It's not 'Death Panels'...it's individual rights

[NOVA]

What is there to understand? The bill is the precursor to a government plan similar to plans in effect around the world which have been shown to be economical and efficient.

Yes, it probably could have been written of a few sheets of paper if the Repubs had not tried every angle to sabotage it. I suggest you place the blame where it belongs.

The Republicans had NOTHING to do with it....the bill is a total production of the Democrats....from page 1 to page 2199 of whatever....
There was no negotiation, there was no other input.....so quit you stupid tapdancing....thats been known since the bill was first introduced.




Lets just end the nonsense right here....I have a goldfish whose reasoning puts your to shame....we're done.

 

[apple0154]

The Republicans had NOTHING to do with it....the bill is a total production of the Democrats....from page 1 to page 2199 of whatever....
There was no negotiation, there was no other input.....so quit you stupid tapdancing....thats been known since the bill was first introduced.

Lets just end the nonsense right here....I have a goldfish whose reasoning puts your to shame....we're done.

When you figure out why there was no government option do come back and discuss it.

 

[NOVA]

When you figure out why there was no government option do come back and discuss it.

Always happey to help a pinhead.....
There is nothing to discuss....I'll just give you a little history lesson about it and you can look at the link for details....

The health care bills passed by three House committees and the Senate health committee over the summer of 2009 all included a public option. The bill passed in the Senate Finance Committee by its Democratic chairman, Max Baucus of Montana, did not.

The House Bill

On Nov. 7, the House passed its health reform by the narrow margin of 220-215. The vote came only after Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to weaken the public option provisions.

The Senate Bill

In late November, the Senate began work on a bill proposed by the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, that was a combination of the two committee bills. It included a public option that would allow states to choose not to take part in it — a so-called "opt out.''

In December, as the Senate began consideration of the bill, Mr. Reid convened a group of five liberal and five conservative Democratic senators to seek common ground on the public option.
On Dec. 24, the Senate passed Mr. Reid's bill -- without a public option -- on a straight party line vote.

In January 2010, Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi began negotiations on blending their bills. It quickly became apparent that the public option was not likely to survive in a final bill because it would lose the support of the conservative Democrats who had demanded Mr. Reid drop it.

The Endgame

In early March, House and Senate leaders settled on a strategy that involved having the House pass the Senate bill along with a "sidecar'' of compromises and fixes that the Senate could pass under reconciliation -- which did not include a public option. On March 22d, the House passed both measures.

When the "sidecar'' landed back in the Senate, Democrats resisted a late, last round of pressure from liberal advocates to include the public option in the legislation, saying they were willing to take their winnings and call it a day. The public option, they said, could wait for another day, another vote, another fight — even though the parliamentary process playing out on the Senate floor gave them a rare chance to enact it with a simple majority, a chance unlikely to come around again soon.

http://www.nytimes.com/info/public-health-insurance-option/

 

[apple0154]

Always happey to help a pinhead.....
There is nothing to discuss....I'll just give you a little history lesson about it and you can look at the link for details....

The health care bills passed by three House committees and the Senate health committee over the summer of 2009 all included a public option. The bill passed in the Senate Finance Committee by its Democratic chairman, Max Baucus of Montana, did not.

The House Bill

On Nov. 7, the House passed its health reform by the narrow margin of 220-215. The vote came only after Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to weaken the public option provisions.

The Senate Bill

In late November, the Senate began work on a bill proposed by the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, that was a combination of the two committee bills. It included a public option that would allow states to choose not to take part in it — a so-called "opt out.''

In December, as the Senate began consideration of the bill, Mr. Reid convened a group of five liberal and five conservative Democratic senators to seek common ground on the public option.
On Dec. 24, the Senate passed Mr. Reid's bill -- without a public option -- on a straight party line vote.

In January 2010, Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi began negotiations on blending their bills. It quickly became apparent that the public option was not likely to survive in a final bill because it would lose the support of the conservative Democrats who had demanded Mr. Reid drop it.

The Endgame

In early March, House and Senate leaders settled on a strategy that involved having the House pass the Senate bill along with a "sidecar'' of compromises and fixes that the Senate could pass under reconciliation -- which did not include a public option. On March 22d, the House passed both measures.

When the "sidecar'' landed back in the Senate, Democrats resisted a late, last round of pressure from liberal advocates to include the public option in the legislation, saying they were willing to take their winnings and call it a day. The public option, they said, could wait for another day, another vote, another fight — even though the parliamentary process playing out on the Senate floor gave them a rare chance to enact it with a simple majority, a chance unlikely to come around again soon.

http://www.nytimes.com/info/public-health-insurance-option/

This is from your link.

(Excerpt) Despite polls that consistently indicated strong public support, the idea fell victim to divisions among Democrats in the face of unanimous Republican opposition. The bill passed by the House included the public option but it was stripped from the Senate bill to secure the votes of conservative members of the Democratic caucus and overcome a Republican filibuster. (End)

You can view it two ways. The Dems honored the original agreement. They got a lot of what they wanted. Or one can say the Dems didn't want to take the chance of something screwing up.

The main point is the bill could have been much simpler, however, negotiations here and there resulted in the current multitude of pages.

This was a monumental bill. Was it worth the chance of it being scuttled knowing how politics works?

The bill can be adjusted as time goes on which is what's going to happen. The goal is full coverage for everyone.

Remember, the journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I remember a movie from a long while ago called "Whose Life Is It Anyway?" with Richard Dreyfuss. It was about a sculptor involved in an accident and paralyzed from the neck down. The physicians feel he can have quality of life and will not allow him to make the decision to die. I don't think it was a true story but still you can see where it 'could' happen by a team of physicians and pychiatrists saying you are depressed and not able to make a competent decision. So, he had to sue for the right to die. That has been in my mind ever since I saw it. I laughed at parts and cried at parts but it made me think about how little control we could have over our own bodies and lives if we were in that situation.

I remember that. An excellent although morbid movie.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Giving a patient an overdose of medication that will in fact help kill him is not the way to practice medicine in a civilized society....FIRST, DO NO HARM...
ever hear of that? That has been to golden rule of practicing medicine in civilized countrys for centuries....easing pain by killing the patient is not the way we do things....and lets not ignore the fact that people have recovered from so-called "terminal illness".....and that is a fact.

Some decisions MUST remain in the hands of the patient and their family...thats humane....thats just...
If you don't want to spend YOUR money taking care of some people, don't demand socialized, tax payer funded care.....and in the real world, thats what this is all about...the fuckin' money.

That's not what he said or even implied. Try following the conversation dude.

 

[NOVA]

That's not what he said or even implied. Try following the conversation dude.

Sorry dude....I typed OF instead of OR....

Corrected now....

Giving a patient an overdose OR medication that will in fact help kill him is not the way to practice medicine in a civilized society....FIRST, DO NO HARM...
ever hear of that?
=======
And that is exactly what he was saying....administering a med. that may help control pain while at the same time slowing killing the patient.....Post 23

Apple says that is perfectly fine , I say its assisted suicide at best, murder or mercy killing at worst...

 

[WinterBorn]

Sorry dude....I typed OF instead of OR....

Corrected now....

Giving a patient an overdose OR medication that will in fact help kill him is not the way to practice medicine in a civilized society....FIRST, DO NO HARM...
ever hear of that?
=======
And that is exactly what he was saying....administering a med. that may help control pain while at the same time slowing killing the patient.....Post 23

Apple says that is perfectly fine , I say its assisted suicide at best, murder or mercy killing at worst...

If you have a patient who is dying, giving him comfort is not doing harm.

 

[NOVA]

ZappasGuitar

I am Bwana Dik

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple0154
Show ONE post where I condone the killing of the disabled, ill, hungry, abused, unloved or anyone else.

You better grab a comfy chair and a tasty beverage...this could take a while...

Well Zap. I'm not gonna go search Apples posts from Feb, Mar. of 2009 or maybe it was 2010 to prove it.....
I know it and Apple knows it and all his tapdancing ain't gonna change what we both know to be true....
He would kill a human baby 5 seconds before birth to prevent it from MAYBE going hungry, or being abused, or with a defect, etc. (things he obviously can't predict) ....he'll say that 5 seconds, I guess even 1 second before birth, that ...that thing...isn't a human being yet....

A neat little game of semantics and nonsense played by brainless lefties, ignorant of biology, to defend the indefensible...a game I ain't gonna play....
But thats another thread....

 

[NOVA]

If you have a patient who is dying, giving him comfort is not doing harm.

And thats not what I said or Apple....try again.....

Apples idea of comfort would be to put a plastic bag over the patients his head until he doesn't feel the pain anymore....

 

[WinterBorn]

And thats not what I said or Apple....try again.....

Apples idea of comfort would be to put a plastic bag over the patients his head until he doesn't feel the pain anymore....

I haven't seen Apple say that anywhere.

I have heard of "reading between the lines", but you are just making shit up.

 

[NOVA]

I haven't seen Apple say that anywhere.

I have heard of "reading between the lines", but you are just making shit up.

Apple (post 23)
It's not unusual for certain types of cancer to be so painful as to be necessary to drug a person to a degree their vital functions slow to the point it contributes to an earlier death.

He is condoning administering "medicine" for pain that will in fact help kill the patient....

I can understand the use of experimental drugs that may or may not help (with the patients consent) but to use a drug that is killing the patient and we all know it.... is unethical at best and illegal at worse...with or without consent.....unless the law has been changed and I'm not aware of it.

 

[WinterBorn]

He is condoning administering "medicine" for pain that will in fact help kill the patient....

I can understand the use of experimental drugs that may or may not help (with the patients consent) but to use a drug that is killing the patient and we all know it.... is unethical at best and illegal at worse...with or without consent.....unless the law has been changed and I'm not aware of it.

He said nothing about killing the patient. He talked about "...contributes to an earlier death". That is very different from using a drug to kill someone.

If someone is dying, and in agony, there is no harm in helping them with the pain. And if that help brings death a little sooner, it is still not doing harm. The alternative is to force them to linger in agony. That is what civilized society should be against.

 

[WinterBorn]

I had an old golden retriever named Beau. He was a rescue and I got him when he had a little grey on his muzzle. He was on the road with me for 5 years. When his health failed and he was in pain, I was allowed to help ease that pain and let him go with dignity. I cried like a baby. The sad part is that I would not be allowed to do the same for one of my kids.

 

[NOVA]

He said nothing about killing the patient. He talked about "...contributes to an earlier death". That is very different from using a drug to kill someone.

If someone is dying, and in agony, there is no harm in helping them with the pain. And if that help brings death a little sooner, it is still not doing harm. The alternative is to force them to linger in agony. That is what civilized society should be against.

Are you another 'semantics" joker...???

The fact that someone is in agony or dying is irrelevant....

If you administer a drug to someone that you KNOW is killing him .... IS KILLING HIM.....that is just an undeniable truth.....

You can't give someone something that you know will kill him and say "well, he likes it","it makes him happy", or some other bullshit.......as an excuse....

The reason has nothing to do with it....the drug is killing the person, but the side effects are making him comfortable? that ain't play in Pittsburgh or anywhere in the US as yet....

The precise definition of euthanasia is "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering.

Euthanasia is usually used to refer to active euthanasia, and in this sense, euthanasia is usually considered to be criminal homicide.

Change the law ...

 

[WinterBorn]

Are you another 'semantics" joker...???

The fact that someone is in agony or dying is irrelevant....

If you administer a drug to someone that you KNOW is killing him .... IS KILLING HIM.....that is just an undeniable truth.....

You can't give someone something that you know will kill him and say "well, he likes it","it makes him happy", or some other bullshit.......as an excuse....

The reason has nothing to do with it....the drug is killing the person, but the side effects are making him comfortable? that ain't play in Pittsburgh or anywhere in the US as yet....

The precise definition of euthanasia is "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering.

Euthanasia is usually used to refer to active euthanasia, and in this sense, euthanasia is usually considered to be criminal homicide.

Change the law ...

"The fact that someone is in agony or dying is irrelevant...." What complete and utter bullshit. You want to make a "one size fits all" medical rule. It doesn't work that way.

And no one has been talking about killing healthy people. What has been discussed is terminally ill patients who have no hope of recovery.

It is not about making them happy. It is about helping them with their pain.




But if you are so adamant about your position, and considering the addiction and liver problems that are inherent risks with all pain relievers, lets just outlaw all pain meds.

After all, if its just about makingthem happy, it shouldn't be part of the medical field. "The fact that someone is in agony or dying is irrelevant...." remember?

 

[WinterBorn]

Are you another 'semantics" joker...???

The fact that someone is in agony or dying is irrelevant....

If you administer a drug to someone that you KNOW is killing him .... IS KILLING HIM.....that is just an undeniable truth.....

In the discussions on this thread, it has always been expressed that they were dying of a terminal disease.

The disease is killing them, not the meds.

 

[NOVA]

"The fact that someone is in agony or dying is irrelevant...." What complete and utter bullshit. You want to make a "one size fits all" medical rule. It doesn't work that way.

And no one has been talking about killing healthy people. What has been discussed is terminally ill patients who have no hope of recovery.

Have you never heard of terminally ill patients who have no hope of recovery that have in fact recovered fully or to some lesser degree..??? I have...


It is not about making them happy. It is about helping them with their pain.




But if you are so adamant about your position, and considering the addiction and liver problems that are inherent risks with all pain relievers, lets just outlaw all pain meds.

Your HC provider does blood word on a schedule and will certainly stop meds that are causing liver problems or any life threatening reaction....strawman crap.

After all, if its just about makingthem happy, it shouldn't be part of the medical field. "The fact that someone is in agony or dying is irrelevant...." remember?

Exactly.....and making the happy could include making them feel less pain

Its not MY position, ITS THE LAW....

This conversation has drifted far from the topic I joined the thread at........

A living will ..... now called advance health care directives were commonplace at least 15 years ago...no need to re-define them......but to re-state my initial point,

I feel no third party should be making life and death decisions that was always the exclusive right of the patient/family and medical staff administering care.....

Active euthanasia is against the law in the US, unless I am uninformed and its been changed and, it is a different debate....

Personally, I see assisted suicide as becoming more accepted in the future as long as it is a decision made personally and not by some "objective" or "dis-interested" third party....ESPECIALLY for cost reduction purposes..........but as of now, its forbidden.

 

[apple0154]

Its not MY position, ITS THE LAW....

This conversation has drifted far from the topic I joined the thread at........

A living will ..... now called advance health care directives were commonplace at least 15 years ago...no need to re-define them......but to re-state my initial point,

I feel no third party should be making life and death decisions that was always the exclusive right of the patient/family and medical staff administering care.....

Active euthanasia is against the law in the US, unless I am uninformed and its been changed and, it is a different debate....

Personally, I see assisted suicide as becoming more accepted in the future as long as it is a decision made personally and not by some "objective" or "dis-interested" third party....ESPECIALLY for cost reduction purposes..........but as of now, its forbidden.

Did you skip msg 54?

(Apple)Oregon is the first state with a law that specifically allows physician-assisted suicide, enacted in 1997.

Washington adopted a ballot measure based on the Oregon law, called Initiative 1000, during the November 2008 election.

In December 2008, a Montana judge overturned that state's law prohibiting doctor-assisted suicide in a ruling on a case involving a man with terminal cancer. The state's attorney general plans to appeal the decision.

 

[NOVA]

Did you skip msg 54?

Only three places besides Oregon openly and legally authorize assisted suicide: the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland.

Well....You'll pardon the fuck out of me, pinhead,... for not knowing that one state changed their law......49 more (or is it 56 for pinheads?) and you'll be celebrating all over the place....until then its against the law in an overwhelming number of states....AND .... it is a different debate that you've conveniently changed this thread into....

Like I stated......Its not MY position, ITS THE LAW(except for Oregon)...

and again, as I've already stated .....

"Personally, I see assisted suicide as becoming more accepted in the future as long as it is a decision made personally and not by some "objective" or "dis-interested" third party....ESPECIALLY for cost reduction purposes.."

Will that put a little kink into Obamacare ?