Another liberal lie exposed. BUSH VETOED END OF LIFE PROVISIONS

[teapartysamurai]

http://biggovernment.com/files/2010/12/medium_WaveBush_Meye2.jpg
The Hill reported that the Obama White House attempted to calm Americans’ fears of the dreaded death panels:

The Medicare policy will pay doctors for holding end-of-life-care discussions with patients, according to the Times. A similar provision was dropped from the new healthcare reform law after Republicans accused the administration of withholding care from the sick, elderly and disabled.
However, an administration spokesman said the regulation, which is less specific than the reform law’s draft language, is actually a continuation of a policy enacted under former President George W. Bush.

“The only thing new here is a regulation allowing the discussions … to happen in the context of the new annual wellness visit created by [healthcare reform],” Obama spokesman Reid Cherlin told The Wall Street Journal.
In 2003, Medicare added a consultation visit for seniors new to the program, according to the Journal. Another 2008 law, enacted under Bush, said the visit can include “end-of-life” planning discussions.
​

However, what The Hill’s Jason Millman forgot to mention in his article was that President Bush VETOED the 2008 bill and the Democrats, along with some “good-willed” Republicans OVERRODE Bush’s veto forcing him to sign the legislation into law. The bill dealt with doctors’ reimbursements and more, but the Democrats slipped in the end-of-life planning by opening up the Social Security Act, which I have stated many times is dangerous. Once the act is changed, it is difficult to amend again and allows for tinkering with the Medicare fee schedule and covered services definitions and requirements
.
For the record, here is the text that the Democrats changed:

(b) Revisions to Initial Preventive Physical Examination-
http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6331&version=enr&nid=t0:enr:134http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6331&version=enr&nid=t0:enr:134
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 1861(ww) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(ww)) is amended–

(A) in paragraph (1)–
http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6331&version=enr&nid=t0:enr:136http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6331&version=enr&nid=t0:enr:136
(i) by inserting ‘body mass index,’ after ‘weight’;

http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6331&version=enr&nid=t0:enr:137http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6331&version=enr&nid=t0:enr:137
(ii) by striking ‘, and an electrocardiogram’; and

http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6331&version=enr&nid=t0:enr:138http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6331&version=enr&nid=t0:enr:138
(iii) by inserting ‘and end-of-life planning (as defined in paragraph (3)) upon the agreement with the individual’ after ‘paragraph (2)’;



​

Comedy gold indeed, when Democrats blame Bush for, um, everything wrong in America, and then use him for cover on healthcare.

Actually, Bush Vetoed Bill with ‘End-of-Life’ Provisions - Big Government

Liberals who claim that it isn't true Bush originally vetoed end of life provisions, better look again: H.R. 6331 [110th]: Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (GovTrack.us)

Bush VETOED end of life provisions. Now LIBERALS want to sneak in more end of life provisions and use Bush as their cover.

BUT THEY HAVE TO LIE TO DO IT!

Typical liberalism, lie lie lie, and lie some more.

 

[Jeremy]

Whoops.

 

[8537]

"the 2008 bill and the Democrats, along with some “good-willed” Republicans OVERRODE Bush’s veto forcing him to sign the legislation into law. "

Whatever does that mean? Either he signed it into law or he didn't. He can't be "forced" to sign something into law.

 

[teapartysamurai]

"the 2008 bill and the Democrats, along with some “good-willed” Republicans OVERRODE Bush’s veto forcing him to sign the legislation into law. "

Whatever does that mean? Either he signed it into law or he didn't. He can't be "forced" to sign something into law.

Okay, are you just stupid?

Do you understand what an override means????

To override a presidential veto, both houses of congress must pass a bill by a two-thirds majority. This is called a super-majority. In the Senate, this means a bill must have 67 (out of 100) votes. In the House of Representatives, a bill must pass with 290 out of 435 votes.

If this happens, a bill immediately becomes law.

How to Override a Veto - How Many Votes to Over Ride a Veto

 

[Greenbeard]

Who lied and about what?

 

[del]

"the 2008 bill and the Democrats, along with some “good-willed” Republicans OVERRODE Bush’s veto forcing him to sign the legislation into law. "

Whatever does that mean? Either he signed it into law or he didn't. He can't be "forced" to sign something into law.

take a civics class and get back to us, otay?

 

[Agit8r]

So you want the doctor to rush though you end of life options cuz he isn't getting paid? Is that what this OP is arguing for?

 

[rightwinger]

In 2003, Medicare added a consultation visit for seniors new to the program, according to the Journal. Another 2008 law, enacted under Bush, said the visit can include “end-of-life” planning discussions.

From this we get "Obama wants to kill my baby"

 

[theHawk]

Liberals can never be honest about what their intentions are, otherwise they'd be rejected by the vast majority.

They have to consistently lie and deceive in order to inact their agenda. This is a prime example.

 

[teapartysamurai]

So you want the doctor to rush though you end of life options cuz he isn't getting paid? Is that what this OP is arguing for?

How about not getting paid to off grandma. Or haven't you checked out the latest version of "end of life" provsions?

 

[teapartysamurai]

In 2003, Medicare added a consultation visit for seniors new to the program, according to the Journal. Another 2008 law, enacted under Bush, said the visit can include “end-of-life” planning discussions.

From this we get "Obama wants to kill my baby"

Not exactly all that's in end of life provisions.

And if they are so harmless, how come they had to take them out of the Obamacare, and now Obama is trying to sneak them back in?

Nice try!

 

[Luissa]

So you want the doctor to rush though you end of life options cuz he isn't getting paid? Is that what this OP is arguing for?

How about not getting paid to off grandma. Or haven't you checked out the latest version of "end of life" provsions?

Obviously, you havent. And you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[rightwinger]

In 2003, Medicare added a consultation visit for seniors new to the program, according to the Journal. Another 2008 law, enacted under Bush, said the visit can include “end-of-life” planning discussions.

From this we get "Obama wants to kill my baby"

Not exactly all that's in end of life provisions.

And if they are so harmless, how come they had to take them out of the Obamacare, and now Obama is trying to sneak them back in?

Nice try!

Because idiot conservatives ran around sceaming "DEATH PANELS....DEATH PANELS"

 

[rightwinger]

Why on earth wouldn't anyone want the option of speaking to a medical professional about what your options are as you reach the end of your life? Wouldn't you want to make decisions while you are still lucid and capable of making an informed decision?

 

[xotoxi]

So you want the doctor to rush though you end of life options cuz he isn't getting paid? Is that what this OP is arguing for?

How about not getting paid to off grandma. Or haven't you checked out the latest version of "end of life" provsions?

Please provide a link defending your claims of federally mandated euthanasia.

If you can't, then shut the fuck up. Adults are talking.

 

[teapartysamurai]

So you want the doctor to rush though you end of life options cuz he isn't getting paid? Is that what this OP is arguing for?

How about not getting paid to off grandma. Or haven't you checked out the latest version of "end of life" provsions?

Obviously, you havent. And you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Guess again clueless! And guess who has the beef on this issue? None other than that liberal favorite!

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?_r=1

 

[jillian]

From this we get "Obama wants to kill my baby"

Not exactly all that's in end of life provisions.

And if they are so harmless, how come they had to take them out of the Obamacare, and now Obama is trying to sneak them back in?

Nice try!

Because idiot conservatives ran around sceaming "DEATH PANELS....DEATH PANELS"

facts confuse her.

but its nice to know there's been a new death panel thread pretty much every day.

 

[teapartysamurai]

From this we get "Obama wants to kill my baby"

Not exactly all that's in end of life provisions.

And if they are so harmless, how come they had to take them out of the Obamacare, and now Obama is trying to sneak them back in?

Nice try!

Because idiot conservatives ran around sceaming "DEATH PANELS....DEATH PANELS"

Because they ARE DEATH PANELS!

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?_r=1

The government PAYS FOR IT, they are ENCOURAGING IT. This is exactly what it looks like. Let's off grandma because she's not paying IN taxes anymore, she's collecting them through Obamacare, Medicare, and Social Security. She's costing us too much! Time to off her!

 

[rightwinger]

Not exactly all that's in end of life provisions.

And if they are so harmless, how come they had to take them out of the Obamacare, and now Obama is trying to sneak them back in?

Nice try!

Because idiot conservatives ran around sceaming "DEATH PANELS....DEATH PANELS"

Because they ARE DEATH PANELS!

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?_r=1

The government PAYS FOR IT, they are ENCOURAGING IT. This is exactly what it looks like. Let's off grandma because she's not paying IN taxes anymore, she's collecting them through Obamacare, Medicare, and Social Security. She's costing us too much! Time to off her!

Do you know what the word "Options" means?

Do you understand what "End of life CARE" means?

Do you understand that Doctors are prohibited from ending your life?

 

[teapartysamurai]

Why on earth wouldn't anyone want the option of speaking to a medical professional about what your options are as you reach the end of your life? Wouldn't you want to make decisions while you are still lucid and capable of making an informed decision?

Because I can do that anytime I want with my doctor. I don't have to make a special appointment to do it.

WHY ON EARTH, make a SPECIAL PROVISION TO DO IT, UNLESS YOU WANT TO ENCOURAGE IT?

And why should the GOVERNMENT be the people who decide this end of life provisions.

Why is it so darn important to Obama, if this is soooooooooooooooo harmless and just part of the end of life?

Why did Bush veto it?

Why did Obama tell us Grandma should just have a pain pill?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo[/ame]