriage grants. Just because you are of a different sexual orientation does not mean you should not have the right to have your relationship be called a marriage and receive certain rights such as the right to be covered under the same medical plan. What is the difference? Do insurance companies really think that people are trying to suck money out of them to cover medical expenses or is it the age old stereotype about homosexuals and AIDS? Once again, statistically, straight people get AIDS, HIV, and STDs too! It’s the principle of the matter. Your sexual orientation should not affect or diminish the rights that you receive as opposed to the rights that are given to those who are straight! Same-sex couples can already adopt together, so why can’t they have equal coverage for insurances? It’s simply an outrage.

Also, on the topic of medical care, if a man or woman in a heterosexual marriage were in an accident, the spouse would have the right to decide what to do, as the accident victim would not be able to decide. However, if it were a homosexual couple, the partner would not be granted that same right. It seems highly unfair that you would ask a next of kin relative to decide over the person that was chosen as a life mate. Once again, the principle of matter is skewed in favor of the old-fashioned definition of marriage. Just as the times have changed, so should our practices and laws be changed as well! We are talking about giving equal rights to all individuals no matter their gender, race, or sexual preferences! Let’s celebrate our differences and fight for our rights!

When it comes to guns, the less people that own them, the better for our safety. Too many times we hear on the news that a child has accidentally killed someone because there was a gun lying around. If we can prevent shootings and harmful situations by making it harder for the bad guys to get guns by increasing stricter gun control laws, then that is what we should do to better protect citizens.

There should be stricter gun control laws increasing the security precautions on who is allowed to buy a gun or not. There should be harsher penalties for those who illegally obtain guns. There should be classes and training that is forced and maintained in order to ensure that those who do quality to own a gun can properly use the gun and know how to practice safety with that gun. There’s no point to give a gun to a person who is just going to use the gun irresponsibly and recklessly. Lives can be endangered!

Though we are given the right to bear arms, there should be some limitations on that right in order to prevent harm from occurring to any person. It is important that we protect every human life. That does not mean that those trained to serve and protect such as soldiers and policemen should not carry weapons. However, there should be strict regulation and strict background and psychological testing involved. It’s better to be safe than to be sorry. That is the motto that we should take when it comes to exercising our right to bear arms. We should exercise caution and since not all do, that is why we need stricter gun control laws to enable that our citizens can keep their rights and still exercise safe measurements. We don’t want people dying or accidentally shooting another person because they are reckless and irresponsible with their rights. So, should we have stronger gun control laws? My answer’s a definite yes!

Tort reform is often described as “a group of ideas and laws designed to change the way our civil court system works. While each tort reform law is different, they all are designed to either limit the circumstances under which injured people may sue, limit how much money juries may award to injured people, or both.”

(www.whatistortreform.com)

For example, in cases of malpractice, an injured party would only be able to sue for economic damages, meaning the price of surgery and any cost needed to fix the medical and physical damages of the patient. This means that non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, would not be covered by large corporations. Many Conservatives today agree strongly with the ideas of tort reform and believe it is necessary in order to lower the cost of premiums that doctors are currently forced to pay. Simply put, tort reform will strip Americans of their basic judicial rights and prevent companies and medical practices from taking complete responsibility for their actions and paying for the consequences of those actions.

In May of 2002, Linda McDougal was diagnosed with breast cancer and was told she needed to have both breasts removed. She underwent the procedure, thinking it was necessary to save her life. Forty-eight hours later, after undergoing the surgery, she was informed that she did not have breast cancer; her test results were accidentally switched with another patient’s. According to President Bush, this case of malpractice would be worth $250,000. This would surely cover her medical bill for having undergone the surgery, but this would not even begin to cover the amount of pain and suffering McDougal was forced to undergo due to this horrendous mistake. Should one’s pain and suffering be disregarded in order to protect a physician from being accountable for his or her own mistakes?

While tort reform would wrongfully restrict the rights that people in the United States of America properly deserve, it would also raise taxes among middle-class families. Ideally, the costs of injuries due to malpractice errors or defective products are paid for by the wrongdoers themselves. If these wrongdoers are no longer held responsible for paying for these costs, the payment will have to come from somewhere else. This will be in the form of taxes, which will quickly burden the average middle-class family.

While tort reform is not out best option, it goes without saying that there is a definite need for change. The price of insurance for physicians is rapidly increasing. Tort reform is not what needs to change in regards to this matter; the amount of physician error that occurs needs to decrease substantially. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, doctors are the third leading cause of death in the United States. Every year, 225,000 deaths occur due to iatrogenic causes, meaning they are caused by the diagnosis, manner or treatment of a physician. If physicians are held more accountable for their cases of malpractice, the chances that so many cases of malpractice will actually occur are reduced. Also, if cases of malpractice were less private in regards to protecting the doctor’s reputation, fewer mistakes would most likely be made, thus decreasing the overall cost of insurance for physicians. If the costs of insurance for physicians went down, then the medical charges for seeing a physician would decrease, meaning tort reform would have no viable purpose. Tort reform is simply a means of deferring responsibility, which is completely unacceptable.

If tort reform is successfully installed into our current judicial system more than it has been in the past few years, corruption within major corporations will inevitably breed and the risk of increasing the amount of injury due to malpractice and defective products will be greater than ever. It is important to look at what the United States would lose if limits were put upon the lives of every injured American. How can a person’s life have a monetary cap? The real question we need to ask ourselves in regard to tort reform is this: What is more important to the United States: protecting wrongdoers or protecting the rights and lives of its people?