Senators exclude end-of-life provision from bill
- Thread starter Robert Toy
- Start date
there are NO BILLS to debate!
there is a pre-draft house bill dated 14 Jul, which has 17 major changes that have not been released.
the senate has a pre-draft that is not dated/numbered that has not even been released from committee.
There is zip to debate
Yes I have
ETA; As for discussing specifics, aside from quoting the wrong draft house v. senate bill, "The relevant section begins on Line 15. I realize it doesn't say "No senior citizens will be placed on ice floes and pushed out to sea," but it is clear enough that no one should be yammering on about death panels or frightened about being euthanized." , is wording IMHO not too conducive to discussion.
Last edited:
Christ, Robert, there's plenty to debate. Obama wants to kill everyone over the age of 62. You don't think that deserves debate?
caw
So do you think one is clearer than the other, with regard to the end-of-life counseling? You said the language wasn't clear enough, but I don't see where it is so difficult. And there is simply no way anyone could reasonably believe the nonsense about death panels.
Well, to be fair, I think it's anyone terminal, regardless of age. Or impaired in any way...at least that's what Sarah Palin said.
And you get this: man is being held for carrying a sigh wishing death the entire First Family. Yes, Malia and Sasha, too. Though he called them "stupid kids."
Ah... but you're throwing around that word -
"reasonably"
It seems all reason has gone out with window and been replaced with unreasonable (and unnecessary) fear.
"reasonably"
It seems all reason has gone out with window and been replaced with unreasonable (and unnecessary) fear.
What do you find especially unclear about the wording? Granted, bills are written in specialized language.
All the more reason folks would like to trust what their party tells them these things say.
I can't believe the bizarre extent of misinformation out there. Don't people get angry at being lied to so blatantly?
All the more reason folks would like to trust what their party tells them these things say.
I can't believe the bizarre extent of misinformation out there. Don't people get angry at being lied to so blatantly?
Yer one of them people who don't believe in Bigfoot and alien abductions, ain't you? I bet you don't buy shamwows, neither.
caw
You won't discuss them, except to make vague pronouncements of lack of clarity, but you want specifics from me. Sorry, I'm interested in actual discussion, not games.
But I get why you're being evasive.
Line 15 of which section? I'm not being snarky; I just really can't find the part we're talking about in this version.
Line 15 came from my link, which went directly to the section of the House bill (which Robert is cagily calling the "wrong" draft) that dealt with end-of-life counseling. Because I try to facilitate discussion, I found a link to that section and specified the line at which the relevant section began.
And yet you took exception to me linking to the House version. Called it the "wrong" version. Except that it is the text that many people have been bringing up in town hall meetings.
Ah! I think the Senate version linked already has the language dropped. I could be wrong, but my searches didn't find it.
And...just to clarify. .. since you're in this thread, what do you want to discuss?
Grassley actually said this:
So no doctors or healthcare professionals to provide factual information about treatment options, hospice, palliative care. Just Jesus (for everyone...though we're not all Christians) and the family. No wonder so many people have skewed ideas about hospice and so many people have bloody miserable deaths.
So no doctors or healthcare professionals to provide factual information about treatment options, hospice, palliative care. Just Jesus (for everyone...though we're not all Christians) and the family. No wonder so many people have skewed ideas about hospice and so many people have bloody miserable deaths.
However, you commented on the language being unclear as a reason people were confused. I linked to text that people are confused about. Text that is pretty clear.
But it's been fun to watch you do anything to avoid discussing specifics.
Well, what does need to be dealt with when talking about what things will be covered [$$$] is what things are covered 
I'm confident that this was included so that it would be paid for. It was described in detail to show a standardized 'appointment' [my word] that would now be covered [if voted in]. It was a good thing!
I'm confident that this was included so that it would be paid for. It was described in detail to show a standardized 'appointment' [my word] that would now be covered [if voted in]. It was a good thing!