This will shock you to listen to

[annie52]

Fred Thompson: Interviews

 

[AllieBaba]

It doesn't shock me. This is pure progressivism and today's liberalism. The elderly, the ill, and the people who live outside of cities are disposable, and they have every intention of disposing of them.

 

[strollingbones]

my mother has a living will. she did it during the shivo debate. it states that she be taken off food and water...i told her...fuck no...and that is how i feel about it. there are times you have the dnr order but that is a family decision not a government one.

 

[editec]

What a load of horse hocky.

We read this part of the bill, remember?

It does NOT say what this person is saying it does.

She's fucking making shit up, folks.

 

[midcan5]

It is amazing the reactionary nonsense that corporate tools imagine. It is bad enough they think the stuff but then to scare others they repeat the junk that bangs around their empty heads. Every move forward from the cave to UHC is met with the same negativity, even democracy. Healthcare since Truman has been a concern and a goal, but corporate money stopped it - will the tools succeed again?

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-Reaction-Perversity-Futility-Jeopardy/dp/067476868X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249125394&sr=1-4]Amazon.com: The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy (9780674768680): Albert O. Hirschman: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249125348&sr=1-2]Amazon.com: Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (9780375714498): Edward S. Herman, Noam Chomsky: Books[/ame]

 

[sparky]

well the conspirator's in the details Editec, and i (for one) lack the legal-speak to sort it out as well....*(i believe this is what she's talking about below...)one thing that is evident is the gov seems to be moving in the direction of end-of life directives

In light of Big Bro's many other good intents that would seem to be doing just that, who can blame the skeptism..?


*
SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.
(a) M EDICARE .—
(1) I N GENERAL .—Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended— (A) in subsection (s)(2)— (i) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (DD); (ii) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (EE); and (iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: HCA0~1.XML HOLCPC
‘‘(FF) advance care planning consultation (as defined in subsection (hhh)(1));’’; and (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation ‘‘(hhh)(1) 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, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
‘‘(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, which shall include—
‘‘(I) 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;
‘‘(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
‘‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decision maker (also known as a health care proxy).
‘‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State—
‘‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and
‘‘(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).
‘‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that—
‘‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
‘‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;
‘‘(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and
‘‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.
‘‘(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is—
‘‘(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and
‘‘(B) a nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments.
‘‘(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).
‘‘(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.
‘‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.
‘‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that—
‘‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;
‘‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
‘‘(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and
‘‘(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.
‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph
(A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items—
‘‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
‘‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
‘‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
‘‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’’.
(c) I NCLUSION OF I NFORMATION IN M EDICARE & Y OU H ANDBOOK .—
(1) M EDICARE & YOU HANDBOOK .—
(A) I N GENERAL .—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall update the online version of the Medicare & You Handbook to include the following:
(i) An explanation of advance care planning and advance directives, including—
(I) living wills;
(II) durable power of attorney;
(III) orders of life-sustaining treatment; and
(IV) health care proxies.
(ii) A description of Federal and State resources available to assist individuals and their families with advance care planning and advance directives, including—
(I) available State legal service organizations to assist individuals with advance care planning, including those organizations that receive funding pursuant to the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 93001 et seq.);
(II) website links or addresses for 6 State-specific advance directive forms; and
(III) any additional information, as determined by the Secretary.
10 (B) U PDATE OF PAPER AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS .—The Secretary shall include the information described in subparagraph (A) in all paper and electronic versions of the Medicare & You Handbook that are published on or after the date that is year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

 

[Emma]

Jesus.

I guess I should put this in my sig line.

This is about Medicare benefits and reimbursement. The ONLY thing mandatory is that IF a physician/NP provides counseling regarding advance care planning, Medicare will reimburse the provider but not more often than every 5 years (except in certain circumstances). It is not mandating advance care planning. It is not mandating living wills. It is amending the current regulations to allow for medicare reimbursement of advance care planning and setting the guidelines for same in order to qualify for reimbursement.

Good LORD.

 

[Emma]

I'm going to need advance care planning soon if this shit doesn't stop. I can feel my BP shoot through the roof every time I hear this nonsense.

 

[xotoxi]

That's all this shit is!

Show me ANYWHERE in the law where it says that the Advanced Directives discussion is MANDATORY!

From the audio clip:

"...the congress would make it MANDATORY...absolutely required every 5 years..."

So annie52...the ball is in your court! You can either prove yourself RIGHT, or you can be a FAILURE!

 

[Zoom-boing]

I find it mind-boggling that so many are willing to put the future of their health care in the hands of the government. Your trust and faith in them astounds me.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What a load of horse hocky.

We read this part of the bill, remember?

It does NOT say what this person is saying it does.

She's fucking making shit up, folks.

Well this is part of the technological means avaiable today... on the basis of which they DEMAND that they've contravening data.

Ed here, says that "WE" read 'that part of the bill... meaning that Ed asserts that it is common knowledge that the 'ethereal evidence' to which she refers supercedes that of the Doctor being interviewed by Thompson.

What Ed does NOT do, is to state, for the record, that specific element of the bill, nor does she cite the specific language of the bill which actually contradicts the good Doctors testimony. Ed simply IMPLIES, in as vague terms as she can project and still manage to get her point across, referencing some make believe moment where she and those to whom she is speaking, are to have read that SAME DOCUMENT to which the Doctor is referring. Which of course gets the usual peter touching response, from her gal pal comrades...

Now understand friends; what the Doctor is explaining is completely in step with what King Hussein herself has stated publically on MANY occasions; the statement where a Doctor in the audience asks if her Mother's zest for life would be taken into consideration where she needed a heart transplant... to which the BOY King responded that 'it may be that her Mother would be better off just taking a pain pill, instead of putting the system through the expense of a heart transplant for someone who just will not live long enough to really make it worth while'...

This is EUGENICS... its the same 'realist' mind-set that the Progressives have always touted... it was beaten back after a flame up in the early 20th Century, when Leftism of every stripe, from the US Progressives, to the European Fascists were basically taking over... Of course WW2 put an end to that one... and rest assured that the next War to cure this one will make THAT one look like a walk in the park.

The simple fact is that there is no means to pay for the aging Boomers Medical care with public funds... It can't be done; which is a problem ONLY WHERE THE PLAN IS TO STRIP THE CULTURE OF PRIVATE CARE; and THAT IS THE PLAN!

But it gets MUCH WORSE than that...

The State will use its medical care system to demand every addle-minded healthcare notion that comes along, be implemented as LAW; and why is that? Well because THEY'RE PAYING FOR YOUR HEALTHCARE... and as such, anything which effects your health is THEIR BUSINESS...

That you're too fucking old to get some good use out of eye surgery... that's tough for YOU... but 'the people' shouldn't be forced to carry your burden... 'DO the right thing and read this pamphlet while ya still can; it explains how its your responsibility as a good American to bring things to a close, so someone who really needs treatment can take your spot.'

Its some convoluted idiocy... and its nothing new; those that haven't read the history of these people, PROGRESIVES, have NO IDEA of the INSANITY which they have advanced in the name of their ideas...

Every heard of "The Muskegee Experiment"?

Same group... Progressives, who thought that for the sake of science, it would be a great idea to set up a health clinic and infect people with syphillus... BUT... and this is the funny part... TELL THOSE PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE TREATING THEM FOR SYPHILLUS even as they're just monitoring how the disease courses through and otherwise effects their bodies... essentially just watching them DIE; while they assure them that they're doing everything they can to help them.

OH... FTR: that was a "GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL..."

Ok... so you're thinking... "That's just awful... but that was way back in when... and it was a RIGHT WING 'THE GOVERNMENT.'

Nope... It was the Progressive bureaucrats who were ENTRENCHED IN THE GOVERNMENT... and in case you missed it, this government is LOADED to the GILLS with Clinton re-hash... Rom Emmanual is the Chief of Staff and he is a HARDCORE-TRUE BELIEVING: PROGRESSIVE.

If you do not know what US Progressivism is... I suggest you get to finding out. They're bat-shit crazy and they ARE ABOUT TO BE PUT IN CHARGE OF YOUR HEALTHCARE!

 

[sparky]

I find it mind-boggling that so many are willing to put the future of their health care in the hands of the government. Your trust and faith in them astounds me.

really?

perhaps a look at the friggin' obvious would help that perspective...?



Republicans Reveal Their Hypocrisy On Health Care, Refuse To Support Bill To Kill Government-Run Medicare
For months, Republicans have been trying to scare Americans away from supporting a public option in health care reform, claiming that “government-run” medicine is akin to socialism and would be disastrous. But the government already runs several successful, well-loved health care programs — most notably, Medicare.

Yesterday, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) decided that it was “put-up or shut-up time for the phonies who deride the so-called ‘public option.’” He offered an amendment that would eliminate government-run Medicare:

Not a single member of Congress voted for the amendment, and Republicans were blasting it as a “political farce.” Last night, Weiner went on MSNBC and explained the GOP’s hypocrisy:


WEINER: Well, for some reason, I guess Republicans don’t like publicly funded, publicly administered health plans except for Medicare, and, I guess, except for the Veterans Administration and except for the health care that our military gets from the Department of Defense. The fact of the matter is, what we’ve learned is that government administered health care works pretty darn well. It’s got lower overhead and people like it.

So, when my Republican colleagues pound the drum and pound the podium about how they hate government-run health care, I guess they haven’t looked at what they get.

Republicans are refusing to acknowledge the hypocrisy in their statements warning about “socialized” medicine and their support for Medicare. Of course, conservatives also opposed the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and made many of the same claims that their counterparts are doing today. Forty-four years later, Medicare has helped America’s senior citizens live longer, healthier lives. By not voting for Weiner’s amendment, conservatives are acknowledging that their supposedly substantive claims about health care reform are nothing more than crass political fear-mongering.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I find it mind-boggling that so many are willing to put the future of their health care in the hands of the government. Your trust and faith in them astounds me.

really?

perhaps a look at the friggin' obvious would help that perspective...?



Republicans Reveal Their Hypocrisy On Health Care, Refuse To Support Bill To Kill Government-Run Medicare
For months, Republicans have been trying to scare Americans away from supporting a public option in health care reform, claiming that “government-run” medicine is akin to socialism and would be disastrous. But the government already runs several successful, well-loved health care programs — most notably, Medicare.

Yesterday, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) decided that it was “put-up or shut-up time for the phonies who deride the so-called ‘public option.’” He offered an amendment that would eliminate government-run Medicare:

Not a single member of Congress voted for the amendment, and Republicans were blasting it as a “political farce.” Last night, Weiner went on MSNBC and explained the GOP’s hypocrisy:


WEINER: Well, for some reason, I guess Republicans don’t like publicly funded, publicly administered health plans except for Medicare, and, I guess, except for the Veterans Administration and except for the health care that our military gets from the Department of Defense. The fact of the matter is, what we’ve learned is that government administered health care works pretty darn well. It’s got lower overhead and people like it.

So, when my Republican colleagues pound the drum and pound the podium about how they hate government-run health care, I guess they haven’t looked at what they get.

Republicans are refusing to acknowledge the hypocrisy in their statements warning about “socialized” medicine and their support for Medicare. Of course, conservatives also opposed the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and made many of the same claims that their counterparts are doing today. Forty-four years later, Medicare has helped America’s senior citizens live longer, healthier lives. By not voting for Weiner’s amendment, conservatives are acknowledging that their supposedly substantive claims about health care reform are nothing more than crass political fear-mongering.

Yeah... Medicare is WONDERFUL! It's absoluely BANKRUPT, but OH!... It's just a WONDERFUL THING... makes me "FEEL" all tingly inside and really, THAT'S what is important isn't it? That we FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT.

Well here's the problem... Medicare has cost orders of magnitude more than it was budgeted for SINCE YEAR ONE! It's running tab today is in the 5 TRILLION DOLLAR RANGE...

Now the Left wants to QUINTUPLE DOWN on that boon-doggle...

Here's a better idea... stop treating healthcare like a RIGHT; you don't actually have a right to force someone to pay for your healthcare; which is all this idiocy is ABOUT!

Put medical treatment BACK IN THE MARKET PLACE, where Doctor's and hospitals have to compete for business.

Now you'll gasp and cry that you DO have a right to force someone to pay for your healthcare... or you'll demand that you pay your own way... but some HMO woudn't grant you services after you paid the premium... when in fact, IF you were paying your own way you wouldn't have ANY interests in this crap; and IF you read the CONTRACT THAT YOU SIGNED WITH THE HMO, YOU'D KNOW THAT YOU AREN'T ENTITLED TO THAT TREATMENT PER THAT AGREEMENT!

Now here's the BAD NEWS: This new program will force you to look back upon the "GOOD OLD DAYS" when you could drop your HMO and go find ANOTHER ONE! Or seek a second opinion, or take some savings and pay for the treatment yourself... OR borrow some money and pay for it yourself...

And without regard to how unpleasant it is to do ANY OF THAT... it nonetheless stands as a set of OPTIONS which you will no longer have once this 'program' takes hold.

So cry all you want about how great Medicare is: IT IS BROKE... BUSTED... KAPUT!

And you 'feeling good about it' isn't going to change it.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I find it mind-boggling that so many are willing to put the future of their health care in the hands of the government. Your trust and faith in them astounds me.

really?

perhaps a look at the friggin' obvious would help that perspective...?

Republicans Reveal Their Hypocrisy On Health Care, Refuse To Support Bill To Kill Government-Run Medicare
For months, Republicans have been trying to scare Americans away from supporting a public option in health care reform, claiming that “government-run” medicine is akin to socialism and would be disastrous. But the government already runs several successful, well-loved health care programs — most notably, Medicare.

Yesterday, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) decided that it was “put-up or shut-up time for the phonies who deride the so-called ‘public option.’” He offered an amendment that would eliminate government-run Medicare:

Not a single member of Congress voted for the amendment, and Republicans were blasting it as a “political farce.” Last night, Weiner went on MSNBC and explained the GOP’s hypocrisy:

WEINER: Well, for some reason, I guess Republicans don’t like publicly funded, publicly administered health plans except for Medicare, and, I guess, except for the Veterans Administration and except for the health care that our military gets from the Department of Defense. The fact of the matter is, what we’ve learned is that government administered health care works pretty darn well. It’s got lower overhead and people like it.

So, when my Republican colleagues pound the drum and pound the podium about how they hate government-run health care, I guess they haven’t looked at what they get.

Republicans are refusing to acknowledge the hypocrisy in their statements warning about “socialized” medicine and their support for Medicare. Of course, conservatives also opposed the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and made many of the same claims that their counterparts are doing today. Forty-four years later, Medicare has helped America’s senior citizens live longer, healthier lives. By not voting for Weiner’s amendment, conservatives are acknowledging that their supposedly substantive claims about health care reform are nothing more than crass political fear-mongering.

Well-run? Isn't Medicare going to be belly up in 10 years or so? Well-loved? I'll let those who have VA health care chime in on that one.

Too bad the GOP didn't have the balls to vote yes on this. Then again, got to look towards 2010 and all those old votes, eh? Can't cut off your nose to spite your face.

If single payer, government run health care is so wonderful, why is Waxman being the hypocrite? I say it's put up or shut up time for the Dems. If this system they are proposing is so wonderful, then all who vote for it should drop their current private health care and go on the government run plan.

Do as I say, not as I do. I don't know any other way to explain the sheer arrogance of Henry Waxman.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman says Congress does not have to join the government health care.

You, maybe. But not them.

So he's fine foisting this health care monstrosity on us, just not Congress. Waxman says members of Congress do not have to join the public option government health plan.

The Sheer Arrogance of Rep. Waxman - Neil Cavuto | Your World - FOXNews.com

Didn't you get the memo? There are hypocrites on both sides of the aisle.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

i find it mind-boggling that so many are willing to put the future of their health care in the hands of the government. Your trust and faith in them astounds me.

really?

Perhaps a look at the friggin' obvious would help that perspective...?

Republicans reveal their hypocrisy on health care, refuse to support bill to kill government-run medicare
for months, republicans have been trying to scare americans away from supporting a public option in health care reform, claiming that “government-run” medicine is akin to socialism and would be disastrous. but the government already runs several successful, well-loved health care programs — most notably, medicare.

Yesterday, rep. Anthony weiner (d-ny) decided that it was “put-up or shut-up time for the phonies who deride the so-called ‘public option.’” he offered an amendment that would eliminate government-run medicare:

not a single member of congress voted for the amendment, and republicans were blasting it as a “political farce.” last night, weiner went on msnbc and explained the gop’s hypocrisy:

weiner: Well, for some reason, i guess republicans don’t like publicly funded, publicly administered health plans except for medicare, and, i guess, except for the veterans administration and except for the health care that our military gets from the department of defense. The fact of the matter is, what we’ve learned is that government administered health care works pretty darn well. It’s got lower overhead and people like it.

so, when my republican colleagues pound the drum and pound the podium about how they hate government-run health care, i guess they haven’t looked at what they get.

republicans are refusing to acknowledge the hypocrisy in their statements warning about “socialized” medicine and their support for medicare. Of course, conservatives also opposed the creation of medicare in the 1960s and made many of the same claims that their counterparts are doing today. Forty-four years later, medicare has helped america’s senior citizens live longer, healthier lives. By not voting for weiner’s amendment, conservatives are acknowledging that their supposedly substantive claims about health care reform are nothing more than crass political fear-mongering.

well-run? Isn't medicare going to be belly up in 10 years or so? Well-loved? I'll let those who have va health care chime in on that one.

Too bad the gop didn't have the balls to vote yes on this. Then again, got to look towards 2010 and all those old votes, eh? Can't cut off your nose to spite your face.

If single payer, government run health care is so wonderful, why is waxman being the hypocrite? I say it's put up or shut up time for the dems. If this system they are proposing is so wonderful, then all who vote for it should drop their current private health care and go on the government run plan.

do as i say, not as i do. I don't know any other way to explain the sheer arrogance of henry waxman.

The house energy and commerce committee chairman says congress does not have to join the government health care.

You, maybe. But not them.

So he's fine foisting this health care monstrosity on us, just not congress. waxman says members of congress do not have to join the public option government health plan.

the sheer arrogance of rep. Waxman - neil cavuto | your world - foxnews.com

didn't you get the memo? There are hypocrites on both sides of the aisle.

ROFL...
.
.
.


owned!

 

[Liability]

SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION of "the bill" quoted in this thread (post 6) is only a part of the bill and it is essentially a definitional portion of the bill. It does use some mandatory language, but it seems misleading to read it as requiring such counseling in general. Section 1233 of the proposed legislation is intended to be read as part of the entire bill and it makes specific reference to Sec. 1861. of the SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.

Wading through all of that mess would take undue time for present purposes. However, my preliminary reading of these acts (together) SEEMS to suggest that the legislation in question is meant only to say that IF the provider performs such "end of life" type counseling services, then the provider is only going to get paid for it once every five years.

When I first heard about this part of the proposed Act, I was concerned that they were making it mandatory, too. But a closer look SEEMS to reveal that it really doesn't.

EDIT:

for ease of reference, her's a quick link to the other Act I mentioned: http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1861.htm

 

[Old Rocks]

It doesn't shock me. This is pure progressivism and today's liberalism. The elderly, the ill, and the people who live outside of cities are disposable, and they have every intention of disposing of them.

My, my, you just keep lying

 

[Old Rocks]

SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION of "the bill" quoted in this thread (post 6) is only a part of the bill and it is essentially a definitional portion of the bill. It does use some mandatory language, but it seems misleading to read it as requiring such counseling in general. Section 1233 of the proposed legislation is intended to be read as part of the entire bill and it makes specific reference to Sec. 1861. of the SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.

Wading through all of that mess would take undue time for present purposes. However, my preliminary reading of these acts (together) SEEMS to suggest that the legislation in question is meant only to say that IF the provider performs such "end of life" type counseling services, then the provider is only going to get paid for it once every five years.

When I first heard about this part of the proposed Act, I was concerned that they were making it mandatory, too. But a closer look SEEMS to reveal that it really doesn't.
EDIT:

for ease of reference, her's a quick link to the other Act I mentioned: Social Security Act §1861

Thank you for the honesty.

 

[Old Rocks]

I find it mind-boggling that so many are willing to put the future of their health care in the hands of the government. Your trust and faith in them astounds me.

I find it mind boggling that fools like you put your trust in corperations that profit from denying you treatment.

 

[Meister]

I find it mind-boggling that so many are willing to put the future of their health care in the hands of the government. Your trust and faith in them astounds me.

I find it mind boggling that fools like you put your trust in corperations that profit from denying you treatment.

I find it mind boggling that fools like you put trust in a government that will deny you treatment. I will put my life in the hands of corporations over the government any day of the week. Old Rocks.