[DELETED BY AUTHOR]
11 Sep
World’s Oldest Obama Voter Dies at 115
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Friday, September 11th, 2009 at 12:05 pm | 6 views
Stats
Don’t pee in the kool-aid, man. You’re messing with Obama’s narrative: white racist doctor making himself rich on the bones of a poor old black woman he just wouldn’t let die. ObamaCare would have given her a happy ending 40 or 50 years ago, dude, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars. Obama is color-blind when it comes to who goes under the bus.
R.I.P. old girl.
Nothing to worry about, Acron will make sure she votes in the next election as well.
In Chicago she would be voting for the next 20 years.
Why is a half black/half Arab always called a black man? He spends as much trying to be ‘blacker’ as MJ did trying to be white and peeloshi spends trying to be pretty. Ain’t gonna work folks, that dog won’t hunt no more. You can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig, ask M.O.
I read an article that broke down Obie’s racial make up. He is half white, thanks to his mother. From his father, Obie is slightly less than 7% black African and slightly more than 43% Arab Muslim. Obie’s deceased father and family in Kenya are listed by the Kenyan government as Arab Muslim. Much has been made of the fact that his mother’s ancestors at one time owned two black slaves. Nothing has been made of the fact that his father’s ancestors were Arab slave traders long after American Civil War days — and the slaves they traded were black Africans. When Obie and family made that photo-op visit to the former slave prison during his recent Africa tour, he made it sound as if the former suffering captives were his people. They might have been MEchelle’s — but they sure as heck weren’t his.
I cannot believe the comments on this site! Lies, hatred and prejudice. Get over yourselves and start being American. You take every opportunity to dump on your opponent, even in a situation that apparently does not call for such behavior. Grow up, go home and train your children properly.
What does this have to do with Obama or where he is from?
Is this how you would talk about your grandmother dying?
I hope she really faces those death panels you all fear! And if she is dead already, then it is your mom next.
Dear Shocked, allow me to shock you some more.
The next big “lie” to be exposed is that tax monies WILL be used to pay for abortions. I posted earlier that “it’s not what the bill says, as much as ‘who regulates’. I since learned that the secretary of HHS, who BTW, just so happens to be particually fond of late term abortions, gets ‘to regulate’ 179 times the way the bill is now written.
Wesley J. Smith, attorney and bioethics guru, has more.
[quote]Dear Shocked, allow me to shock you some more. [/quote]
I can’t stop laughing at the right wing.
Your “proof” that death panel are real is that a Congressman wrote a bill that helped Americans make sure their loved ones knew their wishes when they became comatose and assured that doctors carried such wishes out — REGARDLESS of what they were. That article then says “it MUST have had something to do with assisted suicide because he put a clause in there that said ‘This bill shall not be construed to mean federal funds are given to assisted suicide!’” That is probably the worst logical offender I’ve seen this month. If the Congress added to HR 3200 the clause, “NOTHING IN THIS BILL WILL CREATE A PANEL TO DECIDE IF OLD PEOPLE DIE” you would point to that as PROOF! absolute PROOF! that the original bill had death panels in it! You’ve twisted reality to fit your own stupid right wing conspiracy theories. If Congress doesn’t explicitly add something in the bill outlawing something you don’t like, you scream and yell. If they do add something, you point to it and go, “LOOK I WAS RIGHT THE WHOLE TIME!!” Heads you win, tails they lose. You’ll never admit the truth, because you will believe only what you want to be true.
What is bullshit is the idea that the government is somehow going to “pressure” people into making DNR choices. The truth is that HR3200 simply makes sure the doctor gets the patient to make a choice before they enter a comatose or vegetative stage. Then the doctor is rewarded for complying with the patients wishes, even if they say “keep me alive!”
You’re against patient’s wishes because you don’t like the idea that some people will choose DNR. In your mind, that equals panels of bureaucrats that sit around and decide if you are worth keeping alive or sending in union or ACORN thugs to bully you into signing DNR papers. The right wing is really making itself looks stupid and foolish.
If you disagree with this comment, I would kindly ask you point me to language in HR3200 proving your point. No more of this “a LIBERAL wrote that section therefore we can’t trust it!” bullshit.
Naturally, she voted for 0bama, a guy with no ‘Record’ of achievement and hasn’t got a clue, acts like he just won the lottery and discovered he was a member of Royalty. If our immigration policies continue of non enforcement and amnesty. with that medical plan, our country will be overwhelmed. If the spending continues, I can see the same fate for the USA as the Khazarian Jewish Trade Empire that folded up in 1026 Ad, when Islam defeated the Christian ByzantinNEvere AGSAIN
@Stephen: if the end of life counseling you cite was so begign then why did the Senate remove that provision from the bill?
It’s amazing how quickly you libs rediscover your love and trust in big government to do the right thing. One year ago you were all screaming about how Bush was threatening your civil liberties and destroying the country.
Now, it’s all peaches and cream!
@Mike’s America: It was removed because spineless Democrats removed it after functionally retarded people like you thought that it was a “death panel” and thought they wouldn’t get re-elected unless they address the concerns of people with zero reading comprehension like yourself.
“It’s amazing how quickly you libs rediscover your love and trust in big government to do the right thing.”
That’s bogus. I still have no trust in government — but everyone *needs* the government to do certain things. Police protection, fire department, military defense. All I ask is that the process be transparent and the constitution not be violated. Bush took away habeas corpus and started spying on the country, citing “state secrets” when we tried to find out what the government was actually doing (something Obama has unfortunately continued, but all my problems with Obama are that he’s not liberal enough).
This is a bill that is in plain sight for everyone to read. It’s a completely transparent process. Stop trying to make arguments of false equivalency.
@Stephen:
The problem with your argument is that the bills currently before the House and Senate are not the only piece to the puzzle.
If you go back and read the stimulus bill you will find that the death panel mechanism has already been established. Bought. Paid for. Done. Finished. Signed into law.
This may help you expand your horizons a bit:
Obie said:
Obie even has a version for the veterans that have served our nation.
Hell, Obie thinks that he’s a partner with God on life and death decisions.
Furthermore, a little reading on the Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC) will assist you in getting up to speed as well.
Really?
Sources please.
Care to show me in the US Constitution where the establishment of a national health care plan is an enumerated power?
Can you point me in the direction of the open, completely transparent process which was used to negotiate the secret deal with big PhRMA?
Of course I also find it interesting that David Axelrod’s former company is getting mega bucks. Can you offer any transparent info on this?
Stephen you are just another ignorant, arrogant, hatefilled a-hole from the left upset that we dare to disagree with you and your messiah. That is the kind of tolerance we have come to expect from your kind.
Aye has given you proof/facts of our position. I have no doubt you will ignore them as it would require you to admit you are wrong AND face reality.
But do continue to throw your tantrums and call those that disagree with you “retards” as it only helps our cause further. It’s amusing to think that “people” like you are your own worst enemies.
Oh and “shocked”, since you only came here to project your stupidy and bigotry onto the rest of us, ESAD.
I’ll have to research the stimulus, but at least you admit that the Panels of Inconceivable Doom aren’t in HR3200.
“Care to show me in the US Constitution where the establishment of a national health care plan is an enumerated power?”
“to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”
But of course we disagree on what this means. However, you CANNOT say that the “founding fathers” are on YOUR side, because this argument is literally as old as the Constitution. Madison agreed with you, Alexander Hamilton agrees with me.
Also apparently you don’t have to actually address my arguments if I make you cry because I called you a bad name lol
@Stephen:
I added emphasis to the part that is especially important.
Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare of the UNITED STATES not individual citizens.
Actually, I can say that the Founding Fathers agree with me and I can back it up with factual support.
Where are your facts regarding Hamilton?
Specifically, where does Hamilton say that “general Welfare of the United States” applies to provisions for individual citizens?
@Stephen:
Note, this site has a copy of the portion IN HR3200 that relates to the “Panels of Inconceivable Doom”
With an indepth explanation of the legalese:
Billions have already been invested, the groundwork has been laid to foist a very ugly end of life program on our weakest citizens…….More:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/08/no-american-can-ever-say-they-didnt.html
I’m very familiar with pages 424-434, and you’re starting to sound like 9/11 conspiracy theorists here. You’re going off a biased “interpretation” of the legalese. I might as well ask Alex Jones about the physics of metal melting.
But anyway, in the bill here’s the deal:
1) Seniors don’t actually have to receive the counseling, doctors are rewarded for having it with them.
2) Seniors DO NOT HAVE TO SIGN DNR REQUESTS. They can simply keep to their desires of being kept alive at any cost.
3) If the seniors in question choose NOT to sign DNR requests, then doctors WILL BE REWARDED FOR FOLLOWING THEIR WISHES. What the hell is wrong with a law requiring doctors respect patients’ wishes??
4) What’s wrong with making sure that seniors keep their end of life requests up to date? Even right-wingers love to say that old people change their minds about DNR requests — wouldn’t asking them about end-of-life issues every 5 years help??
You guys are insane. Imagine if, when the blood donor license patches came out, Obama or whatever liberal said, “DMV employees shall ask the licensee if they want to be an organ donor.” You idiots would be all atwitter that there was some kind of organ donation CONSPIRACY in the health care bill. In fact, that would have been a GREAT conspiracy: to prevent against rationing, Obama has forced EVERYONE to sign the back of the their license to be an organ donor, and then he’s going to send his union ACORN thugs out to kill them!!
You guys should look in the mirror and figure out that having doctors have discussions with patients doesn’t amount to “DEATH PANELS,” and the government is NOT going to pressure old people into signing DNR slips. In fact, such a measure as in HR3200 would be BENEFICIAL because cases like Terri Schaivo would happen far less often because more people will have articulated their end of life wishes. You guys are crazy.
Big shock. Stephen ignored Aye’s links and then tried to shift focus. Thanks for proving me right about you.
I love how because we have facts you will not see, facts that don’t agree with your fantasy, we are the loons. As for the names, I just return the attitude “people” like you give.
You are a typical brainded leftist. BTW, did I mention you were an a-hole too?
Since you seem to think you have a superior grasp on interpreting the bill(s)
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/09/13/white-house-quietly-admits-joe-wilson-was-correct-wait-what/
Enjoy a-hole.
I’m still looking at Aye’s links. I wasn’t aware that there was a right-wing talking point that we ALREADY have death panels. I don’t get my opinions fed to me by news pundits. I actually attempt to research our government. Anyway, my point was that there are NO DEATH PANELS in HR3200 and I have yet to find proof to the contrary.
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/09/13/white-house-quietly-admits-joe-wilson-was-correct-wait-what/
So what if undocumented immigrants can purchase insurance? They can already. The point is that nothing in the bill GIVES ANY MONEY AWAY to illegal immigrants. Nothing’s wrong with not requiring proof of citizenship for paid services. Or do you want to have the post office ask “papers please!” so we don’t have illegals using the post office. But this is off topic. Again, my point is that HR3200 HAS NO DEATH PANELS AND YOU ARE ALL LUNATICS FOR THINKING IT DOES.
Also, you guys come in here and post links to other blogs as if they’re reputable sources of information. You might as well link me to a clip of Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh.
@Stephen:
You see Stephen, it’s like this.
There are some big holes in your understanding and resulting logic here.
Let me see if I can help you find your way out of the fog.
The legislation states that the doctor SHALL conduct the counseling every five years. The operative word there is SHALL. In legislative terms, that means that it will happen. No negotiation or equivocation.
It’s required and, yes, doctors are paid for conducting the counseling. Personally, I’d rather have an attorney assisting me with all legal matters up to, and including, living wills, etc. YMMV.
You’re right. They’re not required to sign anything regarding DNR. The undercurrent here though is more subtle and nuanced, much like a rip tide…unseen from the surface but just as deadly.
Kindly allow Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post, hardly a Conservative, to explain it to you:
Here’s Charles Lane, another liberal writer at The Washington Post:
Finally I’ll link these two articles for you to read at your leisure. They will provide you with some more much needed background and an alternate viewpoint.
Obama’s Euthanasia Mistake by Lee Siegel
I am finally scared of a White House administration by Nat Hentoff.
This point is entirely moot.
Doctors are already rewarded i.e. paid for following the wishes of their patients. There is already a law in place which requires doctors to follow those wishes.
There is nothing wrong with keeping this type of paperwork etc up to date. The place for that is around the dinner table with the family or other loved ones. It’s not the govt’s place to insert themselves into this type of decision especially considering the fact that the main, foremost goal of the legislation in question is cost cutting.
Actually, in my state of GA, DMV employees already ask that question. Asking if a person wants to donate their organs AFTER they die is quite a bit different than a doctor, under gov’t directive and incentive, asking a senior if they want to fill out DNR papers. Also, the DMV employee’s involvement in the process is nothing more than clicking a box on their computer screen.
If you want to get into some deep thinking regarding organ donation you should do some reading up on Cass Sunstein. This guy believes that everyone should be considered an organ donor under ‘presumed consent’:
************
Terry Schaivo was 26 years old when she was hospitalized. She, and other young people like her, would be completely unaffected by HR3200.
That point is a straw man.
Saul Alinsky much?
@Stephen:
That’s not a right wing talking point…that’s the truth.
I don’t either and everything I see or hear I verify at least twice.
Yep, me too. It’s always good to know what that bunch is up to.
You are, once again, trying to build a straw man argument here. You were the one who said that HR3200 is where one should look to find the death panels.
The end of life counseling and death panels are two distinct pieces of a much larger overall puzzle.
In order to see the entire forest you have to back away from the individual trees.
Buzzer sounds.
Sorry Stephen, you’re not very well informed on this issue either.
The House bill, while it says that no benefits will be given to illegals, it unfortunately contains NO provisions or enforcement methods to see that this doesn’t happen. In fact House Dims voted against, and defeated, every amendment that was presented to add the enforcement mechanisms.
As the bill is currently written, when a patient presents at a hospital or doctors’ office they will not be required to show any sort of proof that they are qualified to receive care.
Those are the facts.
Furthermore, as we have discussed at great length here, if illegals are excluded under whatever version that is eventually passed, that legislation will most likely be struck down as unconstitutional by the Courts because the precedent has already been established in the CA Prop 187 litigation as well as Phyler v. Doe that illegals cannot be excluded.
Another straw man argument.
No one has expressed opposition to illegals paying for whatever services they receive.
In fact, I think that is a grand idea.
If you wish to dispute the factual validity of whatever is linked or posted here, feel free to do so. In your efforts, however, you’re going to quickly find that you’re wasting your time.
From Obama’s own mouth in an interview he gave to the New York Times on April 28 in which he discussed end of life care:
Gee… sounds like death panels to me!
It wouldn’t have affected her, but how many families are embroiled in difficult questions like the one the Schaivo family faced? If those people were prompted to make their wishes clear, you wouldn’t have to have heartache like that family faced. It’s not Schaivo, but cases like hers. It’s completely analogous, and not a strawman at all.
I’d rather have both doctors and lawyers have regular counseling with seniors. If anything, I’d say the legislation doesn’t go far enough. I’m still not understanding the problem with having doctors have talks with their patients about their available choices. I thought you guys were all about freedom? Or would you rather the doctors just keep mum about DNR requests because you don’t like the idea that seniors can choose to not be resuscitated?
Listen to yourself. “It’s more subtle and nuanced…. like a RIP TIDE.” You sound like a conspiracy nut that believes the government is controlling people with mind rays. Please explain to me in plain language exactly how the government would kill your grandmother. What would that scenario look like? I’d really like to know.
Here you have a guy who is not at all a liberal — he questions the gov’t purchase of GM and he hates on electric cars.
Anyway, my complaints about conservatives and liberals were that you just linked to an article as if you didn’t want to actually talk about the topic — you just wanted to repeat what you read on your favorite blog.
Anyway, about his complaints: like I said, are you worried about organ donors being refused treatment by doctors because they have a patient waiting for a kidney? You can see right there that the language of the bill lets doctors decide what end-of-life resources are good for the patient. It’s the freakin’ opposite of the government demanding what the doctors do and do not discuss with their patient.
And being able to sign a DNR on the spot “pressures” people into signing DNRs? You’re living in crazy town: let’s say you couldn’t sign a DNR on the spot. Would that be fair to seniors who feel strongly about their right for DNR?
The section of the bill is regarding scoring of doctor’s performances. It’s not crazy to suggest that the success of a doctor partially rely on how well they keep their patients informed! That said, even this kind of accusation doesn’t even come close to DEATH PANELS
And the doctor’s involvement is nothing more than signing a form. But again, what’s the difference between saying that Obama is “pressuring” people to become organ donors so that his subtle, super evil and deadly plot of having doctors refuse organ donors emergency treatment so that their organs can be harvested to reduce rationing? You’re approaching a level of super crazy here.
Nothing in this article has anything to do with death panels or even the Big Three Lies that Obama pointed out in his speech. Stay on topic, please.
And the sections of the bill you refer to for illegal aliens is referring to the insurance marketplace — you know, the market place where people will be able to buy insurance (including the public option). The sections aren’t referring to any kind of handout.
That was just my complaint about you — people were linking me to radical right wing blogs as if their authority was all that needed to be said on the issue.
@Stephen: Are you dense, stupid or both?
I’ve never heard of anything so ignorant as ” the bill lets doctors decide what end-of-life resources are good for the patient.”
Do you have any idea the hoops doctors have to jump through NOW to treat patients dependent on federal assistance? The state dictates all sorts of things and under Obama’s plan it would only get worse.
Anyone who thinks that magically, the government which has proved so incapable of managing ANYTHING better than the private sector will suddenly outperform it in the public sector is himself in need of special psychiatric care.
I’ve worked in both health care and the federal government. I never saw increased federal involvement improve ANYTHING!
P.S. Thankfully President Bush passed the prescription drug benefit. Let’s hope Stephen gets the meds he needs before his hallucinations become worse!
Wow, sounds like someone can’t understand the difference between discussing how legislation will be made and discussing individual people’s lives.
Let me just walk you through it. I shudder to think what your SAT verbal scores were.
[quote]Q:So how do you — how do we deal with it?[/quote]
To put it another way, how can you handle just massive cost for a very important service?
So how do you deal with procedures that are a very sensitive subject, but still end up cutting costs? You get doctors, scientists, ethicists, and the rest of the country involved in talking about these kinds of things.
We need an independent group to help inform the country about these topics so we can avoid partisan bickering (“the normal political channels”).
Those groups won’t determine legislation, but they will help guide the Congress and the American people.
And I think that’s what we’ll see.
That doesn’t sound at all like panels of people that make decisions on individuals’ life or death situations or even regulation that decide who lives and who dies. That sounds like a responsible way to legislate: bring everyone together and try to avoid getting politics involved in the lives of our seniors. Which is exactly what you people are doing an awful job of.
Extremist partisans always do this (and I see this on the left, too): They see a phrase that sounds vaguely like what they’re worried about and don’t bother to actually understand the words that are coming out of people’s mouths.
@Stephen: “I shudder to think what your SAT verbal scores were. “
95th percentile Stephen. How about you?
And as for understanding how legislation is made, I’ve worked for a member of the U.S. House, a member of the U.S. Senate and a U.S. President.
How about you?
Sorry, but I am not interested in any more of your snarky, sniveling semantic games. You’ve shown yourself to be nothing more than a regurgitator of left wing talking points and I find your cretinous parroting to be rather boring and unoriginal.
P.S. Calling me an “extremist partisan” only unmasks yourself.
Idiot!
The problem here Steven, is Obama has no credibility. When he was campaign, he said something about ALL parties sitting at the table discussing what should be done about health care.
-Then out of the blue, a completed 1000 page tome comes out, and we’re all supposed to accept it without any worries at all.
Bull.
We’ve seen the doctors scientists, and ethicists on his panel of advisor’s. We’ve read their words and books.
They hate humans, and I knew that before Beck or Rush ever did.
‘Scuse us for not trusting a damn thing he says.
The most frustrating part of all this is I (and many others) could fix this problem in one single-spaced piece of 8.5X11″ paper, without increasing the cost of government one penny, yet Obama and you think that the ONLY way, is what neither of you have read.
-These bills have nothing to do with health care, but everything to do with making us dependent on government, thus laying the foundation for voting in Democrats who will then use it as a bludgeon in future election, just like they do SS, and Welfare.
Ah, the rejoinder of those who have been schooled: avoiding the actual topic at hand and resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Let me just remind you: ad hominem does not mean “insulting someone.” It is attacking the person rather than their argument, which is exactly what you have done here. You completely ignored the argument that I brought up, probably because you realized I was right and didn’t want to admit that you were fighting windmills in that quote from Obama. Nothing in that quote can be construed to mean anything other than the fact that Obama was going to get a lot of experts involved in making legislations regarding the elderly, as well as attempt to get neutral third parties involved to avoid politicizing it. NOT DEATH PANELS. I guess I can understand if you can’t take insults, but at least address the body of my argument.
That’s a fair argument. But still, you don’t have to trust him. You can read the dang bill for yourself and see that it’s only trying to get doctors to make sure everyone makes their wishes regarding end-of-life issues known. It’s fair to be skeptical of a guy you didn’t vote for. But to be honest, this death panel stuff just makes you look like lunatics.
@Stephen: calling me retarded then saying I am resorting to ad hominem attacks is proof positive that my assessment of your contributions here is correct.
I’m sorry, but I have no more time to waste on cretinous George Soros parrots.
If you cannot mind your manners, I’ll simply delete your comments.
Fine. I’ll be nicer.
[EDITED BY POST MODERATOR]
Something tells me you can’t help yourself. You people are so soaked with bile and anger after eight years of screaming at George Bush you cannot even be happy, nor behave civilly even after winning The House, The Senate and The White House.
Your anger has poisoned you.
So what do you do? Point fingers at everyone else.
Clean up your own act first.
[DELETED BY POST MODERATOR]
@Stephen:
Freedom.
Precisely the point.
These decisions should not be conducted under the direction or mandate of the fed gov’t and patients should not be placed under any sort of pressure, real or imagined, by their doctor or any other person in authority when it comes time to make such a personal decision.
You really should have read some more about Charles Lane.
If you had, you wouldn’t be making a fool of yourself. Again.
Yeah. We had a guy here one time who used a Johnny Cash song to support his argument. He thought he was sooooo intelligent.
Oh, wait…..
Objection: Relevance.
Apples. Oranges.
The end of life counseling decisions that you’re focused on are not the same piece of the puzzle as the death panels.
Do, please, pay attention and try to keep up.
I know it must be difficult for you.
Are you really trying to make the case that the DMV employee/Driver relationship is the same as the Patient/Doctor relationship? Really?
Not here in the real world.
The doctor’s involvement is far, far more than just signing a form. They are giving patients advise on life/death decisions. Intimate, personal involvement.
We’re talking about a relationship of trust.
The fed gov’t has no place in the midst of that relationship.
If you had read the article then perhaps you wouldn’t make such a doltish statement.
The relevance is there. Otherwise I would have neither linked nor quoted from it.
Go read it again, more slowly this time.
I didn’t refer you to any specific section of the bill in any portion of our conversation.
I notice that you failed to address, or even attempt to refute, the information that I posted regarding denial of service to illegals and the complete lack of enforcement provisions in the language of the bill.
You also didn’t address the legal precedents which have already been established regarding the denial of benefits to illegals.
Inconvenient and overwhelmingly difficult for you perhaps?
Who linked you to a “radical right wing blog” within this discussion? It wasn’t me. In fact, I was very careful to offer you mostly left of center sources in order to show you that the position I take on this issue isn’t isolated to the right wing.
Perhaps I should stick with country music videos since that seems to be more on your level of expertise.
What do you like? A little Porter Waggoner? Patsy Cline? Jim Reeves? Toby Keith? Dolly Parton? Charlie Pride? How about some Hank, Jr.?
PS….I notice you still haven’t provided any information regarding the Founding Fathers and the “General Welfare of the United States” in general and Alexander Hamilton specifically.
Neil Diamond has a couple of songs that made him some money…maybe he could help you.
Well said PatVann; couldn’t agree more. I’ve been following these “death guys” for years. The one thing that still leaves me dizzy is how liberals, who HATE being controlled, are still for the most part buying into the “takeover.” Besides, if the plan is so wonderful and timing so critical, why is Obama waiting until AFTER the 2010 elections to implement it?
Steven.
You miss the point by a wide margin. Here: THE GOVERNMENT NEED NOT BE INVOLVED IN ANY DECISION MADE ABOUT THE END OF OF ANYONE’S LIFE, EXCEPT CONVICTED CRIMINALS.
When my mom was in her last throws of cancer, it was between us, her, and her Priest. The doctor was involved to the extent that he carried out those wishes.
When my daughter was going down hard, it was between me, my wife, and the doctor, and only because we asked for her involvement. We didn’t need any stinking guidelines developed by insane human-hating freaks, backed by government decree, to know what needed to be done in either case.
Freedom seems an alien concept to you, even in the most personal of matters.
I have read the Bill. I’ve read 3 different versions. But even you knowing that means nothing to you. We’ve shown you the relevant facts, but you ignore them because they don’t have the EXACT words in the EXACT order you are demanding as “proof”. You’re right…there is no “DEATH PANEL TO BE CONVENED UPON PATIENT ATTAINING THE AGE OF 70 YEARS TO DETERMINE THE DATE OF EXECUTION BY EUTHANASIA.”
But there IS the possibility to withhold treatment per guidelines not yet spelled out. It’s that LACK of what’s NOT spelled out that freaks out those of us who still value life.
More importantly, it’s our Judeo-Christian values of loving life, that have pushed the limits of medicine. Reduce us to numbers, cost and trends, and that motivation is superseded by freaks like Eric Holder.
Good day sir, we’re done here.
No one is making guidelines for personal decisions. What they are making guidelines for is the kind of information that doctors need to tell patients. They need to make sure doctors let patients know about all the different options available to them. This is about freedom, because it’s about letting patients know all the choices they have available to them. And not only that, but the language in the bill is currently so vague that the doctor can fulfill it in any way they desire. Let’s look at the specific wording: advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to; an explanation of living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses, a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families, that Medicare pays for hospice care.
What part of that is a government law dictating what decisions people make?
I mean, here’s the scenario:
Doctor brings patient in, makes sure to talk about all the different kinds of choices, the patient says, “Gosh! I didn’t know I had all these choices…let me get back to you.” So they go to their priest, their lawyer, their loved ones, and then come back to the doctor and tell the doctor their choice, which the bill says the doctor must honor or receive a lower rating.
This section is about patient education, and education is the root of freedom.
That’s just the point: it’s not spelled out because doctors get to make those decisions. So much of the health care debate is “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” Had there been “specific” guidelines in there, you would throw a fit about how bureaucrats who don’t know anything about medicine are trying to tell doctors how to do their job (much like you did in the GM deal). This part of the bill makes sure doctors tell patients what they need to know, but it doesn’t force the doctor to do any more than that.
You’ve read 3 versions of it, which is impressive. Can you point to the section and text of the bill that would lead to a “slippery slope” in which government bureaucrats can tell doctors “now the rules are you MUST try to force patients to sign a DNR”? Because none of the quoted sections so far show that. Or maybe I missed it? Maybe you can reiterate if that’s the case.
Oh Jebuss…
So do you think that after us being a country for 233 years, (and cognizant humans for the past 50,000) that doctors, people, and spiritual-advisor’s DON’T know what to do or say, and only NOW need info from a government entity to know what to do? Is there some sort of huge problem that’s only now been “discovered” and now needs to be remedied by government action?
-It’s a solution looking for a problem, and the “solution” means reducing our humanity to a column in a spreadsheet.
Everyone in this thread has shown you the “slope”, you only need to take off the blinders to see it. Your problem is that you place the actions of government above the inherent knowledge of the people, and yourself.
Until you figure that out, you’ll never be truly Free. We can’t help you if you want to see your government assume and set your moral standards.
A preemie in England was refused treatment a couple of weeks ago, because it was born 4 days earlier than THE GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES prescribed…It stay alive for 4 hours. If it was born here, the doctors would have moved heaven and earth to try and save it, and even if they couldn’t, they may have learned something that might save the next one. THAT’S how we’ve now set the bar at being able to save most preemies born to the point that it’s no big deal to have 30-week babies live with no problems, even with no insurance-coverage.
As soon as government takes over, guidelines will have to be set, because cost will supersede life.
-It says volumes about you, in the counters you offer us. You ignore our statements about freedom and morality, and focus only on the minutia of verbiage. If you want to play that game, have a look at the pamphlet given to severely wounded warriors. It was first issued during Clinton, revoked by Bush, and now returned again to the VA, UNDER PENALTY OF LAW IF THEY DON’T PRESENT IT! The wording in it certainly does not tell the warrior to kill himself, but the wording most certainly puts the guilt of being a “burden” to his caregivers, and on the same page suggests offing oneself…THIS AT THE SAME TIME AS WE ARE CONCERNED WITH SUICIDE-RATES AMONG THESE SAME WARRIORS!!!
You will want to ask me to provide you this pamphlet, but I will force you to do as you claim and find it yourself, because you “look at both sides of an issue”. I have it on my desk next to me, and it was sent to me by my cousin who is a Army doctor, and has been for 20plus years. She has stories of men becoming horribly upset, setting back their treatment both physically and mentally, because of this “innocuous” GOVERNMENT INFORMATION PACKET.
Like I said before, I’m done with you, please stop, because you will get nowhere with anyone here, (esp me) and all you are accomplishing is looking more and more ignorant, and political…
I’m asking nicely. Move onto the Acorn thread or something.
That’s just why the bill is written like it is: doctors do know what to say.
Let me put it this way: a good doctor would tell the patients every single option available to them, yes? And a poor doctor wouldn’t, yes?
That’s just what this bill is saying: we’re going to look at how well doctors perform, and if they don’t inform their patients of this option, this option, and this option, we’re going to score them lower.
I don’t see how that affects anyone’s freedom except the “freedom” of the doctor to misinform his or her patients.
I feel that I am being very patient with you and outlining exactly what I mean. Why don’t you try to do the same for me and highlight to me precisely what about this bill will let a panel of bureaucrats dictate what end-of-life treatments patients choose? There’s been an ongoing conversation about this bill, and all I’m seeing from you are lectures on how evil government is.
But we’re not talking about any kind of government guidelines for treatment. We’re talking about a list of options doctors should tell their patients about. How can you be mad about that?
It says volumes about you that you want to make big speeches about freedom and death panels instead of actually looking at what the law says. My entire contention is that you are MAKING UP THREATS THAT AREN’T THERE. The only way to discuss such things is to ACTUALLY DISCUSS THEM instead of making speeches with zero content.
First of all, the VA under the Bush Administration published “Your Life, Your Choices” on its web page in June 2006 and only removed it in 2007. Why did they wait 7 years if it was so awful?
The book also does not promote limitation of life-sustaining treatment, assisted suicide, or euthanasia.
Nope, I found it just fine: http://stevebuyer.house.gov/Assets/your_life_your_choices.pdf
I’ve looked through that book and cannot find anything telling soldiers that they are a “burden” on their family, or even suggests assisted suicide.
Here’s a quote from the book that proves it:
I swear, I can’t make this stuff up.
Here’s another quote from the book:
Sure doesn’t sound like asking them to die. But really, this book isn’t TELLING people to do anything. It’s ASKING.
What the book does do is give those wounded soldiers a list of questions to help figure out what their wishes are. It just gives them a quiz on how they feel about end of life issues. The only other place it mentions a “burden” is simply to say that if you do not make your wishes known to your loved ones, that can be a burden on them.
Please, look through that book and point out to me the locations you consider offensive.
I made a big long reply to this post but I don’t know if it got moderated or eaten by the server or what, but I did want to repost this link:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s21.html
@Stephen:
Buzzer sounds again.
There is nothing in that cited source in which Hamilton says that it’s OK for Congress to provide benefits directly to individual citizens.
Care to try again?
Perhaps you should read this again.
If giving benefits to citizens is conducive to the General Welfare, then Alexander Hamilton agrees with this. And it does contribute to the general welfare:
1) Our citizens are healthier, making our country stronger.
2) Our citizens don’t go bankrupt when they get sick, making our economy stronger.
3) Our employers don’t have to worry about giving those citizens health care, making our economy stronger.
You may disagree that this is the case, but Hamilton says that if it “appears to Congress” that those 3 things are true, it’s not unconstitutional.
@Stephen:
Yes. Let’s look at what that quote says because it’s obviously not saying what you think it says.
Hamilton is clearly saying there that the words “General Welfare” DO NOT convey any power to Congress over and beyond what is enumerated by the Constitution.
Hamilton is basically saying: “Don’t worry about the phrase General Welfare because those words do not imply any power to Congress.”
Why is this so difficult for you?
Perhaps you should expand your horizons a bit since Hamilton had more to say on the matter than just the one report that you are selectively quoting and selectively interpreting.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83:
Hamilton makes it clear in this quote that the powers of Congress are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations demonstrates that the idea that Congress can do whatever it wishes to do is contrary the authority granted to Congress under the Constitution.
Why do limited, enumerated powers exist if the Founders intended for general welfare to overrule enumeration?
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78:
Here Hamilton makes it clear that since Congressional power is limited by enumeration anything outside of enumeration is in violation to the Constitution. Authority is limited to those items that are enumerated only.
Aye, stephen is incapable of seeing that which does not fit into his liberal narrative. He also didn’t come here to debate. He came here to talk down to us “lying, scaremongering” wingnuts so he could feel superior and good about himself. He’s already proven no matter what links you post he will dismiss them or ignore them and will not concede a point of any significance.
To admit he is wrong would be the same as admitting he is not superior and not the good guy. His kind doesn’t argue from compassion or concern from others. It is always about them. Narcissism combined with pathological denial. Dr. Sanity has proven this many times and stephen is a textbook case.
No he’s not. He’s saying that the phrase itself is an enumerated power of Congress. The link I showed you further shows his support of it:
Basically, Hamilton is saying that the term “general welfare” should be considered to mean more than the other enumerated powers in that clause, because someday the need might arise. I (and Democrats) say that day is today.
He clarifies:
Hence, Congress gets to decide what purchases concern the general Welfare of the country.
Hamilton then applies it to his specific case:
So there Mr. Hamilton says outright that he supports federal funding for education. Health care is just as important.
I’m not selectively quoting this piece; the entire thing is a defense of federal spending in the private sector.
Yes, it doesn’t mean Congress can just do whatever it wants, but it can certainly spend whatever it wants if it is in the general welfare of the United States. That decision might be subject to judicial review. Whatever.
We don’t disagree on this. We disagree on what is actually enumerated in the Constitution.
@Hard Right: I thought we agreed to start being civil?
If one reads the Federalist Papers, (in it’s context, and not just disconnected quotes) one quickly realizes the term “welfare” referred to infrastructure and the like, to accommodate commerce and trade. Primarily roads.
The Johnson Admin knew this, but high-jacked the word, and redefined it. The liberals of today, through the brainwashing of public education, now think Hamilton was was all OK with the Federal Government “taking care” of us all, and by bastardizing the Commerce Clause continue rending what the Founder’s intent was. They now think Hamilton, and Hamilton alone gives them all the “permission” they need, regardless of the whole story, regardless of any of the other thousands words he spoke curtailing the power of the Fed.
Kinda like letting your kid have a cookie, then when you get upset that he took another 5 cookies, and is now eating the ice-cream, he defends himself with “But you said I could!!”
Trading Freedom for security guarantees the loss of both.
Except that Hamilton, in his writings and as shown above, clearly knew that it meant providing for stuff like education, too. The other point Hamilton made was a forward-looking one, too: he said Congress should decide what is and isn’t useful for the “general welfare,” pointing out that in the future, the country may need to move into new areas of spending. When electricity came, the government handled that. When health care is too costly for almost all Americans to pay for directly, the government should address this, because it is a matter of commerce and welfare of our economy, as I stated previously.
Also, the Federalist Papers were written by Hamilton and Madison. Madison and Hamilton had very famously conflicting views on the scope of government spending, and I think (though I’m not too sure) that these differences are what sparked the duel between Hamilton and Burr. (I am restraining myself from making a gun joke.)
It’s amazing to me how the Progressive picks and chooses which of the Founder’s words to apply, and which of those words to put forth to support their CURRENT posit, to the exclusion of all the others. No mention or weight is given to any of the others, except when the Progressive finds that it suits their needs. Nevermind the fact that in a different argument that same Progressive would dispise every word that same Founder ever uttered, because they “OWNED SLAVES!!!”
More amazing is how they pick and choose which of their present “problems” is supposedly “solved”, by applying the select words of their select founder.
By the logic of the Progressive, once they determine that some issue is now a “Problem To Be Solved” (always for their long term re-election benefit, and not the actual benefit of the group they have now termed “In Need”)..they will then search for an applicable quote or position of a suddenly-favored Founder to use as a tool against those who argue against a particular proposed “cure”. Of course the “cure” is ALWAYS spending the money the country’s producers earn.
This case is a perfect example of their “logic”…THEY have determined that Healthcare insurance is too expensive, so their “cure” is to tax those of us who save and prioritize to pay for those who have not, meanwhile ignoring that most of the uninsured could either afford their own, but choose not to buy it, or are actually eligible to be on a present government plan, but may not know it.
The reason the Progressive leadership ignore the studies that show (at present, not counting illegals) that only around 10-15 million have no coverage, and that the proposed plans still leave 8-10 million UN-insured is that they know deep down that this Bill has NOTHING to do with helping anyone but the Party proposing it. The blind ideologues will sing along with their Masters, because they refuse to see their chosen Masters as anything less than perfect-beings, with perfect motives, while ignoring all of the failures of previous programs.
It never occurs to the Progressive-drone that food and water costs more per month than health insurance, and is indeed more crucial to survival, yet there is no proposed “cure” for this “problem”…Yet.
Hell, cellphones and TVcable/internet costs more than insurance for most single people, but those same people NEED to have a cellphone so that they can call into vote for the next American Idol!
I look at Progressive-leaders as the 50′s and 60′s Yellowstone Park managers…They thought that is would be great to feed the wild bears in a common area, so-as to bring tourists to watch and (appreciate!) the splendid wildlife the park had to offer. But a few years passed, and pretty soon the bears stopped hunting. A bunch got sick. A bunch started taking food from the tourists. A bunch stopped hibernating. A bunch stopped breeding. A whole bunch died, because they stopped doing what bears are supposed to do…But they sure got fat!!!!
I see the Progressive-drones as those bears.
Note to Moderators…I would love to go back and fix typos (breading/breeding) but the cursor wants to wonder up to the top of the text-box, making it impossible to do so.
Is it me and my machine, or the utility?
It’s ridiculous to claim that I even think that. I’m simply saying that the fight over how the general welfare clause should be interpreted has gone back to the beginning of our country. Yes, some of the Founding Fathers did think that “general welfare” didn’t give Congress the power to do stuff like fund education, but some did.
And all that really tells us is how to read the document in the way the people who wrote it intended. Which means that this issue is up for debate, but what is not up for debate is the idea that everyone was in agreement about this issue.
I think the Founders should neither be ignored nor idolized. We should not ignore their intentions but we should also amend the Constitution when it turns out to be lacking (e.g. slavery).
All I was claiming was that it was a matter of contention going all the way back to the founding of our country, and to act as if Obama and the progressives are “ripping up the Constitution” is bullheaded and alarmist.
I’d like to see you tell that to my friends I mention earlier, who work their asses off for sometimes 60 hours a week and tell them that they are “choosing” not to buy health insurance. They are having enough problems paying for gas money to get to work every day, and cannot afford to purchase health care on their own. Why should small businesses be left out in the cold and forced to pay 3 times as much as large businesses do?
There is a “cure” for this “problem” — we call it food stamps. If you can’t afford food, the government will give you an EBT card. And progressives complain about stuff like the farm bill that keeps healthy food from being affordable to low income families. That’s something I’d like to see fixed. Health care is just this president’s agenda.
Also, this simply isn’t true. Food and water cost per month is about $176 — that’s the amount food stamp recipients get. Insurance can cost anywhere from $250 to about $400 a month for a single person — and that’s for a healthy young person. (I’m basing this off my personal insurance experience.) For an older person taking a lot of medication, that can skyrocket to $700 — and the cost is just getting higher. Not to mention that this isn’t full coverage insurance — you still have a $2,000 deductible to meet! So that’s $166 more, and you’re looking at about $500 a month MINIMUM just to pay for your health care.
They need a cell phone because they’d like to have a number potential employers can reach them at, and it’s cheaper than buying a land line.
But this is all a digression. My main points are that HR3200 has no freakin death panels and a public option is not unconstitutional nor is it “socialism.”
I now point and laugh in your general direction.