Another liberal lie exposed. BUSH VETOED END OF LIFE PROVISIONS

[The Infidel]

Advanced directives and Avastin for breast cancer are two completely unrelated topics, and you cannot use Avastin for breast cancer to describe your fears of advanced directives.

You are letting your FEELINGS get in the way of the the facts.

And you have not explained your statement that doctors are "getting paid to off grandma".

Doctors are'nt going to get paid to "off grandma", but grandma WILL be advised "for the greater good" to stop wasting our money and go into the darkness quietly.

My FEELINGS just tell me this is macabre, and a bit sickening.


Not trying to pick at you xotoxi, you just bring up some good points that I wanted to expand upon.... thanks

 

[Greenbeard]

Doctors were and are not INCENTIVIZED to recomend someone end treatment, with these new provisions they will be.

One of the few things the OP gets right is these provisions have been in effect for two years now. Have your fears come to pass?

 

[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.

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

Yes, I do. Apparently you are the stupid one.

That doesn't require the president to sign it. If a veto is over-ridden the bill immediately becomes law.

If you were smart enough to read your own ******* links, you'd know that.

 

[The Infidel]

Doctors were and are not INCENTIVIZED to recomend someone end treatment, with these new provisions they will be.

One of the few things the OP gets right is these provisions have been in effect for two years now. Have your fears come to pass?

Im not on deaths doorstep..... so not yet they have'nt

Whats your point, or do you even have one?

 

[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.

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

you can't actually be this ******* stupid, right?

hint: a veto does not require a presidential signature. Take your own civics class.

 

[Greenbeard]

Whats your point, or do you even have one?[/FONT]

Sure. It's that you're arguing theoretical points about a policy that's been in place for multiple years. You're suggesting certain outcomes are resulting from this policy--can you point to any evidence of that?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

Do you even have a clue as to what advanced directives are?

Every day in my office, patients are offered Advanced Directives by my medical assistant. They can refuse them or accept them and if they wish, they can discuss them with me.

Essentially, they are a written document where the patient can decide what they want to have done with regards to CPR, intubation, feeding tubes, etc. It allows the patient to make their own decisions, in case something was to happen, and it is intented to prevent a family feud regarding their personal medical care a la Terry Schiavo.

This is as far as I have gotten while reading this thread.....

Here it is in a nutshell.....

Doctors were and are not INCENTIVIZED to recomend someone end treatment, with these new provisions they will be.
The key is incentivized.... Doctors have always been able to discuss end of life options... its a normal thing to do.
Some folks dont want to be resucitated or intubated... they just want to die naturally and maybe with some pain relief, and then there are others who will fight to the very end.
So yes doctors have always been able to discuss this, but now it will be at our expense and in the doctors best interest for said patient to just "take the pain meds" in order to save money.

You got one half of it right, and the other half dead wrong.

There's no "incentive" for doctors to "just give pain meds". There's an incentive for doctors to talk to their patients about end-of-life care - so doctors will know what a patient wants, and prevent another Schaivo battle.

There's nothing in the this regulation that gives any "incentive" to ending treatment.

 

[xotoxi]

Doctors are'nt going to get paid to "off grandma", but grandma WILL be advised "for the greater good" to stop wasting our money and go into the darkness quietly.

That's not true AT ALL. And the fact that you have stooped down to a TGS level of stupidity in believing this, lessens my opinion of you.

I really hope that you are being satirical and that you don't actually believe that.

 

[xotoxi]

This is as far as I have gotten while reading this thread.....

Here it is in a nutshell.....

Doctors were and are not INCENTIVIZED to recomend someone end treatment, with these new provisions they will be.
The key is incentivized.... Doctors have always been able to discuss end of life options... its a normal thing to do.
Some folks dont want to be resucitated or intubated... they just want to die naturally and maybe with some pain relief, and then there are others who will fight to the very end.
So yes doctors have always been able to discuss this, but now it will be at our expense and in the doctors best interest for said patient to just "take the pain meds" in order to save money.

I guess you are more stupid than I thought...which is a pity.

When discussing end of life options, all we do is encourage people to make their own decision and to let us know what they want to be done, so that we don't do more or less than they want.

In previous generations, these topics were never discussed which ended up resulting in people with feeding tubes and intubations etc that they never really wanted (but didn't know that they had a choice).

By discussing these issues, it allows the PATIENT to make the decision ahead of time, and to let it be known what they want to do.

It also prevents a lot of heartache on the part of the family members, who have to make difficult decisions for their loved ones, and possibly feel guilty about it, or get into fights about it.

Essentially, discussing Advanced Directives is like having Informed Consent prior to surgery.

 

[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?

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
Why did Obama tell us Grandma should just have a pain pill?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo[/ame]

I notice you have problems with reality?

What part of option do you have so much trouble with?
Your private doctor is not THE GUBMINT
All it means is your insurance pays for the OPTIONAL councelling

Death Panels?

 

[8537]

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
Why did Obama tell us Grandma should just have a pain pill?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo[/ame]

I notice you have problems with reality?

What part of option do you have so much trouble with?
Your private doctor is not THE GUBMINT
All it means is your insurance pays for the OPTIONAL councelling

Death Panels?

how can you expect people too stupid to understand that the president can't be forced to sign a bill to figure out multisyllabic words like "optional"

 

[xotoxi]

I notice you have problems with reality?

What part of option do you have so much trouble with?
Your private doctor is not THE GUBMINT
All it means is your insurance pays for the OPTIONAL councelling

Death Panels?

I bet when TPS's doctor asks her if she would like cardiopulmonary resuscitation should she arrest or if she would like a feeding tube, her response is:

"I'm not gonna tell you if you plan to bill Medicare! "

 

[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?

you can't actually be this ******* stupid, right?

hint: a veto does not require a presidential signature. Take your own civics class.

well aren't you the clever one.

 

[Toro]

This is as far as I have gotten while reading this thread.....

Here it is in a nutshell.....

Doctors were and are not INCENTIVIZED to recomend someone end treatment, with these new provisions they will be.
The key is incentivized.... Doctors have always been able to discuss end of life options... its a normal thing to do.
Some folks dont want to be resucitated or intubated... they just want to die naturally and maybe with some pain relief, and then there are others who will fight to the very end.
So yes doctors have always been able to discuss this, but now it will be at our expense and in the doctors best interest for said patient to just "take the pain meds" in order to save money.

I guess you are more stupid than I thought...which is a pity.

When discussing end of life options, all we do is encourage people to make their own decision and to let us know what they want to be done, so that we don't do more or less than they want.

In previous generations, these topics were never discussed which ended up resulting in people with feeding tubes and intubations etc that they never really wanted (but didn't know that they had a choice).

By discussing these issues, it allows the PATIENT to make the decision ahead of time, and to let it be known what they want to do.

It also prevents a lot of heartache on the part of the family members, who have to make difficult decisions for their loved ones, and possibly feel guilty about it, or get into fights about it.

Essentially, discussing Advanced Directives is like having Informed Consent prior to surgery.

Stop lying, you lying liar.

You WANT people to die! You tell them its the best thing!

Why do lying liar liberals always lie?





Oh, wait, I almost forgot.

 

[The Infidel]

This is as far as I have gotten while reading this thread.....

Here it is in a nutshell.....

Doctors were and are not INCENTIVIZED to recomend someone end treatment, with these new provisions they will be.
The key is incentivized.... Doctors have always been able to discuss end of life options... its a normal thing to do.
Some folks dont want to be resucitated or intubated... they just want to die naturally and maybe with some pain relief, and then there are others who will fight to the very end.
So yes doctors have always been able to discuss this, but now it will be at our expense and in the doctors best interest for said patient to just "take the pain meds" in order to save money.

I guess you are more stupid than I thought...which is a pity.

When discussing end of life options, all we do is encourage people to make their own decision and to let us know what they want to be done, so that we don't do more or less than they want.

In previous generations, these topics were never discussed which ended up resulting in people with feeding tubes and intubations etc that they never really wanted (but didn't know that they had a choice).

By discussing these issues, it allows the PATIENT to make the decision ahead of time, and to let it be known what they want to do.

It also prevents a lot of heartache on the part of the family members, who have to make difficult decisions for their loved ones, and possibly feel guilty about it, or get into fights about it.

Essentially, discussing Advanced Directives is like having Informed Consent prior to surgery.

Its a pity you have to go and call me stupid....

What I stated may be incorrect..... but I am honestly trying to understand what all the hub-bub is about.
Doctors have always been able to discuss these things with their patients.... I am just under the understanding that the gov't, not the patient or their insurance, will be paying doctors to do this. This is what I mean by "incentivize".

I just dont like the government having ANY part in my healthcare. I like it being between my doctor and myself, and thats it.

Trust me... the gov't beaurocrats will not give a grap about you or "grandma" and will cut costs at every turn in order to save money on HC costs. (they spend like drunk sailors on other things though)

Why we have to resort to name calling or saying Im stupid is beyond me on this issue....



I though you liked me.....

 

[Jeremy]

 

[Toro]

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that very few posters on here have read the actual research that all this shit was based on.

I'll go out on a limb and say you're a black man living in Argentina.

 

[8537]

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

you can't actually be this ******* stupid, right?

hint: a veto does not require a presidential signature. Take your own civics class.

well aren't you the clever one.

I'm not sure if one can be considered "clever" for understanding the most basic concepts of American civics.

 

[del]

you can't actually be this ******* stupid, right?

hint: a veto does not require a presidential signature. Take your own civics class.

well aren't you the clever one.

I'm not sure if one can be considered "clever" for understanding the most basic concepts of American civics.

did i type clever?

i'm sorry, i meant to type "...mind numbingly pedantic with overtones of passive aggression...".

again, my apologies.

 

[xotoxi]

This is as far as I have gotten while reading this thread.....

Here it is in a nutshell.....

Doctors were and are not INCENTIVIZED to recomend someone end treatment, with these new provisions they will be.
The key is incentivized.... Doctors have always been able to discuss end of life options... its a normal thing to do.
Some folks dont want to be resucitated or intubated... they just want to die naturally and maybe with some pain relief, and then there are others who will fight to the very end.
So yes doctors have always been able to discuss this, but now it will be at our expense and in the doctors best interest for said patient to just "take the pain meds" in order to save money.

I guess you are more stupid than I thought...which is a pity.

When discussing end of life options, all we do is encourage people to make their own decision and to let us know what they want to be done, so that we don't do more or less than they want.

In previous generations, these topics were never discussed which ended up resulting in people with feeding tubes and intubations etc that they never really wanted (but didn't know that they had a choice).

By discussing these issues, it allows the PATIENT to make the decision ahead of time, and to let it be known what they want to do.

It also prevents a lot of heartache on the part of the family members, who have to make difficult decisions for their loved ones, and possibly feel guilty about it, or get into fights about it.

Essentially, discussing Advanced Directives is like having Informed Consent prior to surgery.

Stop lying, you lying liar.

You WANT people to die! You tell them its the best thing!

Why do lying liar liberals always lie?





Oh, wait, I almost forgot.

Actually, I saw someone today...a really old lady...and spoke with her about her Advanced Directives.

She wanted to have everything done (CPR, feeding tubes, etc), but I told her that I would help her with the form, and I convinced her to check the box that says "I WANT NOTHING DONE".

Then I gave her a bottle of codeine to help with her cough and told her to drink the whole bottle down when she gets home.

One down, 310,553,147 to go.