kallend 2,027 #26 August 7, 2009 QuoteQuote Unfortunately this now seems to be the strategy the right wing lobbying groups have taken; disinformation. This could also be seen as being ripe for disinformation, because that's what the White House and Congress is putting out. People are catching onto this. Good for them. You could always read the actual BILL and see for yourself instead of believing the blogs.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #27 August 7, 2009 Damned if I'm going to fact-check every charge in this idiotic indictment (well, without a retainer ), but I did pick this group to check out in Snopes: Quote • • Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death. • Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends. • Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT. • Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life. Surprise!! It's............ ...................... False. http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/euthanasia.asp Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #28 August 7, 2009 Quote I have already shown that the original is unreliable. If you wish to believe every other point a proven unreliable document makes, that's your problem. Of course, rather than believing right wing blogs you could always check for yourself. QuoteNo you haven't, you have given your opinion that 2 items are false with no evidence to back your statements. Time to step up and show your evidence to back your words.. Mark, I already posted a link to the ACTUAL BILL. All you have to do is read it and you will see that the scare tactics in the OP are a load of rubbish. You don't have to believe me, Wendy, snopes or factcheck.org If you're not willing to do that, maybe you shouldn't be commenting on it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #29 August 7, 2009 >If you don't like this country, leave. Sounds good to me. Where do you think you'll go? > If you don't like this country, leave. I want to pick my insurance co. I want to >decide how my medical situations are handled. Not told by the government >based on my productivity as they see it. Also sounds good to me. Don't like government heath care? Use your own money to go to your own doctor. Don't want to be bothered? Expect whatever crappy care they want to give you. Your money, your choice. >You don't get a new house because the furnace broke you fix the furnace. Agreed. And if your furnace has a bad burner, you get a new one - you don't wrap it with duct tape just because you don't want to part with a family heirloom. >Same with health care, lets fix a couple things and see what happens . . . I'm all for that. Unfortunately, that has become code for "don't do shit and keep talking for the next 20 years." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #30 August 7, 2009 >You could always read the actual BILL and see for yourself instead of believing the blogs. Looks like we need some sort of program to counteract all the right winger disinformation being spread, so people can make informed decisions instead of being preyed upon by the fearmongers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #31 August 7, 2009 Quote>You could always read the actual BILL and see for yourself instead of believing the blogs. Looks like we need some sort of program to counteract all the right winger disinformation being spread, so people can make informed decisions instead of being preyed upon by the fearmongers. I know! Let's start an enemies list! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #32 August 7, 2009 Quote>ON PAGE 425 OF OBAMA’S HEALTH CARE BILL, the Federal Government >will require EVERYONE who is on Social Security to undergo a counseling >session every 5 years with the objective being that they will explain to >them just how to end their own life earlier. Exactly. The US Government will be telling people how to construct nooses and how to slit their wrists to end their lives earlier, along with more prosaic means like how to reprogram their PCA devices to deliver a fatal overdose. This is understandable; after all, many of these people know that Obama is an illegal alien, that Bush pre-wired the Twin Towers with explosives, and that the Kennedy assasination was an inside job. Sorry, Bill. The "divert the subject with sarcasm" thing won't work anymore. Please feel free to read the words of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and a senior White House health care adviser. http://www.larouchepac.com/node/11188 http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/07/26/ezekiel-emanuel-deny-coverage-to-elderly-and-disabled-for-the-greater-good.php http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion This guy is on the record on this issue. Don't try to say it ain't so. Just read his words. By the way, why haven't you chimed in on this one? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3637172;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #33 August 7, 2009 Quote By the way, folks -- did you know that you can sign an advanced directives document to say that yes, you do want all possible life-saving measures taken? The document just helps to formalize what you want. How many of the people here want the potential of being tube-fed, if they get old enough that their swallow isn't very good any more? It'd keep you alive longer than if you keep eating (and enjoying) the food, even though you might get aspiration pneumonia. Talk to someone you trust. Then formalize your wishes. And then take care of yourself, so that those wishes never, ever have to be evaluated. Wendy P. It doesn't matter what form you fill out or what your wishes are. If you can't see what this administration wants to do, try these links: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_threaded;post=3641247;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC; "Dr." Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm's brother) has a plan for all of us. Seems he thinks old people don't hold enough value to save, and babies - well they haven't had much investment put in them yet, so they can die too. The Germans didn't see it coming either...until it was too late to speak out, that is.I don't get it. Libs want health care for everyone, but seem ok with their government deciding who WON'T get it. Sheople get what they deserve for not paying attention.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,452 #34 August 7, 2009 If you were to do some reseach, you'd see that his job is to be a bioethicist -- someone who explores that kind of thinking. He works for a bioethics research institute. According to Wikipedia, he's also a leading opponent of state-assisted suicide. If you go to the article, they have a reference for that; it's got several interviews in 2008, before Obama was elected, and before Rahm Emanuel was selected for his job. Chuck, they're not going to come into our houses to kill us. By latching onto this kind of stupid stuff, reasonable objections (e.g. cost, and how to make sure that some sort of personal responsibility is included in the package) are swept under the carpet. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #35 August 7, 2009 Quote If you were to do some reseach, you'd see that his job is to be a bioethicist -- someone who explores that kind of thinking. He works for a bioethics research institute. According to Wikipedia, he's also a leading opponent of state-assisted suicide. If you go to the article, they have a reference for that; it's got several interviews in 2008, before Obama was elected, and before Rahm Emanuel was selected for his job. Chuck, they're not going to come into our houses to kill us. By latching onto this kind of stupid stuff, reasonable objections (e.g. cost, and how to make sure that some sort of personal responsibility is included in the package) are swept under the carpet. Wendy P. I did do some research. I'll begin by asking you not to accuse me of "latching on to stupid stuff". In doing so, you are in essence calling me stupid, and billvon would be very upset with you for that.As for Emanuel and his job as a "bioethicist", that's a crock. There's no reason to "explore that kind of thinking" unless one is to believe that some or all of it could be seen as reasonable. What are you saying - that sitting around "exploring" the concept of refusing medical care to one person or another because of their age or perceived value to "the people" is benign? If that's true - which it's not - why the hell would he be on the government payroll? Do we really have high level government people that get paid to think up things that we would never actually do? Gimme a break. And being against assisted suicide is a different conversation altogether and has nothing to do with this nutjob's views of placing a priority on one person's life over another. And by the way, Emanuel didn't just "explore" prioritized treatment based on age and perceived value to society, he issued his favorable opinion of it. That's also a very different thing. I never said, nor do I believe, that someone will come to your house to kill you. They won't have to. People who can't get treatment for life threatening illnesses die on their own eventually. Like Obama said, (paraphrasing) "maybe you would be better off not having that surgery. Maybe you should just take painkillers instead". And by the way, I don't see cost as an element of personal responsibility in any "package". That's liberal code-speak for "grandma, you're just too old to spend money on" and you know it. ALL life is precious and holds the same value, at least to God and me. Explore that.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #36 August 7, 2009 I already posted a link to the ACTUAL BILL. All you have to do is read it and you will see that the scare tactics in the right wing blogs are a load of rubbish (aka LIES).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #37 August 7, 2009 QuoteI already posted a link to the ACTUAL BILL. All you have to do is read it and you will see that the scare tactics in the right wing blogs are a load of rubbish (aka LIES). Thanks for that, but my post was actually about Emanuel and his views, not whether or not the bill addresses his views.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #38 August 7, 2009 the page 16 one is correct. that is enough for me Scare tactics bunk and lies huh.... How about colusion and misdirection and withholding of fact ? Oh, and I just did read it. It is exactly as is being talked about."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #39 August 7, 2009 Yep page 16 does say you can keep your currant insurance but you cannot add dependants nor can the policy be change or adjusted. also on page 17 it says the insurer cannot change pricing on the policy, only premium changes that can be made are at the direction of the comisioner. so what is false about the statement? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
