Obamacare and Death With Dignity

[OldRegular]

The more that we learn about Obamacare the worse it gets. A number of doctors who have read parts of the hodgepodge called a bill have indicated that it will ration health care, particularly for those who need it most. Obamacare is a clever means of population control in addition to the leftists favorite method, the slaughter of the unborn. Furthermore, after reaching the age of 65 people will be subjected to mandatory counseling on DEATH WITH DIGNITY every 5 years. I know the leftists on this Forum will be overcome with joy but how many of them are over 65?

A further benefit of population control by Obamacare will be a supposed reduction in carbon emissions. The tree huggers will love this. How will the cap and traders make money out of this? I am sure they will find a way!

 

[Robert Snow]

The more that we learn about Obamacare the worse it gets. A number of doctors who have read parts of the hodgepodge called a bill have indicated that it will ration health care, particularly for those who need it most. Obamacare is a clever means of population control in addition to the leftists favorite method, the slaughter of the unborn. Furthermore, after reaching the age of 65 people will be subjected to mandatory counseling on DEATH WITH DIGNITY every 5 years. I know the leftists on this Forum will be overcome with joy but how many of them are over 65?

A further benefit of population control by Obamacare will be a supposed reduction in carbon emissions. The tree huggers will love this. How will the cap and traders make money out of this? I am sure they will find a way!

Good news on all fronts!

Let's look at what this actually means:

"Now, to me, "Death With Dignity" means "assisted suicide." That's what those bills are usually titled. And I have no problem with the idea of a person who is terminally ill "pulling the plug." But the teaser on Instapundit the lead me to the Red State article read “The section, titled ‘Advanced Care Planning Consultation’ requires senior citizens to meet at least every 5 years with a doctor or nurse practitioner to discuss dying with dignity.”

Which sounds like Section 1233 of HR 3200 requires older folks to receive counseling about assisted suicide every 5 years... And, from the comments section of Red State, I was not the only one. (References to Logan's Run, etc.)

So I read Section 1233 of HR 3200--which is fairly long, and full of legalese and to other sections of Federal Law and Regulations, which I simply do not have time to research in full. But...

Well, no, Section 1233 does not require older folks to be counseled about options on pulling the plug. What it does require is that, at least every five years, older folks--and it falls under "Medicare", so it may be specifically those using that program (which I thought they were going to do away with...)--receive counseling from a physician, nurse practitioner, or physician's assistant.

http://thecluemeter.blogspot.com/2009/07/hr3200-death-with-dignity.html

The truth can be your friend OR, but only if you tell the truth!

 

[Crabtownboy]

Discussing and/or counseling my options while I am still lucid seems a good idea to me. If I am terminal, suffering and being kept alive only by machines please pull the plug. Treat me as good as you would your own pet dog or cat.

Requiring discussions seems to me a good did idea. Too many people have no idea what their options are in medical matters and in end life concerns.

 

[targus]

Good news on all fronts!

Let's look at what this actually means:



http://thecluemeter.blogspot.com/2009/07/hr3200-death-with-dignity.html

The truth can be your friend OR, but only if you tell the truth!

Why do you question the truthfullness of Or's post?

Your source itself says, "“The section, titled ‘Advanced Care Planning Consultation’ requires senior citizens to meet at least every 5 years with a doctor or nurse practitioner to discuss dying with dignity.”

"Dying with dignity" does not necessarily mean assisted suicide - but Obama has indicated more than once that he (and other democrats) intend to limit care to seniors.

My guess is that this mandatory counsulation will be for purposes of discouring seniors from seeking care for their illnesses and rather encourage them to utilize hospice care - IOW manage pain with meds and wait for death.

 

[donnA]

Good news on all fronts!

GOOD NEWS! they're going to murder old people as well as babies.

 

[matt wade]

GOOD NEWS! they're going to murder old people as well as babies.

Oh good grief, Chicken Little. I'm 100% against this health plan, but you are just being sensationalist. Requiring counseling about certain issues does not equate to murdering people.

 

[alatide]

GOOD NEWS! they're going to murder old people as well as babies.

If you had $1M would you rather spend it to keep a 93 year old woman alive for one more month or would you rather see it spent to provide health care to 1,000 staring children in Africa or the slums of America's largest cities?

You can only choose one because that's all you can afford. The problem is most people don't want to think of human life in terms of dollars but it does come down to that. Would you murder the 93 year old woman or would you murder the 1,000 children. (BTW, my mother is 93 years old and I love her dearly but I would opt for saving the children.)

 

[matt wade]

If you had $1M would you rather spend it to keep a 93 year old woman alive for one more month or would you rather see it spent to provide health care to 1,000 staring children in Africa or the slums of America's largest cities?

You can only choose one because that's all you can afford. The problem is most people don't want to think of human life in terms of dollars but it does come down to that. Would you murder the 93 year old woman or would you murder the 1,000 children. (BTW, my mother is 93 years old and I love her dearly but I would opt for saving the children.)

A perfect example why neither 93 year old women or starving children should depend on the government for anything. The 93 year old woman should either have private insurance or deal with a private charity or religious organization.

The 1,000 starving children should be dealt with by private charities or religious organizations. If those 1,000 starving children are in the US, then they should be taken from their parents and given to parents that will properly care for them. There is no reason for any child to be starving in the US unless the parent is being negligent.

 

[alatide]

A perfect example why neither 93 year old women or starving children should depend on the government for anything. The 93 year old woman should either have private insurance or deal with a private charity or religious organization.

The 1,000 starving children should be dealt with by private charities or religious organizations. If those 1,000 starving children are in the US, then they should be taken from their parents and given to parents that will properly care for them. There is no reason for any child to be starving in the US unless the parent is being negligent.

Should have? Perhaps. My 95 year old aunt taught the deaf for over 30 years. She doesn't have long term care insurance but my mother does. Both have Alzheimers but my aunt is much worse. She just ran out of money. If this nursing home didn't accept the reduced payment given by Medicaid she'd be on the street (not for long of course). She's probably die within a couple of days.

If there were no Medicaid she would have already been tossed out.

You be the judge. Do you support Medicaid? Should nursing homes accept it even though it results in less income? If you have similar direct experience that would be helpful.

 

[alatide]

A perfect example why neither 93 year old women or starving children should depend on the government for anything. The 93 year old woman should either have private insurance or deal with a private charity or religious organization.

The 1,000 starving children should be dealt with by private charities or religious organizations. If those 1,000 starving children are in the US, then they should be taken from their parents and given to parents that will properly care for them. There is no reason for any child to be starving in the US unless the parent is being negligent.

How many poor starving children in the US does your church feed? My guess would be none. I personally would much prefer that the church support the poor and homeless but most church members seem to want to call that the "social gospel" as an excuse for doing nothing.

 

[matt wade]

Should have? Perhaps. My 95 year old aunt taught the deaf for over 30 years. She doesn't have long term care insurance but my mother does. Both have Alzheimers but my aunt is much worse. She just ran out of money. If this nursing home didn't accept the reduced payment given by Medicaid she'd be on the street (not for long of course). She's probably die within a couple of days.

If there were no Medicaid she would have already been tossed out.

You be the judge. Do you support Medicaid? Should nursing homes accept it even though it results in less income? If you have similar direct experience that would be helpful.

Your aunt should be cared for by her family members. I know that is a novel idea and it might cramp your life style a little bit. Yes, I have direct experience in caring for family members.

It simply amazes me the people that will throw their relatives under the bus when they get old. What's stopping you from helping your Aunt? What's stopping any of your other family members from helping her?

You say if she didn't have Medicaid she would have been tossed on the street and would have died within a couple of days. Man, you liberals sure are compassionate! All the conservatives I know would have helped their Aunt out and not let her die.

 

[matt wade]

How many poor starving children in the US does your church feed? My guess would be none. I personally would much prefer that the church support the poor and homeless but most church members seem to want to call that the "social gospel" as an excuse for doing nothing.

You don't know my church very well then. Don't compare you and your liberals buddies that don't help anyone (and expect the gov't to do it) to me and my church. As a church we help many poor and needy people all the time. As an individual I do the same. Guess what...I'd do even more if the government didn't steal so much of my hard earned money.

Oh, btw, hi JustChristian!

 

[rbell]

How many poor starving children in the US does your church feed? My guess would be none.

Shame on you for insulting a church you know nothing about.

 

[OldRegular]

Good news on all fronts!

Let's look at what this actually means:



http://thecluemeter.blogspot.com/2009/07/hr3200-death-with-dignity.html

The truth can be your friend OR, but only if you tell the truth!

Sorry Snow but I trust Doctors who have read the more than one bill floating around Congress more than I do you. Not that you can't understand plain English but bills out of Congress are not written in plain English. And not that you are untruthful but you are a leftist!

 

[Amy.G]

If you had $1M would you rather spend it to keep a 93 year old woman alive for one more month or would you rather see it spent to provide health care to 1,000 staring children in Africa or the slums of America's largest cities?

That's just about the most sick and pathetic post I have ever seen on this board.

Who are you or me or anybody to decide who's life is more important? :tear:

 

[OldRegular]

GOOD NEWS! they're going to murder old people as well as babies.

donnA

An excellent summary to all the trash the dems in DC are trying to foist on the American people. And you summarized in fewer words than I could respond!

 

[OldRegular]

Oh good grief, Chicken Little. I'm 100% against this health plan, but you are just being sensationalist. Requiring counseling about certain issues does not equate to murdering people.

Not to change the subject but how old are you Wade? donnA hit the democrat nail in my coffin squarely on the head. If you can't understand what socialized medicine is then you need to open your eyes.

 

[OldRegular]

Discussing and/or counseling my options while I am still lucid seems a good idea to me. If I am terminal, suffering and being kept alive only by machines please pull the plug. Treat me as good as you would your own pet dog or cat.

Requiring discussions seems to me a good did idea. Too many people have no idea what their options are in medical matters and in end life concerns.

What does God think of suicide or involving others in your murder?

 

[OldRegular]

If you had $1M would you rather spend it to keep a 93 year old woman alive for one more month or would you rather see it spent to provide health care to 1,000 staring children in Africa or the slums of America's largest cities?

You can only choose one because that's all you can afford. The problem is most people don't want to think of human life in terms of dollars but it does come down to that. Would you murder the 93 year old woman or would you murder the 1,000 children. (BTW, my mother is 93 years old and I love her dearly but I would opt for saving the children.)

You pose the same irrational dilemma that leftists always pose. What if you were the one who needed a stent placed in what is commonly called your heart but the cost would allow Obama's brother to live like a king for another 40 years [I believe he makes a dollar a month.]. Which would you choose?

 

[OldRegular]

You don't know my church very well then. Don't compare you and your liberals buddies that don't help anyone (and expect the gov't to do it) to me and my church. As a church we help many poor and needy people all the time. As an individual I do the same. Guess what...I'd do even more if the government didn't steal so much of my hard earned money.

Oh, btw, hi JustChristian!

Wade

After reading the above post I realize I over reacted to your response to donnA.