This will shock you to listen to

[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.

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.

All too many in my trade have done exactly that, and died for it. We were told for years by the corperations that asbestos was not a real danger, in spite of the fact that the danger was noted over 100 years ago by physicians.

The corperate record on caring for their people, or the people that their products impact, is one of caring much more for profits than peoples lives.

 

[Emma]

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

This made my head hurt...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1378734-post25.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1378788-post27.html

Someone made an excellent suggestion... that all bills should include in plain English in each section a synopsis of what that section means or does. It's really hard to understand when the language is full of things like "in paragraph (H) subsection (aaa) substitute 'and' for 'or'". I was bouncing back and forth between the bill and the code it amended for quite some time before it became clear what the bill proposed. And if you had trouble as a lawyer, it's no wonder it's so hard for peons like me.

 

[bodecea]

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.

So, you would ignore your mother's wishes about her OWN treatment.

 

[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: Social Security Act §1861

This made my head hurt...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1378734-post25.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1378788-post27.html

Someone made an excellent suggestion... that all bills should include in plain English in each section a synopsis of what that section means or does. It's really hard to understand when the language is full of things like "in paragraph (H) subsection (aaa) substitute 'and' for 'or'". I was bouncing back and forth between the bill and the code it amended for quite some time before it became clear what the bill proposed. And if you had trouble as a lawyer, it's no wonder it's so hard for peons like me.

I am not convinced that these guys are ABLE to translate their own jargon and legal-speak into simple, clear, direct English sentences anymore.

I am also a bit suspicious that they are reluctant to try, for that would make deliberate obfuscation more difficult.

It is astounding to me that our Congressional Representatives and Senators are even WILLING to cast a vote on bills they haven't read or do not understand. These guys COULD be voting to condemn motherhood, for all they know, yet they're STILL willing to vote "aye" if the "party" tells them to.

 

[Emma]

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

This made my head hurt...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1378734-post25.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1378788-post27.html

Someone made an excellent suggestion... that all bills should include in plain English in each section a synopsis of what that section means or does. It's really hard to understand when the language is full of things like "in paragraph (H) subsection (aaa) substitute 'and' for 'or'". I was bouncing back and forth between the bill and the code it amended for quite some time before it became clear what the bill proposed. And if you had trouble as a lawyer, it's no wonder it's so hard for peons like me.

I am not convinced that these guys are ABLE to translate their own jargon and legal-speak into simple, clear, direct English sentences anymore.

I am also a bit suspicious that they are reluctant to try, for that would make deliberate obfuscation more difficult.

It is astounding to me that our Congressional Representatives and Senators are even WILLING to cast a vote on bills they haven't read or do not understand. These guys COULD be voting to condemn motherhood, for all they know, yet they're STILL willing to vote "aye" if the "party" tells them to.

True.

But I can't really blame the fear-mongers completely (except they keep on in the face of proof to the contrary). When I first heard of this and opened the bill to take a peek I was like

So I understand the temptation to take a few lines out of context and without referencing the code to be amended and then run with it. But if you want to understand what it really says, you have to jump back and forth and try to fit the puzzle together.

The only other way to do it would be to include the current act and then the amended one (spot the differences!) ... but if you think 1081 pages is long, imagine how long that would be.

 

[Emma]

BTW, what pisses me off more than (some) on the right using these fear-mongering tactics and distortions is that the Democrats are just standing by letting them do it. They should be out there on every venue available explaining why this isn't true and putting a stop to this nonsense. But they won't. And before long, people who've never even attempted to read the bill will simply buy into the lies and distortions and accept them as fact.

There's plenty to debate on what the bill actually says and means. You (the general 'you') don't have to make shit up.

 

[Zoom-boing]

This made my head hurt...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1378734-post25.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1378788-post27.html

Someone made an excellent suggestion... that all bills should include in plain English in each section a synopsis of what that section means or does. It's really hard to understand when the language is full of things like "in paragraph (H) subsection (aaa) substitute 'and' for 'or'". I was bouncing back and forth between the bill and the code it amended for quite some time before it became clear what the bill proposed. And if you had trouble as a lawyer, it's no wonder it's so hard for peons like me.

I agree with this. Bills should go by the 'less is more' language rule or the 'keep it simple, stupid' language rule. They should pass a bill requiring bills to do this. Of course, someone would have to translate the language of the bill before it passed.

 

[garyd]

Exactly what the final language will say is at this point in time anyone's guess. We have competing versions in both the house and the senate and until those two both act on their respective versions of healthcare ruination and then the conference committee hammers out the final version anything else is just a guess.

 

[Liability]

This made my head hurt...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1378734-post25.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1378788-post27.html

Someone made an excellent suggestion... that all bills should include in plain English in each section a synopsis of what that section means or does. It's really hard to understand when the language is full of things like "in paragraph (H) subsection (aaa) substitute 'and' for 'or'". I was bouncing back and forth between the bill and the code it amended for quite some time before it became clear what the bill proposed. And if you had trouble as a lawyer, it's no wonder it's so hard for peons like me.

I am not convinced that these guys are ABLE to translate their own jargon and legal-speak into simple, clear, direct English sentences anymore.

I am also a bit suspicious that they are reluctant to try, for that would make deliberate obfuscation more difficult.

It is astounding to me that our Congressional Representatives and Senators are even WILLING to cast a vote on bills they haven't read or do not understand. These guys COULD be voting to condemn motherhood, for all they know, yet they're STILL willing to vote "aye" if the "party" tells them to.

True.

But I can't really blame the fear-mongers completely (except they keep on in the face of proof to the contrary). When I first heard of this and opened the bill to take a peek I was like

So I understand the temptation to take a few lines out of context and without referencing the code to be amended and then run with it. But if you want to understand what it really says, you have to jump back and forth and try to fit the puzzle together.

The only other way to do it would be to include the current act and then the amended one (spot the differences!) ... but if you think 1081 pages is long, imagine how long that would be.

Such matters can be addressed in other ways. For example, here's a template.

An Act:

The prior legislation and all related portions of any other laws affecting such legislation concerning {TOPIC} is hereby repealed as of the effective date of this ACT.

As to the matter of {TOPIC} the following law is substituted for any and all prior legislation relative to it.

It is now the law that {TOPIC} * * * * *

*
*
*
*

Any actions undertaken or debts created pursuant to the prior laws shall be enforceable under the terms of such prior laws.

Any part of this ACT which may be determined to be void for any Constitutional reason by a Court of competent jurisdiction is hereby declared to be severable from the rest of this ACT.

This law shall take effect on the earlier of [date] or the first day of the year after it shall be signed into law by the President (or, if vetoed, on the first day of the year after the veto shall have been overridden).

 

[Emma]

I am not convinced that these guys are ABLE to translate their own jargon and legal-speak into simple, clear, direct English sentences anymore.

I am also a bit suspicious that they are reluctant to try, for that would make deliberate obfuscation more difficult.

It is astounding to me that our Congressional Representatives and Senators are even WILLING to cast a vote on bills they haven't read or do not understand. These guys COULD be voting to condemn motherhood, for all they know, yet they're STILL willing to vote "aye" if the "party" tells them to.

True.

But I can't really blame the fear-mongers completely (except they keep on in the face of proof to the contrary). When I first heard of this and opened the bill to take a peek I was like

So I understand the temptation to take a few lines out of context and without referencing the code to be amended and then run with it. But if you want to understand what it really says, you have to jump back and forth and try to fit the puzzle together.

The only other way to do it would be to include the current act and then the amended one (spot the differences!) ... but if you think 1081 pages is long, imagine how long that would be.

Such matters can be addressed in other ways. For example, here's a template.

An Act:

The prior legislation and all related portions of any other laws affecting such legislation concerning {TOPIC} is hereby repealed as of the effective date of this ACT.

As to the matter of {TOPIC} the following law is substituted for any and all prior legislation relative to it.

It is now the law that {TOPIC} * * * * *

*
*
*
*

Any actions undertaken or debts created pursuant to the prior laws shall be enforceable under the terms of such prior laws.

Any part of this ACT which may be determined to be void for any Constitutional reason by a Court of competent jurisdiction is hereby declared to be severable from the rest of this ACT.

This law shall take effect on the earlier of [date] or the first day of the year after it shall be signed into law by the President (or, if vetoed, on the first day of the year after the veto shall have been overridden).

Well, that's kinda what I was talking about above. Of course they'd have to proceed to get into the 'substitute this for that' crap. But at least we'd be able to understand what the bill was proposing to do.

 

[garyd]

And the lawyers would spend the next twenty year arguing over what they really meant. The reason lawyers write the way they right is to reduce the wiggle room.

For you Christians the Ahtanasian creed is the lawyers version the Apostles creed the laymens.

 

[Diuretic]

False Euthanasia Claims | FactCheck.org

Apparently it's all bullshit. You can go back to growing older again

 

[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.

I find it mind boggling that fools like you put your trust in corperations...

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD! I do so adore sweet irony...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

False Euthanasia Claims | FactCheck.org

Apparently it's all bullshit. You can go back to growing older again

Look...

You idiots can disemble all day long, but the FACT is that the PROGRESSIVES (read: The Advocates of Social Science) have ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT what they refer to as "REALISM" and this is Dr. Kovorkian 'end of life' crap and it is nothing more than 'abortion' at the other end of life.

Anyone that even THINKS about believing these idiots attempts to OBSCURE THEIR OBVIOUS INTENTIONS IS A FOOL IN THE EXTREME.

Again, it doesn't really matter much, as this will all work itself out in the looming civil war at the close of which there will be no ideological left remaining... so don't sweat the petty shit... and this is ALL PETTY SHIT, by comparison to the mayhem which the Left will be forcing on the planet in the next generation... Killing old farts and pre-born children will be NOTHING compared to the merciless death and destruction to come.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh my, Pubic is on his Armegedon high horse again. Look fellow, get out of your mothers basement, and experience the real world for a while.

 

[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.

I find it mind boggling that fools like you put your trust in corperations...

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD! I do so adore sweet irony...

 

[xotoxi]

Oh my, Pubic is on his Armegedon high horse again. Look fellow, get out of your mothers basement, and experience the real world for a while.

Actually, his posts are worthy of a rapid scroll to get beyond.

The never say anything besides telling us that there are NO LEFTIST AMERICANS, which doesn't tell us anything.

How much do you bet that Pubes had his left testicle removed?

 

[annie52]

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!

I can't prove it, I just heard this and it really shook me up. I would love to know that this is all a bunch of horse poop.

 

[Life_Long_Dem!]

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!

I can't prove it, I just heard this and it really shook me up. I would love to know that this is all a bunch of horse poop.

It is fearmongering at its highest level and completely 100 percent FALSE! It simply discusses end of life care....DOES NOT SAY the elderly are disposable and must die....that is off the charts ludicris and idiotic...the government can not literally force the deaths of the elderly. Has ANYONE heard of hospice care centers? We have them here in Ohio and they are great people that help familys prepare for the death of loved ones...how do I know this? my wifes uncle lived in a hospice center the last several months of his life before dying of cancer. To me this provision just extends hospice on to a national level.

 

[asaratis]

The plan is to eventually arrive at a single payer system...meaning the government will control and pay for all health care.

Breitbart.tv » Uncovered Video: Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will ‘Eliminate’ Private Insurance

If you don't think this will lead to rationing, long waits and abandonment of the aged, those afflicted with incurable ailments and those born with Down syndrome and palsy, you are blind to what socialized medicine will do. It will get rid of the "undesirables" quicker than you think. We can't afford to keep these people alive.

Sure, the government can make health care affordable...as soon as those that really need it are all dead. Sure, the government can ration health care. The government can make anyone they choose die while waiting in line for a nod from "the committee".

Screw Obama and his Marxist dreams.