Amy Sullivan does a little research.
"The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning." The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.
So either Republicans were for death panels in 2003 before turning against them now--or they're lying about end-of-life counseling in order to frighten the bejeezus out of their fellow citizens and defeat health reform by any means necessary. Which is it, Mr. Grassley ("Yea," 2003)?
11 comments:
"Republicans" weren't "for" it, one senator was. Still, I am utterly against the U.S. government having ANYTHING to do with death planning no matter WHO was for it. A government has no right getting involved in planning people's deaths. It WILL end up as euthanasia. In fact, there is no way to prevent that eventuality except keeping government out of it entirely.
And yet you are for laws against abortion.
Oh and one senator PLUS the 42 GOP senators who voted for it, and the 204 GOP congressmen.
Healthy people do not have high health costs.
Unhealthy people DO have higher health care costs.
Older people become more unhealthy as they get older. Fact of life.
If healthy people do not typically have high health care costs, where are the all these major cuts in health care costs going to come from?
Guess where? From rationing and reducing and end of life mandates for older, unhealthy people.
So if the health care bill doesn't pass, would you be in favor of killing Medicare? After all, that program is exclusively tailored toward unhealthy older people.
Wow, is he the only politician that has changed their tune over the last few years?
http://www.breitbart.tv/06-flashback-pelosi-tells-anti-war-protesters-im-a-fan-of-disruptors/
So is the Speaker in favor of disruptions and debate, or against them?
Hahahah! That's a funny attempt to avoid the question!
U.S. healthcare costs 2 x's as much as any other country, so we HAVE to get that in line, right? Be moe like other countries and get that spending UNDER control!
Then what is your opinion on these, please?
The U.S. spends 4 x's more than any other country on our public school system - let's cut that back, to be more in line with the World.
The U.S. spends 5.334 x's more than any other country on welfare programs - let's cut that back, to be more in line with the World.
Why stop at healthcare, if we are to be like the rest of the World, as BO is trying & lying to force us to be in healthcare?
See I'm willing to go along with this bill IF it does bring down costs. I hope it does, and once it emerges from committee -- well I have my doubts but my fingers are crossed.
However, I don't feel the need to claim that it will result in eugenics in order to oppose it. And I wonder why you people do, because you either are lying now or you've actually been for eugenics all along. Now you're fighting passionately for the right of insurance companies to pull the plug while simultaneously fighting against the right of individuals to do so. That's creeping me out.
Yes, I AM against laws for abortion. My position is consistent. I am against the government setting up rules for KILLING innocent citizens!
The real question is, why are you OK with government killing babies and old people?
That's one of those "when did you stop beating your wife" questions. The answer? The government isn't deciding in either case. Why do want to hand it so much power?
Post a Comment