Thursday, August 13, 2009

How low can he go?


Scorpion said...

That depends on the number of incompetent programs that "O" the entertainer will try to say will be good for Americans when they are imagination in that...

PCD said...

The Dictator Obama's numbers will go much lower soon as the union goons beat up grandma for telling a Democrat she doesn't want Obama's Kervorkiancare.

Norm said...

There are no death panels but don't let that fact get in your way....

Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin said it's true...and she would never lie. Who's buying her wardrobe these days now that Johnny Mac cut her loose?

PCD said...

Sen. Grassley just said the provision for the Death Panels has been removed from the Senate bill.

Liberal Bozos, if there wasn't such a provision, why would it have to be removed?

PCDummy said...

President Obama stated that no such panels would exist under the House bill. Numerous columnists agree with him.

Since I imagine you don't take the president's words verbatim, perhaps you could find this language in the House Bill, language that specifically calls for panels to decide who has earned the right to live?

PCD said...

An anonymous Liberal who did not read HR3200 questioned me. Here's your answer:

Audio: Health Care Advocate Betsy McCaughey Blasts ObamaCare’s “Vicious Assault On The Elderly”
July, 20, 2009 — nicedeb

Picture credit iOWNTHEWORLD

Health policy expert and former Lt. Governor of New York State, Betsy McCaughey has been on a mission to expose ObamaCare to the masses. She’s read through these bills, cover to cover, and wants to get the word out – ObamaCare would be hazardous to your health, especially the elderly’s. I listened to substitute host, Raymond Arroyo interview her, this morning on the Laura Ingraham Show, and she didn’t mince words – Obama is lying about ObamaCare. (Shut up! Obama’s lying?!) You will NOT get to keep your health care if you’re satisfied with it. It’s a point she’s making on talk show after talk show. She also said that the AARP is doing seniors a huge disservice in its avocation of nationalized health care. She says the rationing that will take place will hurt them the most. These bills do little to cut waste and fraud as promised but would throw billions of dollars toward shady and undefined enterprises such as “community reinvestment”. IYKWIMAITYD.

Here she is on the Mark Levin Show on the 17th:

Here, she appears on the Fred Thompson Show, after reading the new House bill, which she characterizes as a vicious assault on the elderly and boomer generation:

“On page 425, the Congress would make it mandatory, absolutely required that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner: how to decline nutrition, how to decline hydration, how to go into hospice care…and by the way, the bill expressly says that if you get sick, somewhere in that five year period, if you get a cancer diagnosis, for example, you have to go through that session, again….all to do what’s in societies best interest, or your family’s best interest and cut your life short…these are such sacred issues of life and death – government should have nothing to do with it”.

You libs better understand calling names isn't a trump card, except if you are destroying an over inflated, narcissistic liberal a name because they are the ones deceiving and lying and are caught doing so.

Anonymous said...

The Death Panels were written into the bill by Johnny Isakson, a US Rep from Georgia.

Oh by the way - he's a republican.

PCD said...

Ah, first the anonymous claim their is no death panels, then they claim a republican wrote the clause which Isaakson denies, what next you lying scum Democrats?

PCD said...

Oh, you lying scum Democrats want to deny that Sheila Jackass Lee put 3 plants in her townhall, the one where she was rudely talking on the phone while a cancer survivor was testifying.

Yeah, all 3 worked for Obama, one posted that Che poster in Obama's Houston campaign office, one claimed to be a doctor who practiced for 4 years at the townhall,....

When you Democrats have lie and lie and lie, we know you are pushing bad stuff for the US.

Jim said...

"On page 425, the Congress would make it mandatory, absolutely required that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner: how to decline nutrition, how to decline hydration, how to go into hospice care"

This is an outright, unmitigated, outrageous, false, evil, scum-sucking LIE. It is a LIE. LIE, LIE, LIE.

Besides that, it is completely untrue. AND it is FALSE.

Furthermore Betsy McCaughey KNOWS it's a LIE. She is a LIAR. She is a shill for the insurance industry.

Did I mention she is a LIAR and that the above is a LIE?

PCDummy said...

PCD, I asked for the actual text of the bill, not the interpretation of a health care advocate.

Learn to read.

PCD said...

Listen Stupid lying Democrat crybabies, page 425 is from HR3200. Now you liars go back to Obama for another lie. Anyone but you hapless bozos can look it up for themselves.

Betsy isn't the liar, you Democrats are.

PCDummy said...

You are honestly asserting that is the text of the bill and not a biased interpretation?

You are clueless.

Jim said...

"On page 425, the Congress would make it mandatory, absolutely required that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner: how to decline nutrition, how to decline hydration, how to go into hospice care"

OK, here is the text of HR3200 starting on page 424 and including your page 425 into page 426.

Please show me the part that makes MANDATORY any consultation, the part that talks about how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition and hydration, the part that describes a death panel.

Here's the bill:

16 (a) MEDICARE.—
17 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861 of the Social
18 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x)[ This is the part that provides DEFINITIONS OF SERVICES, INSTITUTIONS, ETC. that Medicare PAYS FOR]

is amended—
19 (A) in subsection (s)(2)—
20 (i) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of
21 subparagraph (DD);
22 (ii) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of
23 subparagraph (EE); and
24 (iii) by adding at the end the fol25
lowing new subparagraph:

[Here's page 425]

1 ‘‘(FF) advance care planning consultation (as
2 defined in subsection (hhh)(1));’’; and
3 (B) by adding at the end the following new
4 subsection:
5 ‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation
6 ‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the
7 term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a con
8 sultation between the individual and a practitioner de
9 scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning,
10 if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has
11 not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such
12 consultation shall include the following:
13 ‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of ad14
vance care planning, including key questions and
15 considerations, important steps, and suggested peo16
ple to talk to.
17 ‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of
18 advance directives, including living wills and durable
19 powers of attorney, and their uses.
20 ‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the
21 role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
22 ‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list
23 of national and State-specific resources to assist con24
sumers and their families with advance care
25 planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the ad-


1 vance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal
2 service organizations (including those funded
3 through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
4 ‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the
5 continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail6
able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene7
fits for such services and supports that are available
8 under this title.
9 ‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of
10 orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar
11 orders, which shall include—
12 ‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of
13 such an order is beneficial to the individual and
14 the individual’s family and the reasons why
15 such an order should be updated periodically as
16 the health of the individual changes;
17 ‘‘(II) the information needed for an indi
18 vidual or legal surrogate to make informed deci
19 sions regarding the completion of such an
20 order; and
21 ‘‘(III) the identification of resources that
22 an individual may use to determine the require
23 ments of the State in which such individual re
24 sides so that the treatment wishes of that indi25
vidual will be carried out if the individual is un-

1 able to communicate those wishes, including re
2 quirements regarding the designation of a sur
3 rogate decisionmaker (also known as a health
4 care proxy).

PCD, do you have any knowledge whatsoever of what an Advance Health Care Directive is? What a living will is? Do you know why someone would want one? Or are you simply that clueless?

PCD said...

No, you libs are clueless that you think lying and being disingenuous about your intentions will win. The polls you jerks usually tout are showing that your lies are backfiring.

Again, HOW many times is SHALL in the legislation. That in legalese doesn't mean discretion, it means MANDATORY.

Jim said...

This section of HR3200 is specifically about amending Social Security's coverage of services by Medicare to COVER THE COST of speaking to a doctor about Advanced Health Care Directives, something every responsible doctor or medical institution DOES TODAY. This provision COVERS THE COST. Get it?

Yes, "shall" means "mandatory". It appears two (2) times in this section. It means that to be paid for by Medicare a COVERED consultation must include:

(1) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to. And several other things that you can clearly read on page 425 rows 13-25 and page 426 rows 1-8.

(2) An explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes and how to appoint a family member or legal representative to make sure the patients' wishes are enforced. This can be found on page 426 rows 9-24 and page 427 rows 1-4.

OK, so where is your death panel here?

PCD said...

Since you refuse to see telling patients about "Do Not Resusitate" orders, refusing sustanence, and Oregon's infamous end of life pills, as not trying to brow beat ill and old people to die and get out of the way, try reading this post:

"In The Daily Beast article “Obama’s Euthenasia Mistake”, Lee Siegel makes the case that anti-Palin hysteria aside, the notion that the only effective way to reduce health care spending is to limit access to health care isn’t too far off the mark:

Make no mistake about it. Determining which treatments are “cost effective” at the end of a person’s life and which are not is one of Obama’s priorities. It’s one of the principal ways he counts on saving money and making universal healthcare affordable. ..."

There's more, but you democrats are getting thrown under the bus once again as Obama is dropping the Public option. He disavows HR3200, but doesn't provide any copies of "His plan", you just have to trust the liar in chief.

Oh, to rub salt into your wounds, more from the above post: "At Real Clear Politics, Eugene Robinson has a very good piece called “A Reason Behind the Rage” which I highly recommend. Robinson’s point isn’t that opponents of Obama’s plan are evil, stupid, or dupes, it’s that the President hasn’t done a very good job selling it. Robinson writes,

But reform is being sold not just as a moral obligation but also as a way to control rising health care costs. That should have been a separate discussion. It is not illogical for skeptics to suspect that if millions of people are going to be newly covered by health insurance, either costs are going to skyrocket or services are going to be curtailed. ..."

PCDummy said...

Again, you substitute hysteria for facts. Have you actually listened to any of the President's speeches to determine whether reducing expenditures on end-of-life care is a priority? Of course not- you blindly take the word of a biased article.

The president doesn't have a plan and that is by design. You haven't stumbled upon a treasure chest.

Eugene Robinson's article is very good. The problem is it in no way supports your "argument."

PCD said...

The President is a liar, proven over and over again.

The only plan on the table is HR3200, but Obamassiah talks of his plan, but no documentation, just like his long form birth certificate.

Anonymous said...

You lose what little credibility you had by invoking the birth certificate circus.

Grab your tin foil hat!