The way it reads, it seems like seniors are going to have to go through this for just having a bad case of hemorrhoids. Those protesting at the meetings should be demanding more that congress have the same health plan rules.
Posted on 08/09/2009 10:35:59 AM PDT by Jeff Head
I reject that categorically and on priniple, but also particularly in light of the wording and the beliefs and quotes from those who have crafted the plan that go directly to what Republic posted.
No tin foil hat there. The quotes are what they are and they are cited. The wording for government determination for life sustaining treatment are there.
You may accept that...but I do not.
The state of Oregon has already resorted to these types of measures. A woman dying from cancer was refused treatment because it could not heal her, only relieve her discomfort as she died. The state told her they wouldn't pay for treatment, but offered to pay for assisted suicide meds.
Do you think the federal government wouldn't resort to this type of pressure or worse?
"Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects.... Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments.... It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does."
"Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."
"Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create 'classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on,' but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save"
Remember Hitler's final solution was the final step, there were smaller steps before that, starting with denial of medical care to the "non productive".
__________________________________________________________
"Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda". : Dr Zeke Emanual
(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that - (IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergenc 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.
So a physician, nurse, or physician's assistant will be greatly contrained by what a board of government officials and others determines is best, in advance, and based on a set of life year formula.
As I said, a categorically reject it.
I am happy working with my Dr., my family, and my curch in that regard thank you very much, and do not need such a "panle" of the government making the decsion for us in advance.
Darlin, if you do not believe this is going to happen under the government run health/death debacle, you might need to read the bill....it will take you hours....and I mean HOURS to read what is available online, I guarantee that you will replace the tin foil with a volcano.
Thanks, as always your articles are clear and understandable. It would be great if sometime this week you could do one on the laws regarding TREASON:
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt
On FreeRepublic everyone is so passionate about what our elected leaders are doing, and rightly so, but we have to make sure that noone violates this law in the process. It would surely bring great media attention to wrong side...again, it seems logical that everyone here needs a refresher course....to dot our i’s and cross our t’s in times of trouble.
"Will" is a promise, "Shall" is an order.
Absolutely. If my insurance company denies a needed surgery, I can pay for it myself. If the government denies it, I cannot decide to pay for it myself. I would have to take my chances leaving the country.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
How convenient for commiebama...their “cutoff” age is 65, and my eligibility for social security is 66. Why did I pay in all that money all these years?
The way it reads, it seems like seniors are going to have to go through this for just having a bad case of hemorrhoids. Those protesting at the meetings should be demanding more that congress have the same health plan rules.
Is this the original HR3200 or the NEWER One approved by some blue dogs, that Waxman said he wasn’t going to release until after August recess?
Anyway, it makes me think they will change sections and page numbers to throw everyone off, when new bill is released for a vote. It will be to confuse Seniors/Readers to think some things were changed or removed, when in fact, they will just be moved to another place in the monstrosity bill.
We will need to really work fast to find the new places to where their devious minds have put the end-of-life clauses, and watch to see if they change TERMINOLOGY on us.
The Left’s explanation of this is that many insurance plans do not cover end of Life Planning and that this section describes exactly what constitutes the plan and what will be covered.
Personally, I don’t see anything here that mandates anyone to do anything. Aside from that the rest of the plan sucks!
I’ve heard many express the same sentiments. This could get ugly very fast. I have never seen so many Americans as enraged and horrified as they are right now. I was picking up a prescription yesterday and some elderly woman was sobbing and telling the pharmacist what she read in the bill. The pharmacist agreed with her. It was very sad. :(
EVIL, EVIL, ROTTEN people that that POS poaching in the WH surrounds himself with.
I read a relevant post by Paul on Powerline this morning. In part:
“(Charles)Lane (Washington Post) argues that the “consultations” provided for in Section 1233, while not mandatory, are not “purely voluntary” either as the Democrats have claimed. Thus, he writes, “Section 1233 lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.” As Lane notes, common sense tells us that Section 1233 would place senior citizens in a situation where they will feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign.
The federal govenment should not be in the business of skewing end-of-life counsel, and thus end-of-life decisions. Lane concludes:
Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life’s end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it’s good to have a doctor’s perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party — the government — recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.”
How can we not violate the law, when the law itself is illegitimate? There is only one definition of Treason applicable in these United States, it's contained in the Constitution, Article III, Section. 3.
Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
A lot of the stuff in that section of the code is clearly in violation of the first and second amendments to the Constitution. Interpreted as the Obamites will soon get around to doing, the NRA is an " organization which engages both in civilian military activity and in political activity" which must "register" with the Government "on such forms and in such detail as the Attorney General may by rules and regulations prescribe."
The law makes exercising your first and second amendment rights illegal.
Of course there is an exemption for Foreign Friends of The Messiah, that is " (d) Any duly established diplomatic mission or consular office of a foreign government which is so recognized by the Department of State;". But they slipped up, there is also an exemption for " (e) Any nationally recognized organization of persons who are veterans of the armed forces of the United States, or affiliates of such organizations." They'll have to remove that particular exemption.
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.