No Hitler-like policies- which is how THEY view health care reform. They see it as Hitlerish. Imagine Hitler concerned about human health! My kidneys just did a 360, laughing at that!
|One sees evidence of these principles in Nazi public health practice. Nazi health officials cleaned up water supplies and removed lead and mercury from consumer products. Doctors were urged to counsel patients against tobacco use,13 to maintain the efficiency of workers, safeguard public and genetic health, and ensure the best possible medical care for every pregnant woman and newborns judged "genetically fit." There were debates about medical malpractice -- whether, for example, natural healers were to be barred from treating cancer patients (they eventually were) -- and the limits of medical confidentiality and medical disclosure. A 1943 article in a leading German cancer journal cited the "demands of medical ethics" to inform patients of the severity of their diseases, and in at least one case a physician was prosecuted for failing to inform a woman she had cancer (physicians protested the ruling in print).14|
Anyway, back to the original topic. I do think that there is a need for the long, winding legalese to avoid the law being twisted in ways they don't mean it to be, as well as to alter the already existing legislature on the subject at hand. However, I do think there should be some kind of bullet-pointed summary of the bill, an HONEST summary of the bill, at the beginning of every piece of legislature. It is too difficult for those of us with non-legislative jobs to keep up with bills being proposed by the legislature, state and federal, and have any kind of real understanding of what is being enacted. They do it for our local proposals in the voter's booklets. They should be able to do it for these long, convoluted bills as well. Doesn't matter to me if the summary is even 10 pages long, as long as it's clear and concise and honest about what is being proposed.