Let's discuss this "Death Panel" idea

[Wild Cobra]

They took out the specifics because old people were being told by liars they were going to be killed.

I see you haven't read any of it. It is covered with statements saying specifics will be determined later.

[ChumpDumper]

I read plenty of it. There is no indication they want to kill everyone.

[Wild Cobra]

I read plenty of it. There is no indication they want to kill everyone.

I didn't say that fool.

[ChumpDumper]

Sure you did. You said they are just waiting for the chance to kill more and more people. You said that is their eventual goal.

[Wild Cobra]

Sure you did. You said they are just waiting for the chance to kill more and more people.

Please direct me to the specific post. I must have multiple personalities if that's true.

I wish a moderator would ban you if you cannot produce evidence of your slander against me.

[ChumpDumper]

There must be something to it. The senate version of the bill is having it removed. Should I say the previsions that allow it. Those previsions don't name one, but it would be the natural extension, since it's not excluded. You see, the Death Panel will be a reality some how. Rationing will have to occur, and it will be done by government bureaucrats. They will ultimately make life/death decisions for people, or the costs will absolutely go into run-away mode.

You're welcome.

Do you want the correct definition of the word slander next so you don't look like such an idiot every time you use that too?

[Wild Cobra]

You're welcome.

Do you want the correct definition of the word slander next so you don't look like such an idiot every time you use that too?

My God... You are more moronic than I thought. That statement does not reflect "just waiting for the chance to kill more and more people."

[LnGrrrR]

It seems like the vast majority of seniors are either A) idiotic, because they think they'll never die unless the government somehow runs their health insurance or B) idiotic, because they think the government is going to spend billions on experimental end-of-life costs.

The only reason they might be taking it out (the end of life counseling provision) is because lots of old people are obviously stupid as .

[ChumpDumper]

My God... You are more moronic than I thought. That statement does not reflect "just waiting for the chance to kill more and more people."

My God....Of course it does.

[Yonivore]

It seems like the vast majority of seniors are either A) idiotic, because they think they'll never die unless the government somehow runs their health insurance or B) idiotic, because they think the government is going to spend billions on experimental end-of-life costs.

The only reason they might be taking it out (the end of life counseling provision) is because lots of old people are obviously stupid as .

This is from a proponent of socialized medicine so, see if the argument makes more sense to you now, LnGrrrR:

Obama's Euthanasia Mistake

Make no mistake about it. Determining which treatments are “cost effective” at the end of a person’s life and which are not is one of Obama’s priorities. It’s one of the principal ways he counts on saving money and making universal healthcare affordable.

[boutons_deux]

Magic Negro is not promoting euthanasia. The just Yoni and right-wing-nut red-herring bull slime.

The bill pays for voluntary, periodic end-of-life counseling, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, it might save a few $100M/year if people had official "do not resuscitate/no artificial or forced sustenance" papers.

But the health-care sytems knows there's $Bs to be made in end-of-life care.

Hospitals and docs love to suck every last $$$ of the dying/terminal bodies. It's their business.

As their motto goes, "Above All, Do Not Stop Billing"

[Marcus Bryant]

So there won't be "death panels" but the likelihood that certain care will not be provided as one ages will increase under the proposed system. That is a substantive issue, but please continue on with the circle jerk about whether or not such panels were proposed.

[Yonivore]

The bill [makes mandatory] voluntary, periodic end-of-life counseling [during which patients may be pressured to opt for less expensive palliative care rather than aggressive curative procedures].

It requires them after a certain age and increases their frequency after certain diagnoses.

[Yonivore]

So there won't be "death panels" but the likelihood that certain care will not be provided as one ages will increase under the proposed system. That is a substantive issue, but please continue on with the circle jerk about whether or not such panels were proposed.

I think without the "death panel," the bill is definitely unsustainable. The last six months of anyone's life is the most expensive medically. If they can't control spending in that area, and this "death panel" was the answer to that, this whole fiasco is sunk...thankfully.

[Marcus Bryant]

So there'll be a death formula instead of a death panel.

Also, it's interesting that this proposed increase in federal government intervention in health insurance is being proposed in part because of the exploding costs in the current federal insurance program. But, yeah, they'll get it right this time. Honest.

[Yonivore]

So there'll be a death formula instead of a death panel.

Also, it's interesting that this proposed increase in federal government intervention in health insurance is being proposed in part because of the exploding costs in the current federal insurance program. But, yeah, they'll get it right this time. Honest.

Like I've said, when they fix the fraud, waste, and incompetence in the Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans Administration Health Care systems, they can start monkeying with my health care system.

[Yonivore]

Still relevant after all these years.

[LnGrrrR]

Honestly, anyone with half a brain would figure out the government would have to terminate treatment eventually. If people would want to spend more than the government is willing to, they could fork out the cash themselves.

I mean, this already happens NOW, except you take out the idea of government covering ANYTHING, and you just foot all the bills yourself through your insurance.

[Yonivore]

Honestly, anyone with half a brain would figure out the government would have to terminate treatment eventually. If people would want to spend more than the government is willing to, they could fork out the cash themselves.

I mean, this already happens NOW, except you take out the idea of government covering ANYTHING, and you just foot all the bills yourself through your insurance.

But, it's not a negotiation in which I wish the government to be involved.

[LnGrrrR]

But, it's not a negotiation in which I wish the government to be involved.

Understandable, but it would make more sense for people who don't have a choice for health insurance (ie. poor people) to get SOME counseling about what the government will and will not pay for.

Watch, the first few old people that get the plug pulled, their families will all say, "BUT WE DIDN"T KNOW!!!!! WHY WEREN'T WE COUNSELED ON THIS!!! WE WANT TO SUE FOR MONEY!!!"... because lots of people are stupid.

[Yonivore]

Understandable, but it would make more sense for people who don't have a choice for health insurance (ie. poor people) to get SOME counseling about what the government will and will not pay for.

Watch, the first few old people that get the plug pulled, their families will all say, "BUT WE DIDN"T KNOW!!!!! WHY WEREN'T WE COUNSELED ON THIS!!! WE WANT TO SUE FOR MONEY!!!"... because lots of people are stupid.

I'm in favor of laws that prevent the cessation of life-saving or life-sustaining medical care due to an inability to pay.

I think we already have them.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm in favor of laws that prevent the cessation of life-saving or life-sustaining medical care due to an inability to pay.

I think we already have them.

How is that a libertarian ideal?

I mean, if they can't pay, why should hospitals be forced to use their own equipment to keep them alive?

[Yonivore]

How is that a libertarian ideal?

It might not be. I'm sure I could spend time justifying it but, given how convoluted our society has become, there's quite a bit I'm willing to bend on that may fly in the face of pure libertarianism.

I mean, if they can't pay, why should hospitals be forced to use their own equipment to keep them alive?

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is the reams of laws that prevent, deter, or discourage medical charity...or, all charity, in fact.

That's a good discussion, though.

[Wild Cobra]

Honestly, anyone with half a brain would figure out the government would have to terminate treatment eventually. If people would want to spend more than the government is willing to, they could fork out the cash themselves.

I mean, this already happens NOW, except you take out the idea of government covering ANYTHING, and you just foot all the bills yourself through your insurance.

Except we have a choice of policies rather than government mandating what the policies have. As for paying out of pocket, if that is my choice, then you for wanting to see me taxed that extra 8%.

If you are a patriot, you would not advocate a program that takes away my healthcare rights!

[LnGrrrR]

It might not be. I'm sure I could spend time justifying it but, given how convoluted our society has become, there's quite a bit I'm willing to bend on that may fly in the face of pure libertarianism.


Well, the first thing that comes to mind is the reams of laws that prevent, deter, or discourage medical charity...or, all charity, in fact.

That's a good discussion, though.

Fair enough.