This will shock you to listen to

[MaggieMae]

Fred Thompson: Interviews

How old is that interview, annie? How distorted by misreading the F.A.C.T.S??? Which are, in this case:

CLAIM: The House bill "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia," House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said July 23.

Former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey said in a July 17 article: "One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years ... about alternatives for end-of-life care."

THE FACTS: The bill would require Medicare to pay for advance directive consultations with health care professionals. But it would not require anyone to use the benefit.

Advance directives lay out a patient's wishes for life-extending measures under various scenarios involving terminal illness, severe brain damage and situations. Patients and their families would consult with health professionals, not government agents, if they used the proposed benefit.

More bogus claims here:

FACT CHECK: Distortions rife in health care debate - Yahoo! News

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Gullible-itis has become a pandemic.

False Euthanasia Claims | FactCheck.org

 

[MaggieMae]

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 ******* making shit up, folks.

Blinders on, cotton in the ears. So so typical. Every legitimate fact checker on the planet has busted every one of the bogus claims arriving in rwinger mailboxes (and on television) lately. Here's another one (entire list begins about halfway down the page):

PolitiFact | E-mail 'analysis' of health bill needs a check-up

 

[MaggieMae]

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 ******* 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 ******* 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!

PubliusInfinitum
(And one more thing...)


​

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

You're kidding, right? Who do you think decides now whether or not you'll get treatment? If you want your private insurance to pay for it, that is. THE INSURER DECIDES.

The health insurance industry has entire teams of people whose sole job is to find ingenious ways to deny coverage. The private health care system is truly wonderful as long as you don't get seriously sick. Reporter Lisa Girion of the Los Angeles Times of June 17, 2009 reported on how the insurance companies cancel the medical coverage of sick people after they are diagnosed, a practice known as 'rescission'.

An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.

It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.

Blue Cross praised employees who dropped sick policyholders, lawmaker says - Los Angeles Times

 

[MaggieMae]

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 think there have been various synopses, but when that happens then the choir starts bitching that the lefties are lying if every word doesn't fit in with their agenda.

 

[garyd]

Again we don't know at this time what the final version of the health care bill will contain.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

I still say that most of them HAVE read at least synopses of each proposal and amendment. That's what they pay staffers to do after all. The various committee members have been at it non-stop now for over a month, and there's no reason for them NOT to know what it's all whittling down to. So I don't buy that excuse anymore that they "didn't have time to read it." It isn't an "it" anyway, but rather a whole series of proposals with the approved portions rolled into one package for them to take on the road for a month and study and discuss with their constituents.

And just to be clear, another rumor is that Republicans had no input in the end result. On the contrary, they submitted hundreds of amendments, of which 160 were adopted and put into the final draft by the Senate Finance Committee.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Thank you thank you thank you. Since no one pays any attention when I say that, maybe they'll believe you.

 

[garyd]

That won't be the final version however Maggie. Until the bill comes out of the conference committee what it will contain is almost totally unknown. Both sides are being just a bit disengenuous since neither can know at this time exactly what the final language will be.

 

[MaggieMae]

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).

That would work for any health reform bill, for sure. I do believe some major acts have been completely rewritten because they had the effect of entirely replacing the old act, or the intro language is something like "this act incorporates in its entirety the Blah Blah Blah Act, enacted on [date]."

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Terrific. Thanks for acknowledging your subversive intent. Now I just need to find that whistleblower website again.

 

[garyd]

Not with lawyers still breathing it wouldn't.

Look at what they've done to the first amendment, creating from a simple declarative statementt hat congress can't tell people when where and how to worship or in what sort of building that worship will take place into edifice that prevents anyone who happens to be both religious and a government official from worshipping when where and how he pleases thus using the constitution to violate the constitution.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

 

[garyd]

You do know your quote is also the Neil Boortz tag line.

 

[MaggieMae]

That won't be the final version however Maggie. Until the bill comes out of the conference committee what it will contain is almost totally unknown. Both sides are being just a bit disengenuous since neither can know at this time exactly what the final language will be.

Yup.

 

[MaggieMae]

You do know your quote is also the Neil Boortz tag line.

Then I guess one of us is someday gonna be real mad, eh? He's a good writer, but an idealogue and idealogues do a lousy job of actually running things.