aapsonline.org worries more "democracy" is a path to socialized medicine

2021.3.2: news.pol/healthcare/

aapsonline.org worries more "democracy" is a path to socialized medicine:

summary:

H.R. 1: For the People Act 3 of 2021:

https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1/BILLS-117hr1ih.pdf

"To expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, 

reduce the influence of big money in politics, 

strengthen ethics rules for public servants, 

and implement other anti-corruption measures

for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, ... ."

. we actually need this bill to protect democracy

by making it easier to vote;

but it is bound to help the Democrat.party

which is known for increasing socialized medicine

which is bad if it limits the ability of doctors

to decide what they consider good patient care

instead of letting politicians decide your care.

. this is why Republicans voted for abortion rights:

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/roe-versus-wade-decided-by-a-majority-republican-nominated-court.html

they actually voted to keep politicians from

taking choice from our doctors.

. I hope when this bill allows more Democrat politicians

that they help expand our access to healthcare

without tying the hands of doctors.

. if the usa has the most deaths from covid-19

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_death_rates_by_country#/media/File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map_Total_Deaths_per_Capita.svg

it was because we didn't give doctors more power:

good doctors wanted to treat early with older

unpatented drugs such as Ivermectin 

and zinc with HCQ; and vitamin D;

[Am J Med. 2021 Jan]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32771461/

whereas, the socialized medicine in the usa

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-therapy/

told doctors not to treat until hospitalization was needed,

and to use only new patented drugs and ventilators.

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

AAPS @aapsonline.org Mar 1, 2021, 4:15 PM

subject: ALERT: NO on HR 1. Protect Election Integrity

Ensuring election integrity is essential to 

the integrity of our nation. 

Without it, the principles of freedom and liberty 

that made America great

are at great risk of being purged for generations to come.

That is why it is imperative to stop H.R. 1, 

https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1/BILLS-117hr1ih.pdf

which infringes on the authority of state legislatures. 

Not only will it will weaken election integrity, 

but H.R. 1 will help clear the path for 

the imposition of policies Americans overwhelmingly oppose, 

like socialized medicine.

H.R. 1 is disingenuously framed as "protecting democracy." 

In reality it protects election fraud

and is a direct attack on our constitutional republic. 

How? The bill would lock in place, at the federal level, 

many of the dangerous schemes used in the 2020 election 

that weakened the ability to ensure that

all votes counted were cast by eligible American voters. 

It would prohibit States from adopting rules that

strengthen integrity of the voting process.

For example, if the bill passes:

States would be required to automatically register voters

with little accountability for whether voters are actually

eligible. 

Improper limits would be imposed on the ability of states to 

validate, maintain, and clean their voter registration lists.

States would be required to offer universal mail-in voting 

and signature verification requirements would be weakened.

[eg, you wouldn't need to find witnesses.]

Federal law would protect the counting of ballots 

received after the election, 

even ballots received more that 10-days after the election.

[often the mail is late.]

H.R. 1 would also take the unprecedented step of

giving taxpayer dollars to politicians 

to spend on their campaigns, 

while simultaneously making it more difficult 

for Americans to use their own funds

to support the candidates of their choice.

Roe v. Wade about doctor's choice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Oral_arguments_and_initial_discussions

The justices delayed taking action on Roe

and a closely related case, Doe v. Bolton, 

until they had decided Younger v. Harris

(because they felt the appeals raised 

difficult questions on judicial jurisdiction) 

and United States v. Vuitch

(in which they considered the constitutionality

of a District of Columbia statute that

criminalized abortion except where the mother's 

life or health was endangered). 

In Vuitch, the Court narrowly upheld the statute, 

though in doing so, it treated abortion as 

a medical procedure

and stated that physicians must be given room to determine 

what constitutes a danger to (physical or mental) health. 

The day after they announced their decision in Vuitch, 

they voted to hear both Roe and Doe.

 Donald A. Norman` The Design of Everyday Things