MANDATORY health insurance

[diamond]

I have a friend that I met 30 yrs ago when we served as missionaries in Michigan.

He's did very well with his life and has adopted many children, some with special needs.

2 of his special needs kids have died recently of Cancer, he's had to deal with "end of life" counseling.

He's against having the govt decide who shall live or die.

Below is a link to his blog about it:

Chromosomes, Cancer & Kids: Death Panels & Toxic Pee

 

[martha]

he's had to deal with "end of life" counseling.

Is that anything like the counseling pregnant women are forced to endure when they want an abortion?

 

[BVS]

He's against having the govt decide who shall live or die.

So is he for the "free market" deciding who shall live or die? Who does he support making these decisions?

 

[VintagePunk]

He's against having the govt decide who shall live or die.

First, my condolences to your friend and his family.

Does he honestly think that if Obama's plan goes through that those cases would have had a different outcome? Does he think that there would have been some Big Brother-like government official sitting in on the discussions with the physicians, dictating what would or wouldn't happen with treatment?

I'd like to think that cases like this are simply naivety rather than willful partisan stupidity, but I'm not so sure.

 

[diamond]

First, my condolences to your friend and his family.

Does he honestly think that if Obama's plan goes through that those cases would have had a different outcome? Does he think that there would have been some Big Brother-like government official sitting in on the discussions with the physicians, dictating what would or wouldn't happen with treatment?

I'd like to think that cases like this are simply naivety rather than willful partisan stupidity, but I'm not so sure.

Yes, and he's a wealthy, intelligent, successful individual.

I think the way it's headed that the 'end of life panels' would look at his special needs kids as less than productive citizens and deny them treatment to extend their lives.

At least under his current insurance, he had a choice-and made the ultimate decision on what to do.

<>

 

[VintagePunk]

Yes, and he's a wealthy, intelligent, successful individual.

I think the way it's headed that the 'end of life panels' would look at his special needs kids as unproductive citizens and deny them treatment to extend their lives.

At least under his current insurance, he had a choice-and made the ultimate decision on what to do.

<>

My answers to this are 1) if he thinks that, he's not nearly as intelligent as you give him credit for; and 2) you're simply wrong, period.

 

[diamond]

So is he for the "free market" deciding who shall live or die? Who does he support making these decisions?

No, if you read the blog, he was allowed to make the final decision.

<>

 

[diamond]

My answers to this are 1) if he thinks that, he's not nearly as intelligent as you give him credit for; and 2) you're simply wrong, period.

Well, if:
death panels, end of life counselling are not in the bill:

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

then I'm sure that the Administration will *happily* clear that up.

If it is in the bill, that's another reason it will not pass- and have to be changed.

Americans won't idly stand by and have something rammed down their throats.

Each day this bum is in office the less he is trusted.

<>

 

[martha]

You're usually a little on the gullible side, diamond, so I think you might want to wait this one out, too, to see what's really going on.

 

[diamond]

You're usually a little on the gullible side, diamond, .

Yep, and thankfully the majority of Americans are not.

<>

 

[No spoken words]

Yep, and thankfully the majority of Americans are not.

<>

Except this past November, obviously.

 

[diamond]

Except this past November, obviously.

Given the choices, Senator O was the only choice.

That said he has since squandered what he lucked in to.

<>

 

[BVS]

No, if you read the blog, he was allowed to make the final decision.

<>

Then I have to say you and your "friend" truly do not understand the bill or the current state of insurance.

You've been sold a lie about "death panels" and you bought it.

As a salesman you should feel a little embarassed.

 

[VintagePunk]

Well, if:
death panels, end of life counselling are not in the bill:

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

then I'm sure that the Administration will *happily* clear that up.

If it is in the bill, that's another reason it will not pass- and have to be changed.

Americans won't idly stand by and have something rammed down their throats.

Each day this bum is in office the less he is trusted.

<>

Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200 | FactCheck.org

Claim: Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
Claim: Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
Claim: Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death
Claim: Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
Claim: Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient’s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
Claim: Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.

All False. These six claims are a twisted interpretation of a provision in the bill that says Medicare will cover voluntary counseling sessions between seniors and their doctors to discuss end-of-life care. Medicare doesn’t pay for such sessions now; it would under the bill. End-of-life care discussions include talking about a living will, hospice care, designating a health care proxy and making decisions on what care you want to receive at the end of your life. Doctors do the consulting, not the "government" or a "bureaucracy." The e-mail author’s assertion that the bill calls for "an ORDER from the GOVERNMENT" for end-of-life plans rests on language about a patient drawing up such an order stipulating their wishes, and having that order signed by a physician. There’s nothing about "an order from the government." The bill defines an order for life-sustaining treatment as a document that "is signed and dated by a physician …[and] effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment." See our article "False Euthanasia Claims" for more on such assertions.

 

[diamond]

No sale.

 

[anitram]

Actual consumer protection reform regarding pre-existing conditions, portability and coverage weaseling is badly needed. But so too is reform of the mandates that limit the types of coverage that companies can offer.

I feel that you haven't really said anything here that is concrete or that I can make sense of.

Are you in favour of prohibiting private insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition?

 

[martha]

No sale.

Why let facts interfere with a good bout of paranoia?

 

[VintagePunk]

Why let facts interfere with a good bout of paranoia?

I'm seriously losing patience with stupid people.

 

[martha]

I'm seriously losing patience with stupid people.

Especially stubborn ones.

 

[anitram]

I'm seriously losing patience with stupid people.

Liberal left-coast elitism at its best.

 

[martha]

Liberal left-coast elitism at its best.

You forgot to add socialist/fascist.

 

[No spoken words]

I'm seriously losing patience with stupid people.

Why??? I'm sure he took the time to read all of your post and subsequently gave it careful consideration.

 

[diamond]

Why let facts interfere with a good bout of paranoia?

Name calling and labeling aside..

Since the proposed policy wouldn't go into effect until the year 2013, you wouldn't have any problem with a methodical honest non partisan approach in reviewing the policy I hope.

I don't trust the the data that people readily post with a quick Google search, claiming the data is without bias.

Let's take it slow and go over the details, fair enough?

<>

 

[martha]

you wouldn't have any problem with a methodical honest non partisan approach in reviewing the policy I hope.
Let's take it slow and go over the details, fair enough?

Yeah. That's what you're doing right now.

I don't think you're at all capable of such an approach. You believe everything the emails tell you.

 

[BVS]

Name calling and labeling aside..

Since the proposed policy wouldn't go into effect until the year 2013, you wouldn't have any problem with a methodical honest non partisan approach in reviewing the policy I hope.

I don't trust the the data that people readily post with a quick Google search, claiming the data is without bias.

Let's take it slow and go over the details, fair enough?

<>

But the data of one man's blog you do trust?

 

[BVS]

Are you in favour of prohibiting private insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition?

If he doesn't he's a hypocrite. They won't admit it. Come on, this question has been asked of several posters since page 3, not one has answered honestly.

 

[diamond]

Yeah. That's what you're doing right now.

I don't think you're at all capable of such an approach. You believe everything the emails tell you.

Again, notice your tone.

We're doing it only because a certain group demanded that we do so, much to the chagrin of the authors and supporters of the proposed bill.

It's not like the authors willingly came forward.. with information-certain people demanded that they do so.


<>

 

[diamond]

But the data of one man's blog you do trust?

i know the man's integrity, and trust his first hand knowledge of the described events.

 

[BVS]

We're doing it only because a certain group demanded that we do so, much to the chagrin of the authors and supporters of the proposed bill.

Shouldn't it tell you something when the opposition is constantly regarded as being uninformed? Even Glenn Beck himself admitted the opposition is uninformed by doing a "how to debate" show. This speaks volumes.

 

[martha]

Again, notice your tone.

I'm well aware of my tone. I'm sick of your self-righteous crap. You believe anything anyone tells you, as long as they share the same faith or politics as you. No matter what they say, you'll believe them until they tell you otherwise. You have the same pattern for everything, so it's a little difficult to deal with your tone.