We’re talking about something run, ultimately, by politicians who get paid to make voters happy.

Old people vote.

Therefore, conservatives would have us believe that American politicians are actively working to destroy their own jobs. Do these self-saboteurs secretly work for Soviet Russia, or just the League of Evil Muslims? Inquiring minds want to know.

This would be the “turd sandwich” that right wingers need to lie about in order to defeat?

Harry Reid, dim as he may be..actually got this one right.

WHICH language. Quote it. Because it don’ means what you thin’ it means.

Every five years, whether you want to or not, you gotta sit down and have explained to you your option to just give up and die,

First you call it the “OK, old people, you gotta just stop costing us so much and die” provision. Then you back up a little and call it the required “death with dignity” consultation. You really are reaching to give it a “We’re going to kill you” connotation that doesn’t accuratly describe what it is.

If you really had a valid, supportable objection you wouldn’t have to resort to incendiary naming.

Second, everything you said is a complete crock of pure bullshit.

It’s an “advance care planning consultation” and that is an accurate description of what it actually is: a consultation to discuss various things which a person should be aware of as they get older.

Section 1233 which you point to (did you bother to read it or just grab someone else’s talking points?) amends subsection(s)(2) of Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x). Section 1861 is just a long list of definitions and subsection (s)(2) just defines what the term “medical and other health services” means by providing a lengthy list of services and items that fall under the definition. Your Section 1233 merely adds “advance care planning consultation” to that list and then explains what that is:

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,

and, yes, the information provided to the elderly “may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.”

That is, to what extent a person wants to continue treatment if they are particularly ill.

There is NOTHING that says this consultation is required. On the contrary, the every five years is how often a person can have this consultation if they want it at all. Pretty much the exactly opposite of what you claimed.

There is NOTHING that says “you gotta sit down and have explained to you your option to just give up and die”. On the contrary, right to die is never mentioned at all, not even euphemistically. Closest it comes is saying you can get information about your right to control what care you receive, but nothing about taking any steps to end your life. Pretty much nothing at all like what you claimed.

In sort, this section provides that people be provided with valuable information so that they can understand what is available and make whatever plans and choices they deem fit for themselves.

What is it you have against old people that you want take away their rights to choose, that you want to make them suffer in ignorance?

(Note: This literally took me less than 10 minutes to find online, read and understand. Is that too much effort for you?)

Jay Tea, do you ever do any research on anything period?

All hospitals and health care facilities are required by law to provide written information to the patient about the right to accept or refuse medical treatment and the right to formulate an Advance Directive and/or designate Durable Power of Attorney (“Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990”). The health care facility must also provide written policies stating how the patient’s Advance Directive or Durable Power of Attorney will be implemented. Individuals should remember that they do not have to sign any Advance Directive given to them by the hospital.

So hospitals are already required by law to tell every patient, catholic or not, that they have an option to refuse treatment.

Also:

Generally, a medical procedure that carries with it little hope of benefit and is burdensome is deemed “extraordinary” and is not obligatory. For example, a person may judge in good conscience that the pain and difficulty of an aggressive treatment for terminal cancer is too much to bear, and thus decide to forgo that treatment. Whether a particular treatment is excessively burdensome to an individual patient is a moral question that often requires the advice of a priest or someone well-trained in moral theology. Individual patients and their families should seek the guidance of the Church whenever there is any doubt about the morality of a particular course of action.

Most medical treatment received during the course of one’s lifetime is routine and does not raise serious moral questions. Sometimes, however, medical circumstances require considerable reflection about what procedures are appropriate for a given medical condition and time of life. When aggressive and experimental methods are recommended by a physician, the Church teaches that we are free to pursue such treatment whenever there is a reasonable hope of benefit to the patient. We are also free, however, to refuse treatment that is of dubious benefit or when its burdens are clearly greater than its benefits. For example, I might want extraordinary moral means used to extend my life in order to receive the sacraments of the Church, or to see friends or relatives one last time, or to be reconciled with somebody from whom I’ve been estranged. The use of extraordinary moral means always remains optional, but the moral obligation to conserve life obliges us simply to act in the most reasonable manner.

and …

When death is imminent one may refuse forms of treatment that would only result in a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life. There is a presumption in favor of continuing to provide food and water to the patient, but there is a stage in the dying process when even these may no longer be obligatory because they provide no benefit. Normal care always remains morally obligatory, but refusal of additional treatment when death is imminent is not equivalent to suicide. It should be seen instead as an expression of profound Christian hope in the life that is to come. An instruction not to provide such treatment, when communicated ahead of time to family and friends, may give great comfort to loved ones during emotionally stressful times.

From: A Catholic Guide to End-of-Life Decisions: An Explanation of Church Teaching on Advance Directives, Euthanasia, and Physician Assisted Suicide
http://www.ncbcenter.org/eol.asp

LOL that’s so silly. I’m not attacking the source, I’m admiring the intense, detailed scrutiny you applied to this rock-solid analysis of the section of the bill you clearly came across when personally poring over it. You should totally call up Erick oat RedState and bitch him out for plagiarizing what you would write, in the future.

Jay Tea, I just searched the PDF doc of the bill at the link above and read the section you listed. No where in the bill does the phrase “death with dignity” appear.

It’s important to note, because the section is dealing with consultations about “end of life” care, not “death with dignity.”

End of life care is a big deal for people with terminal conditions and includes such things as, quoting from the bill:

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. 8

Palliative and hospice care are designed to reduce the pain and suffering of patients with terminal illnesses and conditions so that they can die with dignity.

In other words, the bill is not requiring people to die with dignity instead of receiving care.

It’s requiring doctors to inform patients about all the options available to reduce the pain and suffering of terminal conditions.

In other words, Jay Tea, you’re a complete fucking moron.

And attacking the source? Pretty lame. Hell, just the other day Hot Air was pointing out how they, Michelle Malkin, and Little Green Footballs” are consistently mocking and denigrating the “Nirthers” (Obama birth certificate nuts).

J.

Yep, that’s exactly what it says, alright.

Let’s see, this one’s sourced to RedState, or maybe QandO, but I think they copied it from there before you copied it to here. Or maybe from Protein Wisdom, which, heh, I guess would be kinda ironic.

I love that you’re at this level of crazy only a few weeks after the bill was released. I guess that’s another small advantage of the month delay- the newer and increasingly sillier things folks like you are going to copy and paste from other weblogs.

You haven’t even started with free abortions for illegal immigrants yet!

Every five years, whether you want to or not, you gotta sit down and have explained to you your option to just give up and die, by someone paid by the people who will pick up the tab should you decide you don’t want them to pull the plug on you, even if it would be cheaper.

Just one of the many details they don’t want people to know about, OL…

J.

J.

This guy is the gift that keeps on giving.

It would be a good way to celobrate Turnip Day!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnip_Day_Session