To re-post what somewhat put up earlier:

Check out this exchange with David Leonhardt of the Times in May.

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.

DAVID LEONHARDT: 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.

Hmmmm.... "Chronically ill", "toward the end of life", "Ethicists", "Doctors", "Scientists", "Difficult conversations", "independent group that can give you guidance";
sure sounds like a 'death panel'. And if not, why bring it up when talking about 'cost reductions'? Or is it just that Barry doesn't want to piss off the trial lawyers?

I strongly suggest you make time to read them both.

Why? (A) they were written by Democrats + (B) Democrats proposals are destructive = (C) no chance I'm going to like what the bills contain.

How can you tell DJ is lying? His fingers are on a keyboard.

Yes, you read that right. By law, anyone over 65 would have to be advised at least once every five years about the 'benefits' of ending their life.

Consulting with a doctor, voluntarily, about what options you have should you become unable to make decisions for yourself, and getting advice for putting those decisions into a living will, is not encouragement to end your life, you lying scumbag. Do you know what palliative care means? Do you know how hard it is for family members to make medical decisions when they don't know the desires of those who can no longer make decisions for themselves?

Yes, you read that right. By law, anyone over 65 would have to be advised at least once every five years about the 'benefits' of ending their life.

Liar. It's voluntary. It will be paid for once every 5 years. Patients can consult with their doctor more frequently, or not at all.

So just who makes that all-important life-or-death decision? Well, the patient is allowed the decision, but only when "guided by a...

Liar. Let's look at the whole section, shall we?

''(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that-- ''(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State; ''(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment; ''(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and ''(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.

The bill is talking about a "A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a State," which is to say a standard by which such orders can be understood and followed by health care professionals. The coalition of stakeholders is involved in guiding the program, they are not at all involved with making or guiding patients individual decisions, which would only be made voluntarily in consultation with a physician and a lawyer.

The bill also says the patient may be advised about the end-of-life option "more frequently" (and it seems, more aggressively) "if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program." [ Sec. 1233 (iii)(3)(B) ]

All that means is that if a patient's condition changes, they can seek a consultation and it will be paid for, instead of only once every 5 years. Again, these are voluntary consultations. There is no requirement.

By the way, according to that definition, my doctors - by law - would be required to 'consult' with me about killing myself, since my cancer is incurable.

Liar. By that definition you can consult with your doctor about your options for forming your own orders regarding life sustaining treatment should your condition deteriorate. The doctor is not required, nor are you, to have this consultation. And it has nothing to do with "killing yourself," but about what measures you want performed should you be unable to make those decisions in the future.

I assume the rest of what you wrote are lies too, but I don't have the time to got through them all.

I hope next year a lot of liberal demacratic heads roll

mantis - "Do you know how hard it is for family members to make medical decisions when they don't know the desires of those who can no longer make decisions for themselves?"

Everyone with a different point of view or interpretation of something is always a liar in your eyes aren't they mantis?

At one time, I'm guessing about 2 years ago, you would offer a different point of view without all the childish invective, what happened?

Anyway, to paraphrase you:

"Do you know how hard it is for family members to make medical decisions when they don't know the desires of those who can no longer make decisions for themselves" and how so much harder it would be for some bureaucratic bean counter with ZERO knowledge of the patient or their family to make said decisions?

That aside, that seems to be a valid argument for educating the public on living will issues and not a complete overhaul of a system.

Everyone with a different point of view or interpretation of something is always a liar in your eyes aren't they mantis?

No, people who blatantly lie about facts, as DJ is doing here, are liars. This is not about point of view or interpretation, it's about what the bill does or does not say.

and how so much harder it would be for some bureaucratic bean counter with ZERO knowledge of the patient or their family to make said decisions?

Who cares? No one is proposing that.

That aside, that seems to be a valid argument for educating the public on living will issues and not a complete overhaul of a system.

Indeed, and no one is claiming that is the reason for an overhaul of our health care system. There are many, many reasons for that, though.

DJ, I read it. Mantis, though provocative, is basically right. However, the structures and economics in both proposals also make it possible for the things you fear to happen. They just are not part of the verbiage you are quoting in the bills.

You mean if this bill happens to go into effect? Ted Kennedy, Arlene Specter and Robert Byrd along with 50 other senators will need to be euthanised? They should be made to have this coverage, its only fair.

The problem with the medical database mandataed by 2014? there is not enough hard drive space in existence to handle the data requirements.

And even if there was, you will need to break it down into regional data centers, each staffed 24x7. Talk about creating jobs! Excpet that they won't because they didn't allocate enough money into that bill to even begin to build such a database.

Mantis,
You are going to be first in line for all
of this government induced volunteerism, right?
This nation has lasted 233 years without the
intrusion of the federal government in such
personal decisions. We don't need this intrusion today.
I don't want YOU, any bean counter, or other
stranger invading my PRIVATE life, now or ever.
One way of dealing with this effort of control
over the most intimate parts of each individuals life, if this bill is passed, is
to refuse to sign on the dotted line.
Passive resistance.

Ok, let's continue with DJ's lies, shall we?

That same Act requires medical care providers receiving federal funds must "consult and consider the recommendations" of any health care provider, agency, school, or other "entity" specificied by the Secretary of HHS as a "qualified State-designated entity" when providing diagnosis or care for any patient. [ Sec. 3013,(5),(g) ]

Liar. Let's look at the section you quote:

"(g) Required Consultation.--In carrying out activities described in subsections (b) and (c), a State or qualified State-designated entity shall consult with and consider the recommendations of--

"(1) health care providers (including providers that provide services to low income and underserved populations);
"(2) health plans;
"(3) patient or consumer organizations that represent the population to be served;
"(4) health information technology vendors;
"(5) health care purchasers and employers;
"(6) public health agencies;
"(7) health professions schools, universities and colleges;
"(8) clinical researchers;
"(9) other users of health information technology such as the support and clerical staff of providers and others involved in the care and care coordination of patients; and
"(10) such other entities, as may be determined appropriate by the Secretary.

A "State or qualified State-designated entity shall consult with and consider the recommendations." That doesn't sound like a medical care provider to me, as you claim. But let's just look at the activities in subsections (b) and (c), to which this provision applies:

"(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the National Coordinator, shall establish a program in accordance with this section to facilitate and expand the electronic movement and use of health information among organizations according to nationally recognized standards. "(b) Planning Grants.--The Secretary may award a grant to a State or qualified State-designated entity (as described in subsection (f)) that submits an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may specify, for the purpose of planning activities described in subsection (d). "(c) Implementation Grants.--The Secretary may award a grant to a State or qualified State designated entity that--

"(1) has submitted, and the Secretary has approved, a plan described in subsection (e) (regardless of whether such plan was prepared using amounts awarded under subsection (b); and
"(2) submits an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may specify.

Would you look at that. This section has nothing to do with doctors' diagnosing patients or providing care, as you claim, but to do with granting money for studies to improve health information technology in the various States. What. A. Surprise.

The only appropriate response to your blatant lies about these bills is anger and resistance, as your only purpose is to cravenly mislead people into thinking their government is out to kill them. Have you no shame?

Storage is cheap, Mycroft. All they need is room for your social security number, your birth date, and your expiration date, which will most likely be 70 years after your birth date. Expiration date hits, and the government throws you one killer of a party... and they'll even clean up afterwards.

You are going to be first in line for all
of this government induced volunteerism, right?

I'd be happy to meet with my doctor in consultation about creating a living will. I've been meaning to do that anyway.

This nation has lasted 233 years without the
intrusion of the federal government in such
personal decisions.

And no one is proposing it now.

The real question is, why are you so willing to believe lies you're being told without looking into it yourself?

Ummm...did you actually read this stuff, DJ? Or just skim it? There's plenty to worry about in these bills without worrying about the stuff that doesn't say what you think it says.

And I suppose the fuhrer will have no hand in changing our D.O.B. If one should happen to contract a catastrophic illness 4 or 5 years before reaching death panel eligibility status? Thus avoiding all those nasty costly nuisance laden hospital bills.

"Bush's backing of digital medical records seen as boost to healthcare"

http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/bushs-backing-digital-medical-records-seen-boost-healthcare

Mantis,
I am reading the bill.

And the standing in line is not about making
a living will, which can be done NOW with out
any federal government intrusion.

When I read the below kind of language, it
shows large loopholes, as well as ambiguity
allowing changes to be slipped in after the
bill is signed into law.

Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?

What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

''(a) TAX IMPOSED.--In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--

(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . ."

There is no opting out if you do not want
any insurance, you're forced to be insured
or be penalized with a tax.
So you are faced with compliance or be
confronted with whatever board is made
to handle this, and the IRS. That is not
freedom, and it is NOT constitutional.

Well, it looks like the Senate is going to drop the end-of-life counseling provision, so liars like DJ may have been successful. If so, what will their success be? Medicare won't pay for patients to consult with doctors about planning their own medical decisions should they become incapacitated in the future. Maybe you just want Congress to intervene every time there is a question about a patient's wishes, like they tried to do with Terri Schiavo. Of course you don't want government involved in private medical decisions, except when you do.

And the standing in line is not about making
a living will, which can be done NOW with out
any federal government intrusion.

What "standing in line?" No one said it couldn't be done now. The point of that provision is that medicare will pay for you to speak with your doctor about it. No government intrusion.

What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

This is a separate issue from what DJ or I was talking about, but whatever. Apparently you don't want to talk about the other stuff anymore. Wonder why.

There is no opting out if you do not want
any insurance, you're forced to be insured
or be penalized with a tax.
So you are faced with compliance or be
confronted with whatever board is made
to handle this, and the IRS. That is not
freedom, and it is NOT constitutional.

Let me ask you this: is it constitutional for the state to require you to have auto insurance?

For arguing sake let's say the healthcare bill is written perfectly and everyone really will be happy with it.

Isn't that an enormous job to pull off? And what makes you think the government has the ability to do that? Is it from all the good examples?

Mantis,
Medicare is a government entity.

And you are now attempting to circle jerk
this argument, making it fruitless.
Take your shiny objects and leave.

Well, it looks like the Senate is going to drop the end-of-life counseling provision, so liars like DJ may have been successful.

Yeah, mantis, the Senate ALWAYS backs off when they're afraid someone is lying about one of their bills. Dump it, RATHER THAN ADDRESS THE CONCERNS.

Go drink your kool aid.

Medicare is a government entity.

And you are now attempting to circle jerk
this argument, making it fruitless.
Take your shiny objects and leave.

What? Do try to make some sense.

Yeah, mantis, the Senate ALWAYS backs off when they're afraid someone is lying about one of their bills. Dump it, RATHER THAN ADDRESS THE CONCERNS.

They are a weak bunch, aren't they? The power of propaganda.

never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/oss-papers/text/oss-profile-03-02.html"

Mantis may be willing to meet with his doctor to talk about end of life/living will or a durable power of attorney, but I'm not. And why would I? That's between me, my wife and our attorney (who is capable of creating just such a document and storing it safely until it's required).

More over, such documents have no place in MY medical file. My wife and our executor know where those documents are, and no physician needs or has access to them.

The day any physician suggests such a conversation with me, is the last day that person will ever see me. None of their damn business. My representatives will be telling them all they need to know when they need to know it. No discussions required, needed, or accepted.

I had to resist the urge to type this whole thing in capitol letters, but you probably already figured out I have strong feeling here on this.

HOWEVER you might look at it, DJ is clearly reading things that are not in the bill. That does not mean it isn't just as scary. There is too much leeway and many of those sections CAN be read that way if one wanted to. Think about how the Supreme Court likes to "Interpret" things and you will see why people are afraid that "end-of-life" options will, in the future, include advice to kill yourself early and save the rest of us money.

This is Greater Good nonsense.

For once I hate it, but I agree with the "libs" we usually flame. DJ went to far in demonizing this bill. BUT...

But surely you can see why having something like this rammed down the throats of the American public without a chance to clarify these issues would upset people? These types of loopholes and fuzzy-wording are what scare the crap out of me.

Instead of saying "Wow, we need to take a step back and listen to the people." The democrats are saying, "Wow, these people are all idiots who just don't know whats good for them."

Americans don't like that.

"never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

You left one out "Never let a good crisis go to waste".

It's all in the playbook on his desk.

P.S. It's none of the Governments damn business either.

Just thought I'd be clear on that as well.

UOG

Mantis,

The Democratic party is now controlled by the hard left. They are making the rules. They are influencing the bill. The left has made its career destroying ethical and moral boundaries. Name your issue. Abortion, euthanasia, sexual experimentation, canablization of fetuses, marry your dog, legalize drug abuse. Now you want us to believe that nothing will come of the extreme goals of the left given such power? Please.

Logic alone dictates that there will be "death panels." To use a less inflammatory term, it is called "rationing." It is inescapable. There will be medical haves and have-nots. Administrators will have to prioritize available care. They will most likely prioritize care based on utilitarian terms (those who "contribute to society" at the front of the line.) Moreover, this "care" is sure to be politicized. With the democrats in control, money will be robbed from people with serious medical issues to pay for abortions, sex changes and other "worthy" social engineering programs. I can hardly wait to see how race plays into it. No care for the evil white guy. Woe to the obese. Leftists cannot help themselves.

Now. Go ahead. Tell me it will be otherwise. Lie.

JustRuss...i disagree regarding DJ "going too far in demonizing this bill". He didn't.

The questions/arguments he raised are EXACTLY the ones that Congress SHOULD have been DEBATING. Instead they sincerely and clearly tried to ram this stinking pile of crap through with ZERO DEBATE.

Even if 100% of this Bill was 100% splendiferous, it should STILL be read and debated before voting!!

Since they were eager that it NOT be read and NOT be debated before voting, I suspect it is NOT "100% splendiferous"

"Since they were eager that it NOT be read and NOT be debated before voting, I suspect it is NOT "100% splendiferous"

Ya mean like that WONDERFUL "Stimulus Bill"? And "Cap and Trade"?

mantis - "(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the National Coordinator, shall establish a program in accordance with this section to facilitate and expand the electronic movement and use of health information among organizations according to nationally recognized standards."

Which "nationally recognized standards"
would those be mantis?

Would it be those that allowed hackers to access the new E-Passport system and clone it?

Would it be the standards used by Heartland Payment Systems that reported last month "malware to have been planted as part of a "global cyber-fraud operation" was discovered" and may have compromised credit card info for 250,000 retailers?

Or the "standards" used when a "hacker breached the Agriculture Department's computer system and may have taken personal information on 26,000 employees, retirees and contractors" a couple years ago?

I doubt you'll see the point though.

MEANWHILE, another reason to be angry:

"U.S. Commission on Civil Rights says some little-noticed provisions in the House health care bill are racially discriminatory, and it intends to ask President Obama and Congress to rewrite sections that factor in race when awarding billions in contracts, scholarships and grants."

maggie-

I read the same section-and if you notice they use the wording-

"without acceptable health care..."

So not only can they tax your income an extra 2.5% it looks like, for not having health insurance but also unacceptable health care coverage...

What constitutes as "unacceptable"?

That is purposefully obfuscated and will probably be a constantly moving goal post which will be amended and amended till-they get the thing they keep promising that this bill isn't...

Single payer health care-a la Canada.

It was all about how great Canadian health care was with Michael Moore propagandizing away until America figured out it wasn't.

Now suddenly that's not what Obama wants at all....

Funny how their "Oh Canada" has changed to "Oh no!..."

mantis,
Strangely, I believe you are trying to understand and support this bill. That said, you are wrong about the "advanced directives" or "living will" part of this bill. As a former nurse, I can assure you no such language as is in this bill, is now a part of mandates for discussing the aforementioned documents. The doctors and I did not need an entire panel of people to discuss these types of issues.
And, what in the world does the IRS have to do with personal healthcare? Yet, they are mentioned several times in this bill.
I have a feeling you were/would have been vehemently opposed to The Patriot Act (I have my own problems with that Act), but you seem too willing to believe this bill is harmless.

Sorry, forgot to mention one thing, mantis. You say that these consultations are voluntary. Did you notice the word "REQUIRED" just before "consultation?"

Government "end of life" counseling will be akin to Planned Parenthood "pregnancy" counseling. Bank on it.

Uh.....lisa - the only one using 'mandatory' was DJ...incorrectly. There's nothing about 'mandatory' in the bill there. The section of the SSA in question is actually only a section of definitions. That's it. Definitions of covered medical services.

Sorry, I hate this thing, but that part isn't what DJ's saying it is. There are lots of other reasons to hate it...cutting treatment funding for nursing facilities, telling insurers they have to give money back if they don't pay out enough (guaranteeing they can't build up reserves to cover a year with heavier than average costs -aka acting like an insurance company), mandating that an insurer can only charge a maximum of 2 times the premium to an elderly person with cancer on oxygen needing a kidney transplant that they charge a 21 year old olympic athlete, and, my least favorite - trial 'medical homes' meant to replace hospitalization and nursing home care for the elderly and disabled where they don't need to have a doctor in charge, have to use 'cost-effective' treatments the government has approved, and, most disturbingly, are targeted not to the least needy people that might benefit from home care and learning how to deal with their conditions - but are specifically targeted to the "high need beneficiaries" described as people like "medically fragile children and high-risk pregnant women".

whoops - my bad - you were talking about the 'required', I was in too big of a hurry - that's an entirely different bill isn't it? Yeah, that one says 'required' but it's about companies that want to get research funding on setting up electronic databases needing to talk to key parties - it has nothing to do with care...not even in the same ballpark. apologies

Hello Vic, where are you?

8/13/09 LA Times headline - Wanted: Obama healthcare reform volunteers willing to be paid $15 an hour

Hello Vic, where are you?

Hi Falze,
No that REQUIRED part is NOT about companies wanting research funding. Sorry.

it appears that some posters forget what country they live in. this is the United States of America. Suicide is illegal. Assisted suicide is illegal. Euthanasia is illegal.

I think that if the Democrats in Congress wanted to kill the lot of us, it would be much easier to label us all threats to national security and have us shot, rather than risking the Supreme Court's wrath with a clearly unconstitutional bill and risking the ire of the public by openly publishing a bill stating their unconstitutional actions. Really, these are politicians with decades of experience. I don't think they are that stupid

it appears that some posters forget what country they live in. this is the United States of America. Suicide is illegal. Assisted suicide is illegal. Euthanasia is illegal.

Er, yeah I am aware - are you?

On October 27, 1997 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act which allows terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose.

The Oregon Death with Dignity Act requires the Oregon Department of Human Services to collect information about the patients and physicians who participate in the Act, and publish an annual statistical report.

Who are the specific individuals that wrote
HR3200.
That is something I want to know.
Why was this bill not sent to comittee to either
be marked up or down.
That is something else I want to know.
Why did the senators not read the whole bill
before rushing to vote it into law.
I want to know this also.

To be clear, I do not allege that congress wants to "kill the lot of us." Only that vulnerable ill people, especially those suffering from depression, may be urged in that direction by "helpful government counselors."

I think some of the posters here should get a wider view on some of the people accusing the federal government of plotting to euthanise the elderly and infirm.

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/08/12/newt-gingrich-changes-whats-left-of-his-mind-on-end-of-life-care/

the people who are stirring up these outlandish claims are doing so to line their pockets and drum up political support. you are being taken advantage of by dishonest people. Please, educate yourself about the debate and make informed decisions

Kenneth -

They've pulled the provisions.

Senators exclude end-of-life provision from bill - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON - Key senators are excluding a provision on end-of-life care from health overhaul legislation after language in a House bill caused a furor.

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.

This 'health care' crap is a hastily built, SLOPPY pile of loosely related ideas and concepts, thrown to the public as a 'progressive' idea that could be implemented quickly and take care of everyone for an affordable cost.

It's not affordable - we're $12 trillion in debt, on course to balloon the deficit by $1.8 trillion this fiscal year, and we're starting to have problems hocking our future earnings on the world market. We cannot afford this, no matter how much we might 'save' in the future. (Just like someone who makes $30k/year cannot afford the payments on a top-of-the-line Lexus LS, even if they manage to 'save' $10k off the MSRP - not if they want to keep a roof over their head and keep the lights on and keep eating regularly...)

It won't be quickly implemented. We're going to need to establish one hell of a large health care bureaucracy. That's going to take time to even spec out, much less hire people and fill it.

And if their idea of 'taking care of everyone' includes provisions that can be 'implemented incorrectly', I'll pass on the 'progress' that represents.

Actually, it is. The government is "required" to consult with relevant groups before or in the process of awarding grants for electronic file issues.

If this passes it will be the object of endless amendments. You can bet that anything taken out now we will be see again. Anything from the leftist candy store missing now will be added later. Don't fall for it.

Who are the specific individuals that wrote
HR3200.
That is something I want to know.

It's a big bill and thus is written by many people.

Why was this bill not sent to comittee to either
be marked up or down.
That is something else I want to know.

It was.

Why did the senators not read the whole bill
before rushing to vote it into law. I want to know this also.

It wasn't voted into law, and it's a House bill, not a Senate bill.

If you have questions about the bill, why don't you just look? It's all right at your fingertips:

Library of Congress: H.R.3200

The link above will tell you the co-sponsors of the bill, the actions taken on it thus far, including committee markup.

Welcome to the internet. Hope you enjoy your stay.

Mantis,
Is your back hurting you yet?

I would respond to your comments such as that above if you bothered to try to make any sense with them, but alas, you do not.

Mantis
Considering you're in a corner with no exit,
stop digging before you throw your back all the
way out.

What the hell are you talking about? I lost my wingnut decoder ring.

Again, do try to make some sense.

Death panels have already been at work, as we continue to abort fetuses with a partial birth method, starve and poison people in phony charity ads, and inject people with unnecessary vaccinations. Check out the numbers of people that actually died from being injected with a flu vaccine. As for hr 3200, that's already a done deal and will probably be signed into law within a year. Then will come the modifications to the bill that don't make it to the mainstream.

Health care will be rationed and controlled by the govt, as they guide us to that end of life phase and decide who is healthy enough to stick around. Obama is sneaking the truth in there by saying "nobody's talking about a govt takeover of healthcare" or "euthenasia", because it's true. They are not talking about it outright, because it would clearly cause an uproar in this country if the light bulb went on over people's head as to the true agenda here. History repeats itself because no one wants to believe the govt is just doing this sh*t with or without the approval of Americans. Obama begins the subtle insinuation, then slams others for telling it like it is.

"Obama: 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.

Leonhardt: So how do you -- how do we deal with it?

Obama: 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."

http://tinyurl.com/d52pom

Death panel? What death panel?

This bill is being written so no one can understand it. It is being done on purpose. If you can't understand it, how can you fight it? That is their plan. That way they can say "No, it doesn't say that". OF COURSE NOT!!! They want to confuse everyone who does not want a 'SINGLE PAYER PLAN', everyone who does not want a 'DEATH PANEL', everyone who wants to keep their own insurance and doctor.
Just my opinion
madalyn

Comment #18 mentions Terri Schaivo. May as well have the government decide when we die like they did with her. They let a man who was having an affair and had fathered children with his mistress make the decision as to whether or not his wife dies. Gee, no one saw his decision coming, did they?
Do you want the govenment making those decisions for you? I don't. If for some reason I can't make those decisions for myself, but I am still able to think clearly without being able to say so, I would not want a wandering husband to make a life or death decision for me. Leave that to someone who does not have a vested interest in my demise, like my children or parents.
Just my opinion.
Madalyn