"death panels" obamacare

[coadie]

Originally Posted by simplyme

AMEN!..plus its not really even Constitutional for the gov't to take
money from our wages, {don't ask why/how I have some research some
where about this, can't remember all the facts presently, I've got
to reread it}!!!!
How the gov't gets away with sooo much is beyond me
It certainly is no longer a semblance of "by the people, for the people"
perhaps not even OF "the people"..some other DARK prescence is
behind all the deceit., and no its not "conspiracy" stuff either,
(lest someone thinks or says this) I haven't read any but two posts
of this thread so far., ain't got time to read 'em all at this time.
WAKE UP AMERICA!

IRs 17,000 pages of Tax code. Here "code" is substituted for "law".

[Esther]

WHISTLEBLOWER MAGAZINE
MEDICAL MURDER
Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers

2009 WorldNetDaily

Imagine lying in some government-run hospital, hospice or nursing home many years from now. Imagine languishing unattended for days in soiled sheets, suffering from hunger and thirst, covered with bed sores, your flesh aboil with untreated infections. Imagine living in fear of resentful, underpaid health aides who take out their anger on you and abuse you. And imagine spending your final moments on earth in the company of a government health care worker with a syringe, who injects you with a lethal cocktail.

Do you find this hard to imagine? You should. In any civilized country, such things should not happen – ever. But President Obama’s health care proposals have the very real potential to turn this nightmare into a reality for many Americans, according to an in-depth investigation reported in the August edition of Whistleblower magazine, titled "MEDICAL MURDER: Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers."

Especially vulnerable are the 80 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964. "If you belong to that group, take note," says Richard Poe, author of the August cover story. "Your generation has been targeted for a program of age-based medical rationing such as our country has never before experienced."

Adds Whistleblower Editor David Kupelian, "If this dire end-of-life scenario sounds too awful to be possible, that is only because the reality of Obamacare has not been sufficiently reported. For this is not a fantasy – it is what is already occurring in other 'civilized' nations, including Canada and Britain, that have adopted the same government-run system."

For instance, the cover story, "Medical Murder," documents how British seniors, under a government-run system, "are routinely denied treatment for cancer, heart disease and other deadly illnesses," many dying "in filthy, overcrowded hospitals or nursing homes, rife with pestilence, including the deadly, antibiotic-resistant superbugs." Numerous horror stories of needed medical care intentionally denied reveal the stark reality of government-run health care worldwide.

To a small degree, Obamacare's ominous implications are starting to leak out. Here's how columnist Charlotte Allen explained it recently in the Los Angeles Times:

In looking for a way to fund healthcare, Obama has set his eye on the oldest and sickest. You see, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, about 30 percent of Medicare spending – nearly $100 billion annually – goes to care for patients during their last year of life. What if there were no 'last year of life,' the president seems to be asking. ... [W]hy not save billions of dollars by killing off our own unproductive oldsters and terminal patients, or – since we aren't likely to do that outright in this, the 21st century – why not simply ensure that they die faster by denying them costly medical care? The savings could then subsidize care for the younger and healthier.

And for those who have been paying close attention, Obama himself has ever-so-gently hinted at his true intentions. At a town hall event in June televised by ABC News, Obama cited the case of his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who died on the eve of his election, suggesting one way to cut medical costs would be to stop expensive procedures on people about to die.

Families, Obama said, need better information so they don't approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."

"Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," the president offered.

Obama was slightly more explicit in a May 3 interview with the New York Times, when he said there ought to be a national "conversation" over whether "sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else's aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they're terminally ill is a sustainable model." Such decisions, added Obama, shouldn't be left to patients or their relatives, but to a "group" of "doctors, scientists, ethicists" who are not part of "normal political channels."

[Esther]

Moreover, as "MEDICAL MURDER" reports, a bill being pushed hard by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health Care, will take from Congress all authority over federal health spending and decree that such decisions in the future would be made by a secretive committee of "experts" modeled after – are you ready? – the Federal Reserve Board.

You sure aren't hearing this from the media.

[coadie]

"death Panel" When a patient is on a ventilator and feeding tube, someone decides to unplug life support. In the case of the new bill, it will be influenced elswhere. It is not quit correct to put the authority in the hands of a single person so they call it a panel.
"advanced care Planning associates" will work with other people and a life or death decision will be carried out. The deception is in the name. The deception is in who makes the decesion. the deception is in who tells the patient the decision can't be over ridden from the patient end.
The key for successfull detrimental manipulation is to declare that it was the patients idea and for the good of the suffering patient. Manipulate the patient to have them say they want to end it. After these killings, people have the audacity to say that is what the patient wanted.

[Light]

Originally Posted by coadie

"death Panel" When a patient is on a ventilator and feeding tube, someone decides to unplug life support. In the case of the new bill, it will be influenced elswhere. It is not quit correct to put the authority in the hands of a single person so they call it a panel.
"advanced care Planning associates" will work with other people and a life or death decision will be carried out. The deception is in the name. The deception is in who makes the decesion. the deception is in who tells the patient the decision can't be over ridden from the patient end.
The key for successfull detrimental manipulation is to declare that it was the patients idea and for the good of the suffering patient. Manipulate the patient to have them say they want to end it. After these killings, people have the audacity to say that is what the patient wanted.

You never stop with the false hoods do you? You make it up and Esther prints emails that she refuses to check for accuracy, and most are false. What a team you two make.

[n david]

We'll begin on page 5 of this New York Times interview (4/14/09) with President nObama

Now, I actually think that the tougher issue around medical care — it’s a related one — is what you do around things like end-of-life care —

NYT: Yes, where it’s $20,000 for an extra week of life.

THE PRESIDENT: Exactly. And I just recently went through this. I mean, I’ve told this story, maybe not publicly, but when my grandmother got very ill during the campaign, she got cancer; it was determined to be terminal. And about two or three weeks after her diagnosis she fell, broke her hip. It was determined that she might have had a mild stroke, which is what had precipitated the fall.

So now she’s in the hospital, and the doctor says, Look, you’ve got about — maybe you have three months, maybe you have six months, maybe you have nine months to live. Because of the weakness of your heart, if you have an operation on your hip there are certain risks that — you know, your heart can’t take it. On the other hand, if you just sit there with your hip like this, you’re just going to waste away and your quality of life will be terrible.

And she elected to get the hip replacement and was fine for about two weeks after the hip replacement, and then suddenly just — you know, things fell apart.

I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting.

NYT: And it’s going to be hard for people who don’t have the option of paying for it.

THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

NYT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

Source

Note to the not-so-bright-Light ... this isn't an email, click on the source and read for yourself ... better yet, read the bill itself instead of whining and accusing people of lying about it. Some have read portions of the bill - and most of what's being reported IS in the bill.

[Light]

Originally Posted by n david

We'll begin on page 5 of this New York Times interview (4/14/09) with President nObama



Source

Note to the not-so-bright-Light ... this isn't an email, click on the source and read for yourself ... better yet, read the bill itself instead of whining and accusing people of lying about it. Some have read portions of the bill - and most of what's being reported IS in the bill.

I have read the bill and have even posted portions of it to prove that some claiming to be Christians are lying. The lies were posted in red.

[MikeinAR]

Originally Posted by Light

I have read the bill and have even posted portions of it to prove that some claiming to be Christians are lying. The lies were posted in red.

They obviously haven't even read the bill. The bill clearly BLOCKS FUNDING for any counseling by a doctor or anyone else concerning sucidie or physician assisted suicide.

Why don't some of you read the bill before you talk about things you don't understand.

[n david]

Originally Posted by MikeinAR

They obviously haven't even read the bill. The bill clearly BLOCKS FUNDING for any counseling by a doctor or anyone else concerning sucidie or physician assisted suicide.

Why don't some of you read the bill before you talk about things you don't understand.

The interview I posted isn't about physician assisted suicide, Mike. There's a difference between what you're speaking of and what BHO is speaking of here. Read the statement again ... what IS the issue is that under his socialized healthcare, BHO's own grandmother may not have rec'd her hip replacement to improve quality of her life - just because she was soon to die.

That's the issue. Under BHO's plan there may well not be PAS (technically) ... instead he'll let the terminal patients rot away and die with no quality of life care.

But I digress ... Mike wears BHO undies, sleeps in "Yes We Can" sheets and drinks BHO koolaide (the red stuff) by the gallon. And Light ... well, he just hates anyone conservative or Republican...

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Twisp

I wish someone could show proof of these death panels. Everyone says this but no one can show where it is the case in his health care bill.

There are no death panels IN the bill. The blog link that coadie provided clarified that point. Here it is again: http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.co...ath-panel.html

The blog includes an iPaper file of the entire article by Dr. Emanuel, Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions, which is a chilling little read.

If the critics, who hold themselves in the highest of intellectual esteem, had bothered to do something other than react, they would have realized that the approach to health care to which Palin was referring was none other than that espoused by key Obama health care adviser Dr. Ezekial Emanuel (brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel).


From the blog:

"The next question is, whether Dr. Emanuel's proposal bears any connection to current Democratic proposals. There is no single Democratic proposal at this point, only a series of proposals and concepts. To that extent, Palin's comments properly are viewed as a warning shot not to move to Dr. Emanuel's concept of health care rationing based on societal worth, rather than a critique of a specific bill ready for vote."


"Certainly, no Democrat is proposing a "death panel," or withholding care to the young or infirm. To say such a thing would be political suicide.

But one interesting concept which is central to the concepts being discussed is the creation of a panel of "experts" to make the politically unpopular decisions on allocating health care resources. In a letter to the Senate, Barack Obama expressed support for such a commission:"

I am committed to working with the Congress to fully offset the cost of health care reform by reducing Medicare and Medicaid spending by another $200 to $300 billion over the next 10 years, and by enacting appropriate proposals to generate additional revenues. These savings will come not only by adopting new technologies and addressing the vastly different costs of care, but from going after the key drivers of skyrocketing health care costs, including unmanaged chronic diseases, duplicated tests, and unnecessary hospital readmissions.

To identify and achieve additional savings, I am also open to your ideas about giving special consideration to the recommendations of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), a commission created by a Republican Congress. Under this approach, MedPAC's recommendations on cost reductions would be adopted unless opposed by a joint resolution of the Congress. This is similar to a process that has been used effectively by a commission charged with closing military bases, and could be a valuable tool to help achieve health care reform in a fiscally responsible way."--B.O.




Palin's comment:

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society’ whether they are worthy of health care.”

Technically, Palin did not say that the health care reform bill contains "death panels", but was rather a statement against an overall mindset, which DOES have close connections with the white house and with those who are in charge of writing this bill.

However, I agree with the blogger--it would be political suicide for any Democrat to approve such an extreme measure, and as of yet, the health reform bill has nothing in it that resembles a "death panel." It is obvious, though, that on principle, Obama, his cronies and other Dems do support such committees, and the philosophy that people should be treated according to their overall value to society, and with their actual life expectancy in mind. (As opposed to a maximized, ideal number.)