I found this in today's paper and found it interesting. I will try and retype it here if my fingers hold out.
LAWMAKERS SHOULD READ A BILL BEFORE PASSING IT.
By Kevin Ferris
In 1776, the rallying cry was, "No taxation without representation." Today, it could be, "No taxation without totally clueless representation. That's what Americans got on June 26, when the House voted 219-212 for the "cap-and-tax" energy bill, as the Republicans refer to it. The bill ran more than 1,000 pages, and before members had time to digest that tome, 300 pages of amendments were added after midnight.
When Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, started to read the additions, bill co-sponsor Henry A. Waxman, D--California, objected. He was rebuffed. There are no time limits for comments by House leaders.
"When you file a 300-page amendment at 3:09 AM, the American people have a right to know what's in this bill," Boehner said.
Whether this bill will lessen greenhouse-gas emissions - as Democrats hope - or kill countless jobs - as Republicans hope - or ever pass the Senate, remains to be seen. But the House vote did raise a question that cuts across party and ideology.
How can lawmakers vote on something so important without a thorough understanding of what's in it?
Not the everyday "We hereby rename this post office in honor of so-and-so"or "We officially declare this Goldfish Month." The big things, like an almost $800 billion stimulus plan, or an energy package that Politico said "would transform the country's economy and industrial landscape.
Actually reading such legislation, as the founders might say, should be self-evident. But apparently not. So a little nudge is in order, especially with health-care reform looming. One nudger is Colin Hanna, a former Chester County, PA., commissioner and president of the conservative advocacy group Let Freedom Ring. He has begun a campaign (www.pledgetoread.org) that asks members of the House and Senate to promise the following:
"I___________pledge to my constituents and to the American people that I will not vote to enact an health-care reform package that: "1) I have not read, personally, in its entirety; and,
"2) Has not been available, in its entirety, to the American people on the Internet for at least 72 hours, so that they can read it too."
Let Freedom Ring isn't alone. A consortium of liberal and good-government groups is backing readthebill.org., and a group, Down-sizeDC.org., essentially wants the two planks of Hanna's pledge enacted as federal law.
Having been a commissioner, Hanna understands that lawmakers can't read every line of every bill, but he argues that in some cases it's necessary.
"There are certain issues of scope and importance that demand an extra measure of due diligence, including reading the bill in full."he said in an interview. Health care, cap-and-trade, and the stimulus all rise to that level, he says, adding that legislators dismiss this sentiment at their peril.
"There is a rising public demand that bills be read," he says, "And there is a rising public outrage against politicians who dismissively suggest that's just the way Washington works.
He is referring to a Politico story about the initial response by House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., when asked about a pledge: laughter. But then Hoyer backpedaled, saying that of course members, staff or review boards read bills, or at least "substantial portions."
Hoyer's reaction shows that the priority is not to make informed judgements and improve legislation, Hanna suggests, but to rush through bad laws before anyone can object.
"They want to completely control the entire legislative process and ram it down not only Congress' throat, but the American people's throat, and we think that's wrong." Hanna says.
If Congress hasn't the time or inclination to read the bills, let the public do it. And that's where Part 2 of the pledge comes in - allowing 72 hours for citizens to read legislation online before a vote.
"We have the technology to make complex legislation available for public and media inspection," Hanna says. "We're not being true to the ideals of democracy if we don't take advantage of that technology."
He has a point. Granted, a "read the bill" movement can come off as gimmicky, but given recent votes and the magnitude of the bills, how does one argue against citizen access to legislation? Candidate Obama had promised to post bills online before he signed them into law. He's broken the promise, so let Congress set an even higher standard.
On his website, Hanna has been tallying the number of pledge supporters. He plans to reveal the names of those backers - as well as those who rejected or ignored the offer to sign the pledge.
At which time voters will be a little better informed, even if their senators and representatives refuse to be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have not looked at the sites suggested before copying this to the forum, just thought it was a good read.
Kevin Ferris is the assistant editor of the Editorial Page at The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Larryj
Lots of bills get passed without being read. I think the health care bill was over 1000 pages? Generally what happens is that a member of congress hires staffers or agencies to read the bill and get an explantion.
Somehow I find that scary that some staffer is making or suggesting answers and decisions which should remain solely with the congressperson. On the other hand, that person may be more in tune with what is the best way to go rather than the congressperson. Still, the article has its merits that bills should be thoroughly read before the vote and I really would like to see bills posted to the internet before voting.
Larryj
Larry, you can find bills online in a number of places, including
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/bills/index.html
While the dems want amnesty and free medical for illegals they want the sick..old and poor to go home and die.
Check page 425 and 430 of the Obama care bill, no matter what party you support this is BS
hey mom and dad we don't need you.
Did you notice during the presidents last Obamacare primetime commercial, he was twice asked about rationing and end of life care and he twice danced all around the question.
How could anyone be fooled by Obamacare that will eliminate all private insurance, create rationing, limit care at the end of life and punish those that don't achieve "wellness."
Any Congressman or Senator that votes for this drivel should be shot and then have to wait for care!
Just listen to this lady who has read the bill
http://fredthompsonshow.com/premiumstream?dispid20&headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD03MzUxJnBsYXlsaXN0PXRydWUmY2hhcnR0eXBlPWNoYXJ0JmNoYXJ0SUQ9MzIwJnBsYXlsaXN0U2l6ZT01
All I found was what anybody with any sense has been doing for YEARS me included.........living wills specifying what "heroic" measures you want taken to keep you breathin after you WOULD be better off just goin HOME. I find nothin in here about FORCING people to go home and die. I find the five year thing but it's about a CONSULTATION to make said living will and the options available to the person.
I read thru a WHOLE bunch of legal beagle crap to find this too. I HATE reading legalese........................but enough with the chicken little the sky is fallin stuff...........These people are never goin to pass this thing anyway....not unless there is MORE money for the insurance companies in it than they already get. It's ALL money talks and bullshit walks just like everything ELSE this thing we created called "government" does or doesn't do. What makes you all think ANYthing they do or DON'T do is for YOUR betterment? Get real.
SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.
(a) Medicare.--
(1) In general.--Section 1861 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended--
(A) in subsection (s)(2)--
(i) by striking ``and'' at the end of
subparagraph (DD);
(ii) by adding ``and'' at the end of
subparagraph (EE); and
(iii) by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(FF) advance care planning consultation (as defined in
subsection (hhh)(1));''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``Advance Care Planning Consultation
``(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term `advance
care planning consultation' means a consultation between the individual
and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care
planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not
had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation
shall include the following:
``(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care
planning, including key questions and considerations, important
steps, and suggested people to talk to.
``(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance
directives, including living wills and durable powers of
attorney, and their uses.
``(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and
responsibilities of a health care proxy.
``(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of
national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and
their families with advance care planning, including the
national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning
clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations
(including those funded through the Older Americans Act of
1965).
``(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum
of end-of-life services and supports available, including
palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and
supports that are available under this title.
``(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders
regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which
shall include--
``(I) the reasons why the development of such an
order is beneficial to the individual and the
individual's family and the reasons why such an order
should be updated periodically as the health of the
individual changes;
``(II) the information needed for an individual or
legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding
the completion of such an order; and
``(III) the identification of resources that an
individual may use to determine the requirements of the
State in which such individual resides so that the
treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out
if the individual is unable to communicate those
wishes, including requirements regarding the
designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as
a health care proxy).
``(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for
explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a
State--
``(I) in which all legal barriers have been
addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining
treatment to constitute a set of medical orders
respected across all care settings; and
``(II) that has in effect a program for orders for
life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).
``(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.
``(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is--
``(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and
``(B) a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant who has
the authority under State law to sign orders for life
sustaining treatments.
``(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination under
subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such
examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning
consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under
paragraph (1).
``(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an
individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under
paragraph (1) 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.
``(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the
formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a
similar order.
``(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term `order regarding
life sustaining treatment' means, with respect to an individual, an
actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual
that--
``(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in
subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as
specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope
of the professional's authority under State law in signing such
an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician
assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the
individual and be followed by health care professionals and
providers across the continuum of care;
``(ii) effectively communicates the individual's
preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an
indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
``(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a
given locality, region, or State (as identified by the
Secretary); and
``(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in
section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.
``(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii)
may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to
limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of
treatment may include indications respecting, among other items--
``(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient
is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary
problems;
``(ii) the individual's desire regarding transfer to a
hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
``(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
``(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and
hydration.''.
(2) Payment.--Section 1848(j)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395w-4(j)(3)) is amended by inserting ``(2)(FF),'' after
``(2)(EE),''.
(3) Frequency limitation.--Section 1862(a) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (N), by striking
``and'' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (O) by striking the
semicolon at the end and inserting ``, and'';
and
(iii) by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(P) in the case of advance care planning
consultations (as defined in section 1861(hhh)(1)),
which are performed more frequently than is covered
under such section;''; and
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking ``or (K)'' and
inserting ``(K), or (P)''.
(4) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to consultations furnished on or after January 1,
2011.
(b) Expansion of Physician Quality Reporting Initiative for End of
Life Care.--
(1) Physician's quality reporting initiative.--Section
1848(k)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(k)(2))
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(3) Physician's quality reporting initiative.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of reporting data
on quality measures for covered professional services
furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the
extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall
include quality measures on end of life care and
advanced care planning that have been adopted or
endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if
appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the
creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining
treatment.
``(B) Proposed set of measures.--The Secretary
shall publish in the Federal Register proposed quality
measures on end of life care and advanced care planning
that the Secretary determines are described in
subparagraph (A) and would be appropriate for eligible
professionals to use to submit data to the Secretary.
The Secretary shall provide for a period of public
comment on such set of measures before finalizing such
proposed measures.''.
(c) Inclusion of Information in Medicare & You Handbook.--
(1) Medicare & you handbook.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services shall update the online
version of the Medicare & You Handbook to include the
following:
(i) An explanation of advance care planning
and advance directives, including--
(I) living wills;
(II) durable power of attorney;
(III) orders of life-sustaining
treatment; and
(IV) health care proxies.
(ii) A description of Federal and State
resources available to assist individuals and
their families with advance care planning and
advance directives, including--
(I) available State legal service
organizations to assist individuals
with advance care planning, including
those organizations that receive
funding pursuant to the Older Americans
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 93001 et seq.);
(II) website links or addresses for
State-specific advance directive forms;
and
(III) any additional information,
as determined by the Secretary.
(B) Update of paper and subsequent versions.--The
Secretary shall include the information described in
subparagraph (A) in all paper and electronic versions
of the Medicare & You Handbook that are published on or
after the date that is 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Thanks for posting this Pam, an opportunity for the truth. How nice for a Wednesday morning!
I listened to some, not all, of the interview and decided this woman is reading between the lines. It is like Pam said, all this section is for is to make seniors aware of their options such as living wills, advance directives, etc. There is nothing in the bill that says go home and die. I have always been a fan of Fred Thompson, so maybe I will go back and listen to the whole thing later. I am hoping he would set her straight.
Larryj
Been reading the health care bill, (yawn) and I will continue to do so, but have noticed one paragraph that states, "No federal money should be paid to undocumented aliens." and the following copy and paste. Read especially the 'followup counseling visit' (c) as it pertains to the counseling subject
SEC. 1236. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ON USE OF PATIENT DECISIONS AIDS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
establish a shared decision making demonstration program (in this
subsection referred to as the ``program'') under the Medicare program
using patient decision aids to meet the objective of improving the
understanding by Medicare beneficiaries of their medical treatment
options, as compared to comparable Medicare beneficiaries who do not
participate in a shared decision making process using patient decision
aids.
(b) Sites.--
(1) Enrollment.--The Secretary shall enroll in the program
not more than 30 eligible providers who have experience in
implementing, and have invested in the necessary infrastructure
to implement, shared decision making using patient decision
aids.
(2) Application.--An eligible provider seeking to
participate in the program shall submit to the Secretary an
application at such time and containing such information as the
Secretary may require.
(3) Preference.--In enrolling eligible providers in the
program, the Secretary shall give preference to eligible
providers that--
(A) have documented experience in using patient
decision aids for the conditions identified by the
Secretary and in using shared decision making;
(B) have the necessary information technology
infrastructure to collect the information required by
the Secretary for reporting purposes; and
(C) are trained in how to use patient decision aids
and shared decision making.
(c) Follow-up Counseling Visit.--
(1) In general.--An eligible provider participating in the
program shall routinely schedule Medicare beneficiaries for a
counseling visit after the viewing of such a patient decision
aid to answer any questions the beneficiary may have with
respect to the medical care of the condition involved and to
assist the beneficiary in thinking through how their
preferences and concerns relate to their medical care.
(2) Payment for follow-up counseling visit.--The Secretary
shall establish procedures for making payments for such
counseling visits provided to Medicare beneficiaries under the
program. Such procedures shall provide for the establishment--
(A) of a code (or codes) to represent such
services; and
(B) of a single payment amount for such service
that includes the professional time of the health care
provider and a portion of the reasonable costs of the
infrastructure of the eligible provider such as would
be made under the applicable payment systems to that
provider for similar covered services.
Larryj
I went back and listened to the whole interview. My thoughts?
1) I still think Betsy is reading more into this than what is actually there.
2) Fred didn't disagree with her.
3) I am not such a big fan of Fred's anymore. (it was a mediocre thing anyway).
4) I now have a headache.
5) I going to get off the forum for a while and take my wife some coffee and wish her Happy Anniversary (#35).
Larryj
Larryj,
Happy 35th. Thanks to you and Pam for debunking this one. I think a general rule to go by would be, If it sounds like a dispicable thing to do, it's probably not going to be done. I'm not really sure why anyone would believe that a group of people who rely on votes to keep their job would actually try encourage the death their constituents.
Quote from: larryJ on July 29, 2009, 10:49:39 AM
5) I going to get off the forum for a while and take my wife some coffee and wish her Happy Anniversary (#35).
Larryj
Happy Anniversary! I hope you and your wife have a wonderful day/night ;)
Have a Happy Day - It's a good thing. :D
soooooooooooooo.. You are for it?
Don't know if you were askin me or not Teresa..but am I for advance directives and living wills? You bet your ass I am. The LAST thing I want is to be hooked up to some machine or fed thru a tube and lay in a bed for years rackin up boocoo medical bills just to kick eventually anyway AFTER everybody has spent their money and years wishin they had let me go because all I am is a husk and a burden. We start dyin the day we are born....I don't want to go out early and I don't want to stay too late......I have talked to my husband, my kids about this subject and we all feel the same way. Does it make lettin go easy? HELL no but all of us have made our wishes clear and we all have agreed to honor those wishes no matter HOW hard it is.
I am about QUALITY not quantity.
Living wills and advance directives have been around for at LEAST 25 years that I know of.
Did I see anything in this bill that makes me think the government is gonna start selectively knockin people off? No I didn't, and I actually read most of it so far.
One more thing....Am I for government healthcare? No I'm not.
Do I think the healthcare system needs some changes ? Yes I do.
Do I think the government is the entity that should make those changes? No I don't
Do I think I personally will ever have health insurance? Not in the forseeable future....I go once a year for prescription renewal and pay cash. I go to a nurse practitioner, who as far as I can tell knows just as much as the doctor I saw once or twice for about 30 seconds and the nurse practitioner will actually answer the questions I ask and is cheaper. A family plan thru Joes employer is almost 500 dollars a month....We can't afford that and if I had the money the deductible costs I'd have the money just to go to the doctor.
So I can understand why some people are all for this deal. Specially if they run to the doctor for every little thing.
Quote from: pamsback on July 29, 2009, 02:03:48 PM
One more thing....Am I for government healthcare? No I'm not.
Do I think the healthcare system needs some changes ? Yes I do.
Do I think the government is the entity that should make those changes? No I don't
Do I think I personally will ever have health insurance? Not in the forseeable future....I go once a year for prescription renewal and pay cash. I go to a nurse practitioner, who as far as I can tell knows just as much as the doctor I saw once or twice for about 30 seconds and the nurse practitioner will actually answer the questions I ask and is cheaper. A family plan thru Joes employer is almost 500 dollars a month....We can't afford that and if I had the money the deductible costs I'd have the money just to go to the doctor.
So I can understand why some people are all for this deal. Specially if they run to the doctor for every little thing.
;D uhhh.... thats really all I was asking.. but thanks for all the information.. ;D
Like Pam, I am all for living wills and advance directives. I have both and have discussed this with my wife and children and they have seen and read all instructions in both documents. The hospital I currently use also has a copy of my advance directive in case I am not able to converse with them upon arrival. The Doctors and nurses there are able to access my file and see all they need to know.
Like Pam, I don't think government health care is necessary. Our health care system privately run by the insurance companies and our health care providers, meaning Doctors and hospitals, are the ones who manipulate the system. I think I have posted my thoughts on this on another thread. The drug companies raise their prices and the insurance company pays, the Doctors raise their prices, and the insurance companies pay, and the insurance companies pass along this increase to us through our employment or Medicare. What the government needs to do if the big "O" wants to help, is regulate the insurance companies much like he has regulated the banks, (more socialism), causing the system to readjust itself. If the insurance companies can't or won't pay, the Doctors lose money so maybe they lower the price a little, and if the insurance company can't or won't pay for the medicine, the drug companies will cut the over inflated price some because if they can't sell the drug they lose money. AND, if the insurance companies don't or won't pay for services, they might lower the premiums. (fat chance of that happening). AND, if the drug companies and health care providers attempt to pass along their increases or costs to the patient, they lose patients and money. So the government should step aside and let us, the patients, regulate the system. Let us say no, your premiums are too high, no, your office visits are too much, no, the price of your drug is too high. I know of and have personally met two Doctors who priced themselves right of their practice because they felt they needed more money.
Larryj
BTW, thanks for all the good wishes.
You know what they say, "there is at least one fool in every marriage."
After 35 years, we are still trying to figure out which one of us is. :D
Larryj
Couple of things here...
1 - Pam didn't debunk anything, she just posted a part of the healthcare bill. At first glance, it may look good to some, however, why would a person need to be counseled every five years on the same thing? Please take note that this is not voluntary, it is mandatory. You don't have a choice. Under gov't healthcare do you honestly think that there won't be rationing of services?
2 - I have heard it said many times when talking about healthcare that it is a "right", I have also heard people say "what am I going to do when I get old, I can't afford healthcare". I disagree with both statements. Healthcare is not a "right" in that it is not administered equally to all. Nor should it be. You do what you can afford to do. The cost of "end of life" treatment is nothing new, it does not take a degree in astrophysics to realize that extensive medical care is expensive. Therefore, if you are not smart enough to plan and save for such costs, then frankly, you should not expect others to pay for you.
3 - If people are not happy with the cost of medical insurance, then don't buy it and pay for your complete medical treatment out of your own pocket.
Oh for crying out loud, I didn't realize that I had to specifically state that the folks that should pay for their own healthcare are physcially able to work and save for it. I guess next time I'll break out the crayons and big Chief Tablet and draw you a picture.
BTW, what does being against abortion have to do with wanting people to pay for their own health care?
1. If you READ it says IF a person has not been advised in the last five years to make that information AVAILABLE not that you HAVE to do it. I found absolutely nothing about MANDATORY anything or the aforementioned "rationing" of care.
2.You have never heard ME say it is a right. It is MY right to take care of myself and my family. IF I can't heal it myself I will PAY for it MYSELF with no help from the government OR YOUR or anybody ELSES tax dollars. Maybe I need to draw YOU said picture on said Big Chief tablet WITH said crayons.
3. See number 2.
So who peed in YOUR post toasties today?
P.S. Happy anniversary Larry and wife :)
First of all, do you honestly think that a president and the majority of democrats, who support hospice care over actual treatment aren't going to make this mandatory? I know...I know...the bill doesn't state that it is mandatory so they obviously can't. But wait a minute, we have bills. legislation, and laws that say a person must pay their taxes yet how many in obamas administration haven't lived up to that law?
As for rationing, if this bill is passed there is no way that rationing won't become an issue. Just look at Mass. Canada, France.
Secondly, I was not addressing you specifically with my last post pam. If I had I would have used the word "you" instead of "she" when I said
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on July 29, 2009, 07:00:49 PM
1 - Pam didn't debunk anything, she just posted a part of the healthcare bill.
Diane, no need to be snippy and condescending...really...well then, what would you call your question to me?...
Quote from: Diane Amberg on July 29, 2009, 07:10:23 PM
Push 'em off on an ice flow ? At what age?
But to answer your questions...the parents of the 16 year old take care of their own child. They may need to get a second job, move into a smaller house, whatever it takes for them to take care of their own. If people want to contribute to them then that is their choice, but folks shouldn't be made to do so.
If a couple is going to have sex then they should be willing to accept the consequences of their actions, even if that means they will have a child with expensive health issues. If they cannot afford to take care of a child, or are unwilling to work to support that child then they should not engage in the activities nessecary to produce that child.
Ok.....takes me awhile but I catch on eventually.........so basically all yall want to do here is run everybody who doesn't totally agree with YOUall much less outright DIS agree with yall out of here and have your daily round of postin all the terrible negative things that are will or might be done to you against your will....right? All the posts about the "EVIL" democrats and how they have two heads and just want to take all YOUR hard earned money. Just stay in your cozy little circle of negativity and "yes yes you're SO right" even if you're wrong..........
Well hey.....no problem...depress yourselves to your hearts content :) Arrivaderci, Sayonara, So long etc etc etc :-*
Good morning, Billy. I was worried the other day because I hadn't seen any posts from you. Glad to see you are still alive and kicking.
As far as health care and taking care of your own, I think we may have had this conversation last year when you stated that you would not depend on outside help in your later years and I think I said you must save a ton of money to be able to take care of yourself.
Here is an interesting story for you.
A few weeks ago, my wife and I took our 4 year old granddaughter to the park. While we watched her play, a "person" came along, slowly, in a wheelchair. First looks told us this "person" was obviously retarded. I guessed the age maybe in the late teens. A caretaker came along to keep the "person" in the wheelchair from rolling off into the sand of the playground. My wife engaged the caretaker in conversation (she is extremely good at that) and we found out that this "person" was actually a 24 year old woman who had suffered a massive stroke and was now a paraplegic who had no clue who she was or where she was. She had no living relatives to take care of her and so, was a ward of the state. The caretaker told us that she was a volunteer taking care of those who could not help themselves.
The reason I called her a "person" is because her hair was short and I couldn't tell whether this was a boy or girl. Then I looked at my granddaughter and prayed silently that nothing like that would ever happen to her and if it did, there would be someone to care for her.
We can't always control what will happen in our lives.
Larryj
Obama has stated that he wants a board or a committee set up to evaluate the treatments folks will recieve, on wether or not they will improve a patients condition in the long run. Do you honestly expect them to authorize a hip or knee replacement, or pacemaker, for a senior that may only have 4 or 5 years left, even with the surgery? No, I don't think so. They will tell them to just take the painkillers. As for doctors telling a patient that nothing more can be done...I don't know about you, but I would find another doctor.
Rep. Tom Price of Georgia admonishes the Democrat government-takeover of health care.Congresssman Tom Price appeared on Fox News with Sean Hannity to discuss the non-stimulus bill, which was pushed through Congress by Democrats without allowing time for a full reading of the bill's text.
Though Congress voted unanimously to a searchable electronic version of the bill online for 48 hours before taking any further action, Democrats ignored the vote. The bill text was finalized just before midnight on Thursday, and Democrats passed the bill the following afternoon.
Thanks, Teresa. I am ashamed to admit that I don't pay much attention to how the Congress works. And, I would imagine that most Americans don't either unless it is something really big like this health reform bill.
For those of this forum, I would suggest that if you are truly worried about how this bill is being handled, sit down right now and post a letter to your Congressman and express your displeasure. I am not one to do that, but I will in this case. It is absolutely absurd how this is being handled. When I made the original post, I thought it was just something to read. I am astounded by the way this has developed. I don't know if my letter will make a difference. But, I think something is being shoved down my throat or up somewhere else, and I don't like it.