It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Wants To Euthanize Americans

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I agree, I see this being used to skirt around people that have terminal illness. Say kids with stage 4 cancer or whatever. They will end up telling the parents of the kid, well he is going to die, do you prefer him to go naturally, or with "dignity".

It isn't written into the bill, but I'm willing to bet there isn't anything written into the bill that is preventing it from happening either.

I don't trust the government it is simple as that. And all the people trying to use the guilt trip to make people feel bad for not agreeing with them, is really getting on my nerves.




posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 



There's nothing stopping anyone from wheeling themselves into traffic or falling off the roof or downing a bunch of sleeping pills and whiskey.


There is plenty stopping them. If they are bad enough to want to die, they are going to need help getting into traffic or getting their hands on pills and whiskey. The gov't likes to prosecute the do-gooders that give them a ride to the bridge or 'accidentally' leave a pill bottle on the nightstand!

I think it should be a personal choice, I don't think it should be illegal, and I don't see any harm in requiring this advance planning.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



I think it should be a personal choice, I don't think it should be illegal, and I don't see any harm in requiring this advance planning.


Do you not see any harm in advanced planning in general or do you not see any harm in the government deciding what your "options" for death are?

Could you please clarify.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Okay. First, I went to look at HR 3200 to find out if the cited Section 1233 is written as reported in the OP's link. You know what? I can find several hundred blogs and threads referring to it, and a draft that mentions the "America's Affordable Health Care Act of 2009", however it also has HR ___________________. in the title. Confused? Me too.

I think we need to first look at the document, verify that the Section in question even exists, THEN and only then, do we have the tools to discuss what it MEANS.

So, I'm off on my search for HR 3200, the real and proposed HR 3200. If anyone has it linked, please post. Back soon



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


Someone has been giving an elderly relative of mine books which essentially encourage the elderly to live less vibrant lives in essence give up. Don't exercise so much ;you are old bla, bla,bla. This confirms my elderly relatives veiw point of life ,but there are plenty of old people who are yoga instructors and are leading vibrant lives. Our government ,like with the education system, will use the health care system to encourage people to be less than they should be. Old people should ignore those counselors. The grey panthers should set the death counselors up on elder abuse charges.



[edit on 22-7-2009 by eradown]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



I think it should be a personal choice, I don't think it should be illegal, and I don't see any harm in requiring this advance planning.


Do you not see any harm in advanced planning in general or do you not see any harm in the government deciding what your "options" for death are?

Could you please clarify.


Oh, I said earlier that it was a very slippery slope, and that money should not figure into the equation at all!

I see plenty of potential pitfalls! However, we have plenty of pitfalls in the current environment as well. Right now the Healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies are running unchecked. The law supports their efforts to keep you alive at all costs and bilk the insurance providers.

At least in the new system it is kind of a check and balance. Government Insurance vs. Profit Mongers.

I don't see a problem with the "planning" and foresight of an inevitable death, but I don't want the decision based on anyone's "budget"!!!!

Someone mentioned terminal kids earlier. That is a huge topic! No parent is going to opt for an early exit for their kid. If the gov't steps in and says that they have to, it will result in serious shockwaves!

By the same token, the gov't should not say that they 'cannot' opt for an early exit and prosecute those that assist them.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I found what claims to be the whole text of HR 3200 on www.opencongress.org... , however, that site -- opencongress.org -- freezes my computer on that page, and opens nothing at all!

I ask again, can ANYBODY give me a link to the real document? I'm thinking more and more that in order to 'deny ignorance' we need to first verify the OP's story via studying the document. HELP!



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Oh, I said earlier that it was a very slippery slope, and that money should not figure into the equation at all!

I see plenty of potential pitfalls! However, we have plenty of pitfalls in the current environment as well. Right now the Healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies are running unchecked. The law supports their efforts to keep you alive at all costs and bilk the insurance providers.

At least in the new system it is kind of a check and balance. Government Insurance vs. Profit Mongers.

I don't see a problem with the "planning" and foresight of an inevitable death, but I don't want the decision based on anyone's "budget"!!!!

Someone mentioned terminal kids earlier. That is a huge topic! No parent is going to opt for an early exit for their kid. If the gov't steps in and says that they have to, it will result in serious shockwaves!

By the same token, the gov't should not say that they 'cannot' opt for an early exit and prosecute those that assist them.


The problem is who is the check and balances for the government? We are supposed to be, but that doesn't work. Also, there will be no legal recourse for the governments decisions.

The fact is that everything is based on the money. It will be even more based on the money if this health care plan passes. You can expect health care rationing, it is all about the cash.

You got to the heart of the problem in your post. Laws have been made to protect the profit motives of the insurance and pharmaceuticals industries. Now I have a big problem letting the same government that passed these laws deciding what kind of health care I or my family are going to receive.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Okay. I found it. I think: HR 3200

...... and there is even a section 1233, as talked about it the OP's link:

Sec. 1233 - Advanced Care Planning Consultation

However........... and I'll read it again, ..... I don't see where this consultation is mandated to be every 5 years.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   


Now I have a big problem letting the same government that passed these laws deciding what kind of health care I or my family are going to receive.


Especially since being vocally opposed could end up with a medical diagnosis of schizophrenia which the government will then enforce the treatment and medication thereof.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
From Section 1233:


)(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


So that's where the five years thing comes in, however this is required IF "subject to paragraph (3).

What does paragraph 3 talk about? Really, we should all read the whole thing, but the "meat" of paragraph 3 is (IMO)


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




I fail to see how any of this even INFERS that "Obama Wants to Euthanize Americans". I think this is pure thread title fraud. Obviously, I'm not an attorney, but this so-called "scary" section of the Bill seems more to talk about people dying with dignity, and having their legal affairs in order. It might actually help pave the way for people going on their own, should they choose to.

Obama Wants to Euthanize Americans????? Maybe should change the thread title to "Poster Wants to Copy Bad News About Obama Without Researching It Himself". Naw. Too long.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Some of you guys are more gullible that a third grader and will swallow anything that smears Obama...

Did you guys abandon critical thinking?



Some of the threads here on ATS have become so idiotic and hysterical that I am beginning to read it for the humor as opposed to any serious discussion of the news...

and its the hard right's histrionics over Obama that's done it.

Read my signature.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by grover]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Hazelnut
 


You know people always joke about the people in the white coats, but this time they will be armed.


There is no telling what could happen, maybe that is a little paranoid, but it really wouldn't surprise me if ACORN showed up at your door saying, "we received information that you might have a condition that has been previously undiagnosed. Can we come in and talk with you for a few minutes, we have a few questions to ask you." Followed by the words, "We're from the government and we are here to help."

Completely hypothetical I know, but the path this country is going down I could see it happening. Maybe not immediately bu eventually.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by Hazelnut
 


You know people always joke about the people in the white coats, but this time they will be armed.


There is no telling what could happen, maybe that is a little paranoid, but it really wouldn't surprise me if ACORN showed up at your door saying, "we received information that you might have a condition that has been previously undiagnosed. Can we come in and talk with you for a few minutes, we have a few questions to ask you." Followed by the words, "We're from the government and we are here to help."

Completely hypothetical I know, but the path this country is going down I could see it happening. Maybe not immediately bu eventually.


I wish my sometimers would subside so I could remember exactly which bailout package contained the health care measures that give the government access to and limited control of our personal health records. Something about a database.... Alas! I need help from the more experienced and brainy members to recall and post links. Anyone remember which bailout it was?



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


That's terrible to require something like that. That's how my mom died. The doctor told her she had a few months to live, and without getting a second opinion she took the hospice option. After that, she was dead in like a week, and it had nothing to do with why she went in the first place.

The last thing I'd recommend for anyone is a mandatory meeting for discussing when "the doctor" is going to get rid of you. That's a bad idea.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MegaCurious
reply to post by Alxandro
 


That's terrible to require something like that


The author of the article cited is saying that...NOT the law.

It is taking something and extrapolating from there.

That is why the whole thread is bull hooey.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 





Some of the threads here on ATS have become so idiotic and hysterical that I am beginning to read it for the humor as opposed to any serious discussion of the news... and its the hard right's histrionics over Obama that's done it.


Obama is bought, paid in full, by the bankers and corporate elite. Go ahead and keep ignoring it Grover. Yours and others failure to question your own vote and beliefs is a major reason this country is going down the tubes.

Hard right said this...hard right said that.... BLAH BLAH BLAH. It's not just the hard right man. This is the only crap you spew out. It's everyone. What the hell is it going to take for you to wake up?

Signing on to 1000 page bills written by lobbyist without EVER BEING READ.

Enough Grover. Swallow your frickin pride and start accepting it.

Not once have I seen you question Obama's policies. If you don't like it...well...you just ignore it and go and defend something else that he's done that you feel is justified.

Enough man.

Just stop it.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
MAn this is sick minded. This sounds just like something jack the ripper would do, or the mad doctor who created frankenstein!
I can see it now..yuor in your 60's, seeing yuor doctor. He goes on and on abuot maybe its time now, why wait another decade, and offers a prescription for yuo..cyanide or what the prison systems use as letah injection..... sick.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by grover
 

Obama is bought, paid in full, by the bankers and corporate elite.


And John McCain wouldn't have been owned by the same groups?

If you think that I have a bridge in Brooklyn you can buy.

I don't as much support Obama...or any politician...as opposed to object to the jackass knee jerk hysterics of the right about him.

If you oppose him fine...I may very well oppose him in the end also...but oppose him based on actual policy differences not a bunch of crap like...Obama is the anti-Christ or Obama is a Manchurian candidate who is not qualified to be president or threads like this one which is soley based on what the writer of the cited article chose to read into the bill...not its actual contents.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Obama Wants To Euthanize Americans

OF COURSE he does. One look at his Science Zcar tells you that. This latest junk from Obama just goes hand in hand with it.

Nationalize 'health care'.
Kill off the elderly and sick so the nation can afford 'health care'.

Side note (not really on topic) - I'm not against Euthanisia centers for VOLUNTARY Euthanasia. I think people who are terminally ill should be able to take care of their own end of life issues. However, what scares me is that in Obamatopia the Euthanasia Centers would be coerced or forced.



[edit on 7/22/2009 by FlyersFan]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join