Not Worth the Cost of Treatment

Hyperbole and lies?

Why do you suppose that nutrition and hydration are explicitly named in the bill as something requiring counseling?

 

The first set of seniors under this plan were middle-aged when Roe v Wade was handed down. They didn't fight when the government came after the unborn, now the government's coming for them.

 

This isn't in the bill. You're making this up.

 

Not "so many words" that I've read. Can you provide us with a quote? BTW, here's a link to the AARP Health Care Town Meeting with the President:

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/articles/townhall.html

 

Obama is a liar and perhaps the father of lies. Nothing he says can be believed.

 

Go away fool.

 

Information is good. There's no requirement to use it. My mother has always told us she doesn't want her life to be prolonged through artificial means. She would have appreciated more information on these topics.

 

That may be what you wanted to change the topic to - but I am sticking with the OP.

Why are nutrution and hydration explicitly referenced in the bill as something to counsel with an elderly patient?

 

You need to carefully think that statement through.

Do you really want the government deciding who is "worth" saving?

In the past, the government has been a remarkably poor judge of what is important. You want that translated into lives of sick people?

With this in place, all it takes is a couple of activists running wild, and we have a big problem.

 

Nutrition and hydration were something that your mother needed to be counseled on?

You consider nutrition and hydration to be "prolonging life through artifical means"?

That is what we are talking about here.

 

Now we can see why it was so important that the state be allowed to use it's overwhelming force to assist Terri Shiavo's husband in her murder.

 

Read the first post again. What does it say about water and food. I offered an extremely personal story to this thread. What exactly have you contributed?

 

The "state" meaning President George Bush tried to prevent her death.

 

The first post says, "Section 1233 of the House-drafted legislation encourages health care providers to provide their Medicare patients with counseling on ‘the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration’ and other end of life treatments,'"

I contributed discussion that was on topic.

Can you answer my question?

Why are nutrition and hydration explicitly referenced in the bill as something to counsel with an elderly patient?

 

Do you like having insurance company clerks decide who gets a life saving treatment and who doesn't? I don't. People who don't have medical insurance don't get access to the Mayo Clinic or Sloan Kettering. Is that fair? In reality, other people very often make life or death decisions whether we like it or not.

 

Presumably because they have they right to refuse it. Do you think someone should be force fed?

 

Are you honestly suggesting that someone would voluntarily choose to die of thirst? Are you aware of just how horrible of a death that is?

As to nutrition - I doubt that very many (if anyone) would reject an IV for nutrition if they were unable to consume food orally due to illness.

Now you mention that the elderly have the right to refuse food and water. Since that would probably not be a normal or rational choice to make it answers my question as to why the elderly would be counseled on this under the Obama plan - so that they can be talked into it to save money.

You talked about the end of your parents lives. Is refusing nutrition and hydration something that you would have preferred for them?

If not why not?