where does obama say he wants to do that? thx.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058190068, http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058190132. I challenge you to find any example of you quoting language from the bill and showing explicitly what it means as I do in those posts to support your position. By the way, I can bring in a bunch more than just those.
The bill is frankly making me remember the arguments over the Patriot Act (granted, afteri t was already passed) from some years ago; back when grannies book club habits were going to be spied on by the big mean Big Brother government because she got them at the library.
Few people actually knowing what's really IN the bill.
Few people actually knowing what's in the bill actually means.
One side making exaggerated claims of what its going to do/will cause.
The more reasonable, but still fear mongering, ones on that side claiming that what it could LEAD too ist he problem.
And the other side defending it as necessary and those that don't want it want to do nothing.
Its just that the sides are flipped on this one but the script is pretty much the same.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Well my question is this; if the evil Obama Socialists put this in...to kill our grandma, why did all the (R) vote for this? Why was this put in by an (R)?
Oh, Those Death Panels
So, I guess it is up for a few to explain..why are the (R) like Grassley trying to kill my dear grandmother? Seriously, how craven of dishonesty and hypocrisy must one be filled with to go around using as a scare tactic a feature in a bill they approved?You would think that if Republicans wanted to totally mischaracterize a health care provision and demagogue it like nobody's business, they would at least pick something that the vast majority of them hadn't already voted for just a few years earlier. Because that's not just shameless, it's stupid.
Yes, that's right. Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!
Let's go to the bill text, shall we? "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)?
Never fear, Palin has declared victory for us all!
Sarah Palin Claims Victory On Death Panels: "Gratified"
FYI: from 2003 until now, can the Republicans here please tell us all how many grannies they killed? Otherwise, don't they have some apologizing to do for such dishonesty?Sarah Palin crowed Friday over news that the Senate Finance Committee will leave end-of-life care out of its health care legislation.
"I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee's decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200)," she wrote on her Facebook page. "It's gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress."
But the former governor of Alaska isn't satisfied. "That provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones," she wrote. Palin went on to claim that health care reform will inevitably lead to single-payer, which will mean rationing. nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time.
Of course, health care is already rationed. Even the head of Medicare under President Bush said: "Just because there isn't some government agency specifically telling you which treatments you can have based on cost-effectiveness, that doesn't mean you aren't getting some treatments."
Last edited by sam_w; 08-14-09 at 01:23 PM.