Posted on 07/21/2009 11:44:39 AM PDT by paustin110
Obamacare dictates end of life counseling every five years (or more)...
See for yourself: Here is the section dealing with end of life counseling for seniors.
This section talks about possible life sustaining treatment. These orders, of course, will be "standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State." This life sustaining treatment will be "guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association."
Really? All those people are going to be involved in my health care decisions?
(Excerpt) Read more at soitgoesinshreveport.blogspot.com ...
This is absurd. We need to defeat this bill.
I thought the racism in the bill was also cute.
Get whitey, it’s the ZERO administration theme song.
Nothing surprises me about this bill. Nothing. You could tell me that there is a mass sterilization program for white men in the bill and I wouldn’t be surprised. The RATS are that deliberate and anti-constitutional.
I don’t think it dictates end of life counseling. I think it spells out payment for end of life counseling every 5 years if the patient wants it. Still, it is an odd thing to put into a health care bill.
“This life sustaining treatment will be “guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.”
Hmmmm,,, i notice one rather important “stakeholder” missing from the list!
Let's say that you are receiving end-of-life counseling from a government hack. Let's say you re-iterate all their questions back at them. After they object and inform you that you are the one dying, not them, you inform them that they are wrong, pull out a gun and shoot them dead. Now, you are in the criminal justice system. Will they have to keep you alive until after your trial (which may take 2 years or more)? Will they let you die anyway and forgo "justice"? I'd love to see the portion of the bill that deals with this.
Im sure it won’t dictate you get the counseling. But of course, if you *don’t*, they will then legally be able to assume you wanted nothing done.
Think they’ll let you walk away? This is a deal you can’t refuse.
More than one! Spouse, friends, family, children, Pastor...
HitlerCare would seem the appropriate name for this ghoulish plot created by Hussein and his Administration and approved by Congress. In reality, it is the government legalizing the elimination of American citizens by government mandate. Rather than camps designed for the same purpose, this is the sly way of accomplishing the same goal.
Sadly, in these times of a government gone criminally insane those very thoughts are quite logical, rational, and even moral.
The moral code is straightforward. We have a duty to live. If someone is coming to kill us, we have a duty to kill them first.
Your reasoning is honest.
The one way to scare the crap out of Baby Boomer voters is to tell them they gotta die.
Most of us assume we aren't going to, and have acted that way for far too long.
Anyone singing this song is going to be...gone.
Little too real for the Jetsons generation.
Yeah, but as we have seen amply demonstrated in the last 20 years, some irritants simply refuse to die.
Wonder if they are working on a special Kool Aid to give the eldsters at these counseling sessions?
You bet. And just a thought,,our medical professionals are amazingly skilled when it comes to their technical job of medicine. But when they try to cross over into policy making, their God complex beams out for all to see. They demand decision making power they do not deserve.
Also, a doctor might be *the man* when it comes to how to do a certain surgery. It does not logically follow, that he is an expert on the on medical or financial policy. Thats like asking an airline pilot or machanic which routes will be profitable. At best, they have a peripheral opinion.
I start by saying that I hate this proposed bill. But, I read the linked article, and I’ve read the text of this section that has appeared on other threads and I can’t find the word mandatory. For those of you that are on medicare, this counseling appears to be an addition to those items that are permitted on a periodic basis. For example, for women, a mammagram once a year. For men, a PSA test once year. I’ll take everyting back if someone shows me the word “mandatory” in the actual text. On the other hand, the socialist Democrats could put it in during a middle of the night session even if it is not in now.
Option today, mandatory in the 2011 update. The entire history of this government has been incrementalism.
I can believe that. I’m only trying to urge that we be accurate.
You notice that nowhere in the coalition of stakeholders is the patient or the taxpayer listed.
This is clear evidence that it is way past "time to just shoot the bastards." Good news Claire, we're no longer in that awkward stage.
No problem with that. And i do have one other minor rhetorical point. They call all the medical people, providers, state agencies, EMS, etc,,,”stakeholders”. One question, if they really belive they are “stakeholders”, how long will I be allowed to choose to exclude the opinion of a someone who holds a “stake” in the outcome?
If i can, then the term has no meaning. Everywhere else the government uses that term, the “stakeholder” is given a powerful say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.