No 'death panel' in health care bill

[Guest NewsBot]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong....

 

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

 

More...

[phreakwars]

Yet another myth DEBUNKED.

.

.

[Old Salt]

Actually, the bill will be written in very broad terms. It's the rules and procedures set up by the bureaucracy after the bill is passed that will cause "problems". Unless something is specifically forbidden by the bill, it can probably be authorized.

[RoyalOrleans]

I am up to pg 60. I'm tired of people saying "this is in the bill, that is in the bill". So I am attempting to read it for myself. I'm guessing that this too, makes me "Un-American". I have already come across a number of points that I find troubling...

 

Ohhh.... its a fukken brutal read.

 

Now... warn a brother!!!

 

flag@whitehouse.gov.

[phreakwars]

At least your reading it, good job. I'm only at page 563 myself. If you find things you don't like, that's good too. I have found things I don't like in it as well. At least I can say my dislikes are legitimate and not something E-mailed to me as a propaganda tool.

.

.

[timesjoke]

Old Salt has it right, you have to look at what all the members are saying their intent is on top of whatever actual final bill is approved. There will be many changes still to come because it cannot pass as written right now, they don't have the votes.

 

That is why they are talking about breaking it down into pieces and using 'Reconciliation' to get past the blue dogs who are against this mess.

 

When they break it down, look for lots of little changes that nobody will get a chance to read before they vote on it.

[ImWithStupid]

The future under government run Obamacare...

 

 

Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon

 

Terminally Ill Denied Drugs for Life, But Can Opt for Suicide

 

By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES

Aug. 6, 2008

 

The news from Barbara Wagner's doctor was bad, but the rejection letter from her insurance company was crushing.

 

The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.

 

What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.

 

"It was horrible," Wagner told ABCNews.com. "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."

Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon - ABC News

[jokersarewild]

I love this. Bender is handing your uninformed ass to you on a silver platter, complete with garnish. You refuse to admit how wrong you are. Oh, and your poorly concieved attempt at debating using your article? Well, Sir IDidn'tActuallyReadTheDamnThing, here are a few points for you:

 

1. It has nothing to do with the debate at hand. Not sure why you posted it exactly, but you do enjoy a logical fallacy, don't you?

 

2. It's the insurance company not seeing a point in forking over $8k so a 64 year old can live for 2 months. "The median survival among patients who took erlotinib was 6.7 months compared to 4.7 months for those on placebo." Note how it said "median", and not "mean". That could mean that she could live for more than 2 months. Woo. Ok, so why does a 64 year old who smoked herself into cancer deserve to piss away that much money? It could be going to people who could live for much longer.

 

3. Note how the article says her insurance covers "palliative" care. Why? "...because the drug does not meet the "five-year, 5 percent rule" -- that is, a 5 percent survival rate after five years. " Wow. You mean to tell me they don't want to drop that much money if she won't survive for 5 years? (Note previous point.) What assholes are they. So, wait, what does this have to do with socialized healthcare? Or, better yet, why are you using this to insult socialized healthcare? She's an old fart who will die soon because of the choices she made. Why should other people have to pay for her blunder? Seems asinine to me.

 

4. You chose to bring this in as "evidence" for your side. All you did was put forth an article that demonstrates what happens when people have a complete disregard for their own health. Then they whine about it. It has nothing to do with "ObamaCare". It's never even MENTIONS anything about it, or the similarities to it. Because it's not the same. Hell, what does this even have to do with the MOTHER FREAKING DEATH PANEL you say is possibly going to exist at some point? Oh, nothing? You mean you're just grasping at straws because you can't possibly pull a good point out of your ass on this to save your life? Oh, ok, just checking.

 

5. The final quote of the article makes me laugh. It's the woman's husband. "My reaction is pretty typical," he told ABCNews.com. "I am sick and tired of the dollar being the bottom line of everything. We need to put human life above the dollar." So...wasting money that could go to other people is putting human life above the dollar? Like, say, all of the dollars your wife wasted putting her inability to control her habits above HER life? She had her chance, and screwed up. Welcome to the real world.

[RoyalOrleans]

Even if the health plan doesn't contain a provision to set up "death panels" the law will certainly metastasize. It will set up new administrative agencies; those agencies will publish regulations that go beyond the scope of the original law.

 

For example: the 1965 immigration reform was not supposed to significantly change US demographics, but it did. RICO was supposed to be a weapon against organized crime, not a way to confiscate the cars or homes of hapless drunk drivers. AFDC (welfare for single mothers) grew out of a law to help the widows of Civil War vets.

 

Progressives want to enforce their vision of the good, and believe that "law" is like sprinkling fairy dust on "problems." Then they are continually surprised when the laws have unintended consequences. The failure to recognize the expansionary maw of big government is one of the many failures of progressivism.

[RoyalOrleans]

Sens. Drop End-of-Life Provision from Bill - Republican Chuck Grassley Says Controversial Provision Has Been Dropped from Bipartisan Negotiation in the Senate

 

Let's be clear on something here. "Dropped from the bill" does not necessarily mean "off the table." All the Democrats need to do is get their basic framework passed. Then they're home free to push the full package on us later.