How is the freedom of speech and civil rights act of 1964 similar

health care plans in the united states having high costs because they are focusing on providing quality programs for different groups of individuals. the quality of the service is based on money flow received from the members. without this investment, couldn't be possible a constant scientific searching to prevent death and illness caused because of low levels of health investigation. currently, the complaints are not about the highest cost, but about the coverage and benefits to access the necessary health services required by the members.  

besides, if a global health system is established the quality levels will fall down because of the standardized of the health. the access to care will increase but the quality will be low because it depends on the money invested.

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.