"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
First, the bull**** about killing off the elderly.

On former Sen. Fred Thompson’s radio show, former lieutenant governor
of
New York Betsy McCaughey said that the House’s proposed health care
bill
contained a provision that would institute mandatory counseling
sessions
telling seniors how "to do what’s in society’s best interest … and cut
your life short." House Minority Leader John Boehner made a slightly
more measured statement, warning that the same provision "may start us
down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if
enacted into law."

In truth, that section of the bill would require Medicare to pay for
voluntary counseling sessions helping seniors to plan for end-of-life
medical care, including designating a health care proxy, choosing a
hospice and making decisions about life-sustaining treatment. It would
not require doctors to counsel that their patients refuse medical
intervention.

McCaughey misrepresents the content of page 425 of the bill. That
section would require Medicare to pay for some end-of-life planning
counseling sessions with a health care practitioner. Here’s part of
the
section in question.

H.R. 3200, page 425: Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term
‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the
individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding
advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual
involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such
consultation shall include the following:

(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning,
including key questions and considerations, important steps, and
suggested people to talk to.

(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives,
including
living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and
responsibilities
of a health care proxy.

(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and
State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with
advance care planning … .

(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life
services and supports available, including palliative care and
hospice,
and benefits for such services and supports that are available under
this title.

(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life
sustaining treatment or similar orders

Now on to the bull**** about the "new rules could hike your health
insurance premiums 95%.....

The latest ad from the group Conservatives for Patients’ Rights claims
that "new rules could hike your health insurance premiums 95 percent."
That’s misleading.

?The claim in the ad refers to only 5 percent of Americans who have
health insurance – those who buy it on their own.

?The claim comes from an analysis by a group that advocates for
insurance carriers that sell policies in the individual market, among
other areas.

?That analysis also doesn’t take into consideration several elements
of
leading congressional legislation that other experts say will keep
premium costs down – and in fact, lower premiums for some. Other
independent studies show premium costs decreasing on average for
Americans that currently have health coverage.

?It’s not true that any of the health care overhaul measures that have
been approved by committees in Congress would add "a trillion to the
federal deficit," as the ad says. The Senate bill would add roughly
$597
billion over 10 years, and the House bill that was approved by the
Ways
and Means Committee in mid-July would add a much smaller $239 billion,
according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Analysis
We’ve written about two previous misleading ads from the group
Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, whose TV spots argue against
health
care overhaul efforts that are moving through Congress. This ad puts
forth a new claim, saying that "new rules could hike your health
insurance premiums 95 percent." That’s a startling statement. But it’s
contradicted by other experts that find premiums would actually go
down
under the leading proposals in Congress


Now, if you'd like we can go on and on about these lies propagated by
the right. Like the right saying that Obama et al wants a system "like
Canada's".

The lies get even more sinister, like Glen Beck stating on the air
that
the government will get complete access to your computer and all of
your files when you log on to Cars.gov for the Cash for Clunkers
program.

The truth? Beck quoted from a security message on the site for
dealers,
not the site for the general public.
Well, that does it. You said it. It HAS to be true. No other
opinion. No other way. Thanks for straightening that out for us.

Yer right. There will be no death panels, just people dying all over
the place.

Steve
Pssst. *I* didn't "say it". I'm giving you the facts. People dying all
over the place? That's happening now. What would an "opinion" do? What
I've posted is FACT.

People are dieing. But not from a lack of medical care. We have a
higher mortality rate than most of Europe, because we drive more, killing
more, drug wars, killing more, lots of 3rd world immigrants with bad
health to start with.
So.....what makes you think that if Obama's plan comes forth that people
will be dying from lack of medical care? In reverse Harryism, it's just
speculation.

The people may well be dieing from starvation and riots. When the Fed's
take over 1/6 of the economy and the same Fed's who could not even run a
whore house in Nevada profitably, how do you think we are going to afford
this Free Health Care?