[George M. Middius[_4_]]

hophead said:

Scottie has recently revived Paranoa™Borg's dreaded "clique" of mockers and
ridiculers. Membership is automatically granted after Witless has yapped at
you on two separate occasions.

I think that includes all the Normals currently posting on RAO. But
aside from mockery and ridicule, how else can one respond to Witless?
It's not like Yapper is interested in actually discussing the "points"
he makes.

You're singing my song. Maybe you can ask Jenn why she continues to post as if
Scottie will suddenly turn into a reasonable conversationalist.

[hophead]

In article ,
says...

You're singing my song. Maybe you can ask Jenn why she continues to post as if
Scottie will suddenly turn into a reasonable conversationalist.

Jenn, bless her heart, is an eternal optimist. Look how long it took her
to write the Krooborg off.

I think she genuinely wants to improve the signal/noise ratio around
here and is trying to counter the outrageous nonsense that Scottie
regurgitates like a dog puking up its breakfast.

I realize she winds up enabling the rabid pooch, but she's a kind person
and I believe it is to her credit that she tries. Of course (like the
Krooborg) it seems to outrage Scottie when Jenn treats him like a normal
human being, but what can you do?

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

You should be ashamed for advocating government take over of what a
family should do.

That would be shameful if the provisions included anything remotely like
that.

End-of-life government intervention should be ad hoc, like it was for
Schiavo.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
hophead wrote:

In article ,
says...

You're singing my song. Maybe you can ask Jenn why she continues to post as
if
Scottie will suddenly turn into a reasonable conversationalist.

Jenn, bless her heart, is an eternal optimist. Look how long it took her
to write the Krooborg off.

I think she genuinely wants to improve the signal/noise ratio around
here and is trying to counter the outrageous nonsense that Scottie
regurgitates like a dog puking up its breakfast.

I realize she winds up enabling the rabid pooch, but she's a kind person
and I believe it is to her credit that she tries. Of course (like the
Krooborg) it seems to outrage Scottie when Jenn treats him like a normal
human being, but what can you do?

So many of his assertions call for simple contradiction and mockery. I
guess he "wins" by outlasting his responders.

http://laughingsquid.com/someone-is-...-the-internet/

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

taxes

Oh, is that all it is? Decades ago I met a Marin County conservative who
proclaimed that he made all his voting decisions on whether the outcome
would cost him any money.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

I think most people manage just fine without gov't counseling.

Your example doesn't mandate gov't counseling.

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Witlessmongrel growls at another "clique" snob.

Scottie has recently revived Paranoa?Borg's dreaded "clique" of mockers and
ridiculers. Membership is automatically granted after Witless has yapped at
you on two separate occasions.

I think that includes all the Normals currently posting on RAO. But
aside from mockery and ridicule, how else can one respond to Witless?
It's not like Yapper is interested in actually discussing the "points"
he makes.

This reminds me of a ventriloquest carryin a conversation between
two dummies. LoL.

FYI, Witless, the first L in "LOL" stands for "laugh" or "laughing". A more
accurate shorthand for the noise you make would be GTM ("Growling To Myself")
or SSIA ("Snarling Silently In Anger").



--
"What you see is my misplaced expectations of a higher level of discourse."
-- Scottie Witlessmongrel, RAO, May 22 2009

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Aug 25, 10:57*am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW2 wrote:
taxes

Oh, is that all it is? Decades ago I met a Marin County conservative who
proclaimed that he made all his voting decisions on whether the outcome
would cost him any money. *

Of course. On the flip side are peasants like you who base all their
voting decisions on what it's gonna get them.

A cubicle drone trying to invoke class!

Punch the clock, too scared to punch the boss...

Stephen

[hophead]

In article , smcelroy2
@POPaustin.rr.com says...

A cubicle drone trying to invoke class!

Scottydog is going to bark furiously at you for that! The last time he
was accused of working in a cubicle he chewed through the drywall in
anger.

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 25, 10:47�am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Aug 25, 8:10�am, hophead wrote:

In article ,
says...

Scottie has recently revived Paranoa?Borg's dreaded "clique" of mockers and
ridiculers. Membership is automatically granted after Witless has yapped at
you on two separate occasions.

I think that includes all the Normals currently posting on RAO. But
aside from mockery and ridicule, how else can one respond to Witless?
It's not like Yapper is interested in actually discussing the "points"
he makes.

� This reminds me of a ventriloquest carryin a conversation between
two dummies. LoL.

"This reminds me of two ventriloquist dummies trying to have a
conversation."

So how that makes you sound more educated? Duh.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Aug 24, 11:47*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW2 wrote:
On Aug 24, 1:20*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 aug., 01:13, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*MiNe 109 * wrote:

In article
-septemb
er.o
rg
,
*Jenn wrote:

In article

om,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

is the oven option included in the death co0unseling?

Dear God...

I hope Art thinks it's funny and doesn't believe what he's
saying.

Stephen

In addition to the bad taste, I'm wondering if he is believing the
"death co0unseling" tripe.

LOL! it's already in a VA handbook that until recently they directed
physicians
to show the VA patients. And also raises its head in a VA patient
self
assessment questionaire
to be fair, this actually happened under the Bush Admin,
without its knowledge, but it shows what happens
when the govt bureaucracy is put in control
of health care.

Have you seen the book?

http://www.ethics.va.gov/YLYC/YLYC_F...n_20001001.pdf

*I love the opener.....undergoing revision and available soon.
*How long has that been the case? *I think I heard two years
on Wallace show. *That's gov't efficiency in action.

Yeah, pretty evil alright...

Well, let's see. *Please post your answers to
"What Makes Your Life Worth Living" on page 25
to see if you should call it quits.

Don't forget to complete the "Hope for Recovery"
Section.

How about "How Would you like to spend your last days"?

All good questions, especially the last one. *You might wish for others
to make those decisions for you. *I don't.

No but you apparently do need the government to assist you
in making the right choice.

Illogical leap.

I think most people manage just fine without gov't counseling.

Then most people won't take advantage of the offer. So?

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 aug., 19:45, George M. Middius wrote:
Sacky the duh-Meister said:

Canada and Great Britain, the closest to our proposed system
certainl do by rationing not only care, but by rationing diagnoses.
Long waits or outright refusals for various tests and treatments.

I take it you're not going to sign up for any new government insurance plan.
What exactly are you complaining about? BTW, you should hear the obstreperous
howling by the anti-reform shills. They make up the most outrageous strawman
arguments about insurance. Did you know the Federal government is going to
seize land and office buildings without compensation to house the new
bureaucracy? Or that the only discounted prenatal treatment will be abortion?
These are your fellow travelers.

Are you going to accuse me of any other made-up nonsense like you did the
other day?

I thought you really do sport a mullet.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 25 aug., 02:38, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:



On 24 aug., 22:45, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 aug., 16:23, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 aug., 01:27, "GeoSynch" wrote:
Jenn spat:

In addition to the bad taste, I'm wondering if he is
believing
the
"death
co0unseling" tripe.
Why not? Practically everybody else does:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08172009.../opedcolumnist
s/it
s_a.
..
More Murdoch crapola.

You sound like a bitter old harpy.

She sounds like someone who isn't interested *in hearing the
truth.
Instead of addressing the issue, she summarily dismisses the
source.

I listen to the truth. *Murdoch is not known for it.

if you listen fo the truth, get ready for rationed care
you're no spring chicken.

Where in any of the proposals does rationed care appear?

Do you not understand that your healthcare is rationed now?

Feel free to not accept the government option. *Choice is good.

the government option will entice employers to drop the private
option.

Then the privates should clean up their act and get competitive.

A control board will oversee the private options and mandeate
its form of rationing.

What are you basing this on?

the bill provides for Fed oversight of private systems.
the impetus is clearly for manged care, at the expense of the elderly

Why do you believe that this is the fact?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 25 aug., 02:46, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:



On 24 aug., 16:20, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 aug., 01:13, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*MiNe 109 * wrote:

In article
-septemb
er.o
rg
,
*Jenn wrote:

In article

om,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

is the oven option included in the death co0unseling?

Dear God...

I hope Art thinks it's funny and doesn't believe what he's
saying.

Stephen

In addition to the bad taste, I'm wondering if he is believing the
"death co0unseling" tripe.

LOL! it's already in a VA handbook that until recently they directed
physicians
to show the VA patients. And also raises its head in a VA patient
self
assessment questionaire
to be fair, this actually happened under the Bush Admin,
without its knowledge, but it shows what happens
when the govt bureaucracy is put in control
of health care.

Have you seen the book?

http://www.ethics.va.gov/YLYC/YLYC_F...n_20001001.pdf

Yeah, pretty evil alright...

page 25 is loaded with negativity

Consider what you are saying: "I believe that it's a bad idea to plan
ahead for how I want my end of life care proceed. *Whether I want to be
hooked up to a respirator for years or I want them to pull the plug
doesn't matter. *I want to be like Terry Shivo."

i never said that.
When other people done that to you, you
have called them liars.

You seem to be against people having the option of planning ahead for
the end of life. The logical conclusion is that you believe as I wrote
above. Feel free to elaborate.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Aug 24, 11:38*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:





On 24 aug., 22:45, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 aug., 16:23, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 aug., 01:27, "GeoSynch" wrote:
Jenn spat:

In addition to the bad taste, I'm wondering if he is
believing
the
"death
co0unseling" tripe.
Why not? Practically everybody else does:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08172009.../opedcolumnist
s/it
s_a.
..
More Murdoch crapola.

You sound like a bitter old harpy.

She sounds like someone who isn't interested *in hearing the
truth.
Instead of addressing the issue, she summarily dismisses the
source.

I listen to the truth. *Murdoch is not known for it.

if you listen fo the truth, get ready for rationed care
you're no spring chicken.

Where in any of the proposals does rationed care appear?

Do you not understand that your healthcare is rationed now?

Feel free to not accept the government option. *Choice is good.

the government option will entice employers to drop the private
option.

Then the privates should clean up their act and get competitive.

Good idea. Step 1 would be disallowing all transfer of expense
subsidies for medicare recipients.

When everyone goes to the public option, medicare will implode
without private subsidies.

Why would "everyone go to the public option" if the insurance companies
are working so well



A control board will oversee the private options and mandeate
its form of rationing.

What are you basing this on?

The bill.

Specifics?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

What if the public option was only for people below a certain income
level?

That's what Cranky McCain called "income redistribution". The flat-taxers have
their own dunce room in the loony right wing.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 25, 11:47*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Jenn said:

What if the public option was only for people below a certain income
level?

That's what Cranky McCain called "income redistribution". The flat-taxers have
their own dunce room in the loony right wing.

In 2pidville they'd all be against it because then everybody would
race to get below that income level so they could get the "freebies".

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Aug 25, 12:57*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW2 wrote:
On Aug 25, 10:57*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW2 wrote:
taxes

Oh, is that all it is? Decades ago I met a Marin County conservative who
proclaimed that he made all his voting decisions on whether the outcome
would cost him any money. *

*Of course. *On the flip side are peasants like you who base all their
voting decisions on what it's gonna get them.

A cubicle drone trying to invoke class!

There are two sides to class warfare.
Only one has to lie about the others job
to help their self-esteem.

What, only two sides? When did that become a rule?

Punch the clock,

Having never really worked, I doubt the term
exempt means anything to you.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

too scared to punch the boss...

Stephen plays heavy metal in the church of
violent resurrection.

Cool! but wrong. Say, aren't you lying about my job? Is that to help
your self-esteem?

Stephen

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Aug 25, 12:57*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW2 wrote:
On Aug 25, 10:57*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW2 wrote:
taxes

Oh, is that all it is? Decades ago I met a Marin County conservative
who
proclaimed that he made all his voting decisions on whether the
outcome
would cost him any money. *

*Of course. *On the flip side are peasants like you who base all their
voting decisions on what it's gonna get them.

A cubicle drone trying to invoke class!

There are two sides to class warfare.
Only one has to lie about the others job
to help their self-esteem.

What, only two sides? When did that become a rule?

Punch the clock,

Having never really worked, I doubt the term
exempt means anything to you.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

too scared to punch the boss...

Stephen plays heavy metal in the church of
violent resurrection.

Cool! but wrong. Say, aren't you lying about my job? Is that to help
your self-esteem?

Stephen

I suspect that he's jealous of musicians.

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 25, 10:36�pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,





�ScottW2 wrote:
On Aug 25, 12:57�pm, MiNe 109 � wrote:
In article
,

�ScottW2 wrote:
On Aug 25, 10:57�am, MiNe 109 � wrote:
In article
,

�ScottW2 wrote:
taxes

Oh, is that all it is? Decades ago I met a Marin County conservative who
proclaimed that he made all his voting decisions on whether the outcome
would cost him any money. �

�Of course. �On the flip side are peasants like you who base all their
voting decisions on what it's gonna get them.

A cubicle drone trying to invoke class!

�There are two sides to class warfare.
�Only one has to lie about the others job
�to help their self-esteem.

What, only two sides? When did that become a rule?

Holy ****...he just made a big deal a few days ago about the fact that
there's usually more than two sides to an issue, and now he's arguing
out of the other side of his mouth.

What a moron.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

Stephen plays heavy metal in the church of
violent resurrection.

Cool! but wrong. Say, aren't you lying about my job? Is that to help
your self-esteem?

Witless learned that "debating trade" trick from the Krooborg. No matter what
the reality, he will insist that you provide unconjurable proof of it.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Aug 24, 11:51*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW2 wrote:
On Aug 24, 1:23*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 aug., 01:27, "GeoSynch" wrote:
Jenn spat:

In addition to the bad taste, I'm wondering if he is believing
the
"death
co0unseling" tripe.
Why not? Practically everybody else does:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08172009...dcolumnists/it
s_a.
..
More Murdoch crapola.

You sound like a bitter old harpy.

She sounds like someone who isn't interested *in hearing the truth.
Instead of addressing the issue, she summarily dismisses the source.

I listen to the truth.

*You can't handle the truth. * LoL.

*I love these really deep arguments well based in demonstrated
fact.

ScottW

Where in the proposed bills does it appear that one will be counseled to
end one's life?

It isn't will...it's a may be counseled to end one's life as the
expense of care grows.

Section 123
All of title 1, Improving Health Care Value
Section 1191 particularly section c
and your favorite,
Section 1233 Section E.

Explain to us how, for example, 1233E allows for this, Scott.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Aug 24, 7:22*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*"Harry Lavo" wrote:





"Jenn" wrote in message

g..
.
In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 aug., 01:13, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:

In article
-septembe
r.or
g
,
Jenn wrote:

In article

m,
Clyde Slick wrote:

is the oven option included in the death co0unseling?

Dear God...

I hope Art thinks it's funny and doesn't believe what he's saying.

Stephen

In addition to the bad taste, I'm wondering if he is believing the
"death co0unseling" tripe.

LOL! it's already in a VA handbook that until recently they directed
physicians
to show the VA patients. And also raises its head in a VA patient self
assessment questionaire
to be fair, this actually happened under the Bush Admin,
without its knowledge, but it shows what happens
when the govt bureaucracy is put in control
of health care.

Have you seen the book?

http://www.ethics.va.gov/YLYC/YLYC_F...n_20001001.pdf

Yeah, pretty evil alright...

Oh, yeah, horrible! *Having to think about death! *Ughhhh! * And all
because
that VA nasty death panel gave me this book......they WANT me to DIE!!

Planning ahead and making sure that your wishes are known totally sucks!

Nah, but paying fat taxes so bozoes like you who can't manage their
life without government assistance does.
Is their anything the gov't doesn't have to do for you?

Yes. "Gov't" doesn't have to let me know that when some assholes run
out of arguments, they proceed with personal attacks.

Way to end a debate...

[MiNe 109]

In article

,
Jenn wrote:

I suspect that he's jealous of musicians.

He's jealous of anyone who calls their time their own.

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 25 aug., 23:45, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:



On 25 aug., 02:38, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 aug., 22:45, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 aug., 16:23, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 aug., 01:27, "GeoSynch" wrote:
Jenn spat:

In addition to the bad taste, I'm wondering if he is
believing
the
"death
co0unseling" tripe.
Why not? Practically everybody else does:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08172009.../opedcolumnist
s/it
s_a.
..
More Murdoch crapola.

You sound like a bitter old harpy.

She sounds like someone who isn't interested *in hearing the
truth.
Instead of addressing the issue, she summarily dismisses the
source.

I listen to the truth. *Murdoch is not known for it.

if you listen fo the truth, get ready for rationed care
you're no spring chicken.

Where in any of the proposals does rationed care appear?

Do you not understand that your healthcare is rationed now?

Feel free to not accept the government option. *Choice is good.

the government option will entice employers to drop the private
option.

Then the privates should clean up their act and get competitive.

A control board will oversee the private options and mandeate
its form of rationing.

What are you basing this on?

the bill provides for Fed oversight of private systems.
the impetus is clearly for manged care, at the expense of the elderly

Why do you believe that this is the fact?

"Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly
prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic
and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing
health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is
guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with
learning disabilities can read and learn to reason."

"Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports
modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and
young adults over infants. Adolescents have received substantial
education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a
complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these
investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed
personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose
fulfillment requires a complete life."

"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve
on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most
substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances
that are attenuated."

"Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious
discrimination; every person lives through different life stages
rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority
over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25
years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or
falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they
have already had more life-years is not."

Dr. Ezekial Emmanuel

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 25 aug., 23:45, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:



On 25 aug., 02:38, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 aug., 22:45, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 aug., 16:23, Jenn wrote:
In article

om,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 aug., 01:27, "GeoSynch"
wrote:
Jenn spat:

In addition to the bad taste, I'm wondering if he is
believing
the
"death
co0unseling" tripe.
Why not? Practically everybody else does:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08172009...nion/opedcolum
nist
s/it
s_a.
..
More Murdoch crapola.

You sound like a bitter old harpy.

She sounds like someone who isn't interested *in hearing the
truth.
Instead of addressing the issue, she summarily dismisses the
source.

I listen to the truth. *Murdoch is not known for it.

if you listen fo the truth, get ready for rationed care
you're no spring chicken.

Where in any of the proposals does rationed care appear?

Do you not understand that your healthcare is rationed now?

Feel free to not accept the government option. *Choice is good.

the government option will entice employers to drop the private
option.

Then the privates should clean up their act and get competitive.

A control board will oversee the private options and mandeate
its form of rationing.

What are you basing this on?

the bill provides for Fed oversight of private systems.
the impetus is clearly for manged care, at the expense of the elderly

Why do you believe that this is the fact?

"Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly
prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic
and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing
health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is
guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with
learning disabilities can read and learn to reason."

"Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports
modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and
young adults over infants. Adolescents have received substantial
education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a
complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these
investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed
personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose
fulfillment requires a complete life."

"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve
on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most
substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances
that are attenuated."

"Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious
discrimination; every person lives through different life stages
rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority
over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25
years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or
falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they
have already had more life-years is not."

Dr. Ezekial Emmanuel

And this has what to do with the bills under consideration?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 24, 5:50*am, "GeoSynch" wrote:
Jilly jived:

It's interesting to me that people like Sugar or 2pid can only bring out blogs
or opinion pieces to "prove" their claims, leaving alone that the opinion
pieces and blogs are usually from the most biased sources available.

Unlike the blatant propaganda peddled by the leftist MSM dutifully lapped up by
you so-called "progressives.". LoL!

You lose. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 24, 1:43*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Aug 23, 8:34*pm, Jenn wrote:

In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

is the oven option included in the death co0unseling?

Dear God...

*You think God reads RAO? * LoL.

And that's three. LoL.

[GeoSynch]

Jilly wets herself:

You think God reads RAO? LoL.

And that's three. LoL.

And the happy little piglet found the third truffle she was rooting around for.

[Clyde Slick]

On 26 aug., 10:49, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 25 aug., 23:45, Jenn wrote:



In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 25 aug., 02:38, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 aug., 22:45, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 aug., 16:23, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 aug., 01:27, "GeoSynch" wrote:
Jenn spat:

In addition to the bad taste, I'm wondering if he is
believing
the
"death
co0unseling" tripe.
Why not? Practically everybody else does:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08172009.../opedcolumnist
s/it
s_a.
..
More Murdoch crapola.

You sound like a bitter old harpy.

She sounds like someone who isn't interested *in hearing the
truth.
Instead of addressing the issue, she summarily dismisses the
source.

I listen to the truth. *Murdoch is not known for it.

if you listen fo the truth, get ready for rationed care
you're no spring chicken.

Where in any of the proposals does rationed care appear?

Do you not understand that your healthcare is rationed now?

Feel free to not accept the government option. *Choice is good.

the government option will entice employers to drop the private
option.

Then the privates should clean up their act and get competitive.

A control board will oversee the private options and mandeate
its form of rationing.

What are you basing this on?

the bill provides for Fed oversight of private systems.
the impetus is clearly for manged care, at the expense of the elderly

Why do you believe that this is the fact?

"Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly
prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic
and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing
health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is
guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with
learning disabilities can read and learn to reason."

"Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports
modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and
young adults over infants. Adolescents have received substantial
education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a
complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these
investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed
personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose
fulfillment requires a complete life."

"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve
on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most
substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances
that are attenuated."

"Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious
discrimination; every person lives through different life stages
rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority
over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25
years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or
falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they
have already had more life-years is not."

Dr. Ezekial Emmanuel

It's very simple
He is Obama's medical advisor, the govt gets to decide where
resources go, and don't go
watch out, you are aging, and becoming both
useless and costly for the govt to maintain.
your days are diminishing under their plan

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 26, 4:29*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 26 aug., 10:49, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 25 aug., 23:45, Jenn wrote:

In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 25 aug., 02:38, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 aug., 22:45, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 aug., 16:23, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 aug., 01:27, "GeoSynch" wrote:
Jenn spat:

In addition to the bad taste, I'm wondering if he is
believing
the
"death
co0unseling" tripe.
Why not? Practically everybody else does:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08172009.../opedcolumnist
s/it
s_a.
..
More Murdoch crapola.

You sound like a bitter old harpy.

She sounds like someone who isn't interested *in hearing the
truth.
Instead of addressing the issue, she summarily dismisses the
source.

I listen to the truth. *Murdoch is not known for it.

if you listen fo the truth, get ready for rationed care
you're no spring chicken.

Where in any of the proposals does rationed care appear?

Do you not understand that your healthcare is rationed now?

Feel free to not accept the government option. *Choice is good.

the government option will entice employers to drop the private
option.

Then the privates should clean up their act and get competitive.

A control board will oversee the private options and mandeate
its form of rationing.

What are you basing this on?

the bill provides for Fed oversight of private systems.
the impetus is clearly for manged care, at the expense of the elderly

Why do you believe that this is the fact?

"Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly
prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic
and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing
health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is
guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with
learning disabilities can read and learn to reason."

"Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports
modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and
young adults over infants. Adolescents have received substantial
education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a
complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these
investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed
personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose
fulfillment requires a complete life."

"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve
on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most
substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances
that are attenuated."

"Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious
discrimination; every person lives through different life stages
rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority
over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25
years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or
falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they
have already had more life-years is not."

Dr. Ezekial Emmanuel

It's very simple
He is Obama's medical advisor, the govt gets to decide where
resources go, and don't go
watch out, you are aging, and becoming both
useless and costly for the govt to maintain.
your days are diminishing under their plan

Why are you responding to yourself?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

On Aug 26, 4:29*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 26 aug., 10:49, Clyde Slick wrote:

Why are you responding to yourself?

You know the answer to that.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 26, 5:54*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Shhhh! said:

On Aug 26, 4:29*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 26 aug., 10:49, Clyde Slick wrote:
Why are you responding to yourself?

You know the answer to that.

Pivo?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

On Aug 26, 4:29*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 26 aug., 10:49, Clyde Slick wrote:
Why are you responding to yourself?

You know the answer to that.

Pivo?

Yassuh.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Sackie:
Dr. Ezekial Emmanuel

It's very simple
He is Obama's medical advisor, the govt gets to decide where
resources go, and don't go
watch out, you are aging, and becoming both
useless and costly for the govt to maintain.
your days are diminishing under their plan

Why are you responding to yourself?

He needs to re-convince himself as his original charges were rebutted
weeks ago.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_ro...ezekiel_emanue
l/index.html?source=refresh

The charges against the doctor are "a gross distortion of Dr. Emanuel's
25 years as an oncologist and leading academic researcher," Kenneth
Baer, the communications director at OMB, told Salon. "He has dedicated
his professional life to improving the quality of care and giving more
choices to terminally ill patients. He was an outspoken public opponent
of euthanasia when the Supreme Court was considering the legality of
physician-assisted suicide. We all wish that instead of spending time
distorting one doctor's record we all could come together and do the
hard work of health insurance reform. This is only a distraction from
that important work."

--

Stephen