Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What I don't understand is why would Liberals work to empower a government that once enslaved an entire race of people and dropped atomic bombs on a people they view as totally innocent.What TM and the other moonbats fail to grok is that things which the Government first introduces as Recommendations and Options always trend towards being Compulsory.
Doctor's being paid to provide End Of Life Option Counseling will become DNR Bounty Hunters.
Dems controlled the House and Senate. Does it occur to you they dropped it because they wanted to?The PO was dropped because the right had lied about what it was. They claimed it was a take over of the healthcare system which it was not. Dont you remember idiot tea party people saying crap like "keep your government hands out of my medicare".
Yes, government taking over health care is government takeover of health care. Unless you're a huge company that gets waivers from Obama himself.
Don't you remember the abortionists saying "Keeps your hands off my uterus!"? Why can't that apply to my health care?
Wiki not a good source of info:That's such bullshit. Wikipedia is the most respected and thorough internet encyclopedia in the entire world. Where it cannot provide a S.O.U.R.C.E (did you ever check the end of each page?), it clearly notes "citation needed." If what a page contains isn't to your satisfaction, then take a clue from one of their sources and look elsewhere. D'Oh... That claim about Wiki was from years ago, when it was just starting up with a staff of editors consisting of only a half-dozen people.
Do try to stay current, on your absurd claims. Oh, and regarding your insane comment about thwarting the first amendment also. Either people like you are exceptionally stupid, or you've been in a coma for the last year, as the "death panel" crap has been fully detailed and explained so that even a child can understand.
From the Evil Fox News:
College History Department: Wikipedia Not Acceptable Research Source - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com
The school's history department recently adopted a policy that says it's OK to consult the popular online encyclopedia, but that it can't be cited as an authoritative source by students.The policy says, in part, "Wikipedia is not an acceptable citation, even though it may lead one to a citable source."
History Professor Neil Waters says Wikipedia is an ideal place to start research but an unacceptable way to end it.I use quote wiki here sometimes just because you libruls love it, but I don't.NYT's Krugman Suggests 'Death Panels' to Balance Budget - Paul Krugman - Fox Nation
Apparently Nobel Prize winning Economist Paul Krugman doesn't understand Death Panels either:
Maybe you could explain it to him, seeing as you're "current".Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman says the only way the U.S. will get its debt crisis under control is by the use of "death panels" and a national sales tax.
WikipediaWhile the line according to Wikipedia pops up occasionally in news stories, its relatively rare to see the user-created online encyclopedia cited as a source. But some journalists find it very valuable as a road map to troves of valuable information.
olicies and guidelines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oh yeah Maggie, I can see why you trust Wikipedia:
Wikipedia Editor Out After False Credentials Revealed - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com
Unqualified people spouting their opinions as fact. That soooo Liberal!The online reference work was dealt a serious blow last week as it emerged that EssJay, a Wikipedia editor understood by the site and its users to be a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law, was in fact a 24-year-old from Kentucky called Ryan Jordan with no higher educational qualifications to speak of.
...some journalists find [Wikipedia] very valuable as a road map to troves of valuable information.
Organ Transplants Denied in Arizona after Medicaid Agency's Budget Cut - Health Blog - CBS NewsNovember 17, 2010
Organ Transplants Denied in Arizona after Medicaid Agency's Budget Cut
Budget cuts in Arizona's legislature resulted in a man leaving a hospital Tuesday after the state Medicaid agency refused to pay for a life-saving liver transplant.
Francisco Felix, the Hepatitis C patient who was denied the transplant, and other low-income patients in Arizona have been refused such necessary procedures after lawmakers cut funding for the agency, known as the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, or AHCCCS, CBS News affiliate KPHO-TV in Phoenix reports.
Starting Oct. 1, the agency began reversing its approval of organ transplants for 98 low-income patients, according to NPR. The abrupt change came from a series of budget-cutting measures taken by the Republican-controlled state legislature and signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer.
Without funding from the state, Felix needed to raise $200,000 to pay for the liver transplant. The liver was directly donated to Felix from a family friend who died suddenly Monday. But because Felix's family could not raise enough to cover the cost of the operation, the liver went to another patient.
"Death Panels" were never about end of life counselling. The term was about those who will decide who gets what treatment in 'universal health care'. Those panels exist in every country that has 'universal health care'. Read the original research... from Dr Emanuel.... brother of Rahm. That research refers to children under the age of two as 'not fully developed humans'. Charming man.
Under your definition, they also exist in every health insurance company claims analysis.
Yep. Private sector.... not the fucking government... and, particularly, not some fucking researchers deciding that children under two and adults over the age of 75 are not 'fully functioning human beings'. Read the fucking research.
What TM and the other moonbats fail to grok is that things which the Government first introduces as Recommendations and Options always trend towards being Compulsory.
Doctor's being paid to provide End Of Life Option Counseling will become DNR Bounty Hunters.
"Death Panels" were never about end of life counselling. The term was about those who will decide who gets what treatment in 'universal health care'. Those panels exist in every country that has 'universal health care'. Read the original research... from Dr Emanuel.... brother of Rahm. That research refers to children under the age of two as 'not fully developed humans'. Charming man.
So? Universal Health Care wasn't what got passed.
This subject was discussed during the phone-in session on C-Span's Washington Journal this morning, and I was pleased to know that only a scant few people STILL believed that clause is all about some panel of government employees arbitrarily deciding to needs to die and who doesn't.
What I don't understand is why would Liberals work to empower a government that once enslaved an entire race of people and dropped atomic bombs on a people they view as totally innocent.What TM and the other moonbats fail to grok is that things which the Government first introduces as Recommendations and Options always trend towards being Compulsory.
Doctor's being paid to provide End Of Life Option Counseling will become DNR Bounty Hunters.
"Yeah, government killed all those other people but they're gonna' take care of me".
Not logical Captain.
Under your definition, they also exist in every health insurance company claims analysis.
Yep. Private sector.... not the fucking government... and, particularly, not some fucking researchers deciding that children under two and adults over the age of 75 are not 'fully functioning human beings'. Read the fucking research.
Well, since no one seems to want to post a link to the actual extensive research, I'll post an entire article explaining what Dr. Emanual has STATED in his papers, and let you draw your own conclusions. (This isn't copyrighted, so I believe it's okay to copy the entire text):
What Does Ezekiel Emanuel Really Believe About Rationing?
Age, Maybe. Quality of Life, Yes
Thursday, July 30, 2009, 10:36 PM
Wesley J. Smith
I have been doing a little reading about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the head bioethicist at the NIH and brother of the presidents chief of staff. He is a supporter of health care rationing, which is relevant to the current health care debate. In a Lancet article earlier this year, he suggested that age be a proper method of allocating scarce resources, and indeed, stated that age based allocation is not invidious discrimination. From his piece:
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-yearolds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.
He seems to be saying, be ageist, just call it something different.
Still, as I read the article closely, it was not about health care rationing in the general sense, but rather, concerned situations of extreme resource scarcity. Thus, while I think it is fair to say that Emmanuel is clearly laying the intellectual groundwork for an age-based rationing regimen, he doesnt take the final step, writing:
Accepting the complete lives system for health care as a whole would be premature. We must first reduce waste and increase spending
Some might say that is just a hedge to avoid the heat. And indeed, bioethicists often promote radical ideas they advocate generally by using extreme situation hypotheticals to make their intellectual points, thereby allowing them a path of retreat if the blowback becomes withering. Still, unlike some others who have commented about this piece in the current health care reform debate, I dont think he explicitly advocated a system of health care rationing now based on age, at least not in this particular article.
The same cant be said of an article he wrote in the Hastings Center Report, in which he explicitly advocates rationing based on what appears to be a quality of life measurement. From the piece:
This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.
A lot of people are frightened that someone who thinks like Emanuel is at the center of an administration seeking to remake the entire health care system. Having read these two articles, I think there is very real cause for concern.
What Does Ezekiel Emanuel Really Believe About Rationing? Age, Maybe. Quality of Life, Yes Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog
"Death Panels" were never about end of life counselling. The term was about those who will decide who gets what treatment in 'universal health care'. Those panels exist in every country that has 'universal health care'. Read the original research... from Dr Emanuel.... brother of Rahm. That research refers to children under the age of two as 'not fully developed humans'. Charming man.
So? Universal Health Care wasn't what got passed.
This subject was discussed during the phone-in session on C-Span's Washington Journal this morning, and I was pleased to know that only a scant few people STILL believed that clause is all about some panel of government employees arbitrarily deciding to needs to die and who doesn't.
Even Obama admitted that this bill is just a first step to UHC. He knows, and we know, it ain't gonna work. What it will achieve is to collapse the system - thus clearing the way for the government to step in and ram through a UHC system.
What amazes me is that so many people just blindly accept what the Government tells them.
"Death Panels" were never about end of life counselling. The term was about those who will decide who gets what treatment in 'universal health care'. Those panels exist in every country that has 'universal health care'. Read the original research... from Dr Emanuel.... brother of Rahm. That research refers to children under the age of two as 'not fully developed humans'. Charming man.
So? Universal Health Care wasn't what got passed.
This subject was discussed during the phone-in session on C-Span's Washington Journal this morning, and I was pleased to know that only a scant few people STILL believed that clause is all about some panel of government employees arbitrarily deciding to needs to die and who doesn't.
Even Obama admitted that this bill is just a first step to UHC. He knows, and we know, it ain't gonna work. What it will achieve is to collapse the system - thus clearing the way for the government to step in and ram through a UHC system.
What amazes me is that so many people just blindly accept what the Government tells them.
Yep. Private sector.... not the fucking government... and, particularly, not some fucking researchers deciding that children under two and adults over the age of 75 are not 'fully functioning human beings'. Read the fucking research.
Well, since no one seems to want to post a link to the actual extensive research, I'll post an entire article explaining what Dr. Emanual has STATED in his papers, and let you draw your own conclusions. (This isn't copyrighted, so I believe it's okay to copy the entire text):
What Does Ezekiel Emanuel Really Believe About Rationing?
Age, Maybe. Quality of Life, Yes
Thursday, July 30, 2009, 10:36 PM
Wesley J. Smith
I have been doing a little reading about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the head bioethicist at the NIH and brother of the presidents chief of staff. He is a supporter of health care rationing, which is relevant to the current health care debate. In a Lancet article earlier this year, he suggested that age be a proper method of allocating scarce resources, and indeed, stated that age based allocation is not invidious discrimination. From his piece:
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-yearolds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.
He seems to be saying, be ageist, just call it something different.
Still, as I read the article closely, it was not about health care rationing in the general sense, but rather, concerned situations of extreme resource scarcity. Thus, while I think it is fair to say that Emmanuel is clearly laying the intellectual groundwork for an age-based rationing regimen, he doesnt take the final step, writing:
Accepting the complete lives system for health care as a whole would be premature. We must first reduce waste and increase spending
Some might say that is just a hedge to avoid the heat. And indeed, bioethicists often promote radical ideas they advocate generally by using extreme situation hypotheticals to make their intellectual points, thereby allowing them a path of retreat if the blowback becomes withering. Still, unlike some others who have commented about this piece in the current health care reform debate, I dont think he explicitly advocated a system of health care rationing now based on age, at least not in this particular article.
The same cant be said of an article he wrote in the Hastings Center Report, in which he explicitly advocates rationing based on what appears to be a quality of life measurement. From the piece:
This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.
A lot of people are frightened that someone who thinks like Emanuel is at the center of an administration seeking to remake the entire health care system. Having read these two articles, I think there is very real cause for concern.
What Does Ezekiel Emanuel Really Believe About Rationing? Age, Maybe. Quality of Life, Yes Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog
Why do you need someone to translate the research for you? I don't. I read the research - back in 2008.
So? Universal Health Care wasn't what got passed.
This subject was discussed during the phone-in session on C-Span's Washington Journal this morning, and I was pleased to know that only a scant few people STILL believed that clause is all about some panel of government employees arbitrarily deciding to needs to die and who doesn't.
Even Obama admitted that this bill is just a first step to UHC. He knows, and we know, it ain't gonna work. What it will achieve is to collapse the system - thus clearing the way for the government to step in and ram through a UHC system.
What amazes me is that so many people just blindly accept what the Government tells them.
how is he gonna ram it through? he'll never have the house and senate to the degree he does now.
I'm not at all interested in your lies, nor do I take anything from wiki as a serious source. Your moronic whining is boring.
I'm not at all interested in your lies, nor do I take anything from wiki as a serious source. Your moronic whining is boring.
What about Sarah Palin? Is she a good source?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...f-life-plan-that-caused-stir.html#post3129787
I'm not at all interested in your lies, nor do I take anything from wiki as a serious source. Your moronic whining is boring.
What about Sarah Palin? Is she a good source?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...f-life-plan-that-caused-stir.html#post3129787
She's almost as stupid as you. Not quite, though.
What about Sarah Palin? Is she a good source?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...f-life-plan-that-caused-stir.html#post3129787
She's almost as stupid as you. Not quite, though.
Oh please. Miss South Carolina teen 2007 makes more sense than Sarah Palin.
She's almost as stupid as you. Not quite, though.
Oh please. Miss South Carolina teen 2007 makes more sense than Sarah Palin.
She makes more sense than Rdean, too.
Oh please. Miss South Carolina teen 2007 makes more sense than Sarah Palin.
She makes more sense than Rdean, too.
Sure, I can just see Palin making points based on fact. When has that ever happened? You do know you just looked silly by saying "She's almost as stupid as you..." That's what a five-year old might say. [Like naaaya naaaya naaaya]
Medicare regulation revives end-of-life planning - USATODAY.com
So will you people call end of life counseling death panels again this time?
will you insult the families going through this emotional time and make their pain worse?
Will you accuse families who get this counciling of planning to kill their loved one?
NY Times said:The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover voluntary advance care planning, to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.
Under the rule, doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an advance directive, stating how aggressively they wish to be treated if they are so sick that they cannot make health care decisions for themselves.
While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.
