Health Care Bill: SEC. 1553. Prohibition Against Descrimination On Assisted Suicide.

Sorry about the caps, but that is how it is written. Does that mean this bill is actually a corporate contract?? Anyway, the section in question.

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Federal Government, and any
13 State or local government or health care provider that re14
ceives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or under
15 an amendment made by this Act) or any health plan cre16
ated under this Act (or under an amendment made by this
17 Act), may not subject an individual or institutional health
18 care entity to discrimination on the basis that the entity
19 does not provide any health care item or service furnished
20 for the purpose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting
21 in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted
22 suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.

docs.house.gov...
(pg 360)

Are they saying that no one may be discriminated against when is comes
to assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.

Euthanasia. Wow, sounds like someone putting down a dog.

Am I interpreting the wording wrong, or are they setting up the
country for legal euthanasia in FEMA death camps?

[edit on 20-3-2010 by 911stinks]

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 20-3-2010 by Duzey]

The way I read it (and I may be wrong) it's saying that they are giving the green light for assisted suicide, euthanasia, mercy killing and it will be covered by the bill. It says very clearly that funding will not be discriminitory based on these "services".

Originally posted by SpaDe_
The way I read it (and I may be wrong) it's saying that they are giving the green light for assisted suicide, euthanasia, mercy killing and it will be covered by the bill. It says very clearly that funding will not be discriminitory based on these "services".

That is what I am reading too. Now this was in the senate bill that was voted in, and I haven't seen any amendments to change the wording.

It's really quite creepy.

reply to post by 911stinks


Like many others, this paragraph seems very ambiguous, to me.

On the surface, it seems to say that a facility can not be discriminated against, just because they do not provide assisted suicide services. (I can't believe this even has to be addressed...Anyway...)

However, the wording is very odd. Why was the term "health care provider" included in the list of those who are prohibited from the act of discrimination, alongside "the Federal, State or local government?

[edit on 20-3-2010 by WTFover]

It's almost four in the morning here, so lack of sleep plus the legalese of the item are making me feel as if my brain's gone stupid

but ... doesn't it mean the opposite to what the OP's suggested ?

If we break it down, doesn't it say may not subject an individual or institution to discrimination on the basis that the individual/institution has not provided any item or service for the purpose or assisting death' ?

Originally posted by Dock9
It's almost four in the morning here, so lack of sleep plus the legalese of the item are making me feel as if my brain's gone stupid

but ... doesn't it mean the opposite to what the OP's suggested ?

If we break it down, doesn't it say may not subject an individual or institution to discrimination on the basis that the individual/institution has not provided any item or service for the purpose or assisting death' ?

To me it says

Any government office (VA comes to mind) or health care provider (including hospitals, clinics, long term care, etc) that receives money from the government (taxpayers) can not be discriminated against on the basis that they didn't offer assisted suicide services, euthanasia, mercy killing.

It sounds like they are legalizing assisted suicide, for any reason.

Who the frick knows what this says?? I've read it slowly 4 times and still don't know. We're screwed when we can't even read a sentence in the bill and know what it means.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Who the frick knows what this says?? I've read it slowly 4 times and still don't know. We're screwed when we can't even read a sentence in the bill and know what it means.

I cut and pasted the title from the pdf.

PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ON ASSISTED SUICIDE.

Pretty much says it all to me. Pg 361 goes on to say

—Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to
6 apply to, or to affect, any limitation relating to—

7 (1) the withholding or withdrawing of medical
8 treatment or medical care;
9 (2) the withholding or withdrawing of nutrition
10 or hydration;
11 (3) abortion; or
12 (4) the use of an item, good, benefit, or service
13 furnished for the purpose of alleviating pain or dis14
comfort, even if such use may increase the risk of
15 death, so long as such item, good, benefit, or service
16 is not also furnished for the purpose of causing, or the
17 purpose of assisting in causing, death, for any reason.

In other words, they are not allowed to limit any of these services, including the withdrawing of nutrition, or for the purpose of assisting in causing, death, for any reason.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by 911stinks]

reply to post by 911stinks

Any government office (VA comes to mind) or health care provider (including hospitals, clinics, long term care, etc) that receives money from the government (taxpayers) can not be discriminated against on the basis that they didn't offer assisted suicide services, euthanasia, mercy killing.

that they didn't offer assisted suicide services, etc.


Begging your patience, but could someone please explain how that translates to being a green light for euthanasia, suicide assistance, etc. ?

Originally posted by 911stinks
...can not be discriminated against on the basis that they didn't offer assisted suicide services, euthanasia, mercy killing.

This part, is what I said, also. But, if true, I see it as a good thing, though I, wholeheartedly, disagree with euthanasia.

Look at it this way. If you are a doctor who does not offer assisted suicide, the Government can not discriminate against you, based on the fact that you do not.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by WTFover]

reply to post by 911stinks

so long as such item, good, benefit, or service
16 is not also furnished for the purpose of causing, or the
17 purpose of assisting in causing, death, for any reason

.


Despite the title, doesn't this say 'no' to assisted-suicide, euthanasia ?

[edit on 20-3-2010 by Dock9]

reply to post by 911stinks


It doesn't seem very confusing to me...and I think it is saying the exact opposite of what the OP is saying.

Let's break it down. Let's get rid of the numbers and the funky spacing. And put some ephasis on some words.

(a) IN GENERAL.—
The Federal Government, and any State or local government or health care provider that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or under an amendment made by this Act) or any health plan created under this Act (or under an amendment made by this Act), may not subject an individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the entity does not provide any health care item or service furnished for the purpose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.

Basically this is saying the government or any health care provider that uses funds from this Act...MAY NOT DISCRIMINATE...against any "health care entity" that DOES NOT PROVIDE assisted suicide services.

If you look at the bill...they define "health care entity" as (I removed the line numbers and fixed spacing):

(b) DEFINITION.—
In this section, the term ‘‘health care entity’’ includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.

So it means that the government (fed, state, or local) or healthcare providers that recieve funds from this Act (hospitals, physicians, etc.) can not discriminate against:

-A physician who does not provide assited suicide services. For example, a hospital can not say they won't hire a physicians JUST because he doesn't provide assisted suicide.

-A hospital who does not provide assisted suicide services. For example, the government can not descriminate and maybe withhold funds from a hospital because they don't provide assisted suicide.

-A HMO or insurance plan who does not cover assisted suicide. For example, the government or a health care provider (hospital, physician, etc.) can't say they won't accept an insurance plan JUST because they don't cover assisted suicide.




I hope this helps clear things up. This is a GOOD thing...they are saying that if a physician DOESN'T want to provide assited suicide...this will PROTECT HIS RIGHTS to do so.

It is confusing language...but it is possible to understand...and I hope by breaking it down that everyone here can see that this isn't an evil plan to make all physicians or hospitals kill every patient.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by OutKast Searcher]

The wording is really quite genius, if you want to allow death camps.

It says that they cannot discriminate against those, who DO NOT offer these
services.

What about those that DO offer these services? They don't address that.

But just by referring to assisted suicide being offered as a service, it makes it legal.

Very crafty legal wording, legalizing abortion, torture and death imposed by government or medical officials on individuals under the new health care bill.

Very scary.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by 911stinks]

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Basically this is saying the government or any health care provider that uses funds from this Act...MAY NOT DISCRIMINATE...against any "health care entity" that DOES NOT PROVIDE assisted suicide services.

Doesn't that means that SOME WILL PROVIDE assisted suicide services? Where is it buried in the bill is the question now.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Basically this is saying the government or any health care provider that uses funds from this Act...MAY NOT DISCRIMINATE...against any "health care entity" that DOES NOT PROVIDE assisted suicide services.

Doesn't that means that SOME WILL PROVIDE assisted suicide services? Where is it buried in the bill is the question now.

Bingo! That's exactly what I'm saying. It allows for the services, as suggested in the title.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Assisted suicide is already legal in Oregon. So I would assume (but have no proof) this was the doing of an Oregon Senator to protect physicians in his state...or maybe it is a pro-active action because knowing Oregon already has legal assisted suicide...more states may follow. It address an already legal procedure in one state in the United States...so they do have to address it.

No where else in the bill is assisted suicide mentioned...you can do a simple text search and see that yourself.


This is to PROTECT those that don't want to provide that service...it doesn't make it legal.

edit to add:

It is also legal in Washington and Montana. So three states have legal assisted suicide. Only 34 states directly prohibit it. So it is the responsibility of the law makers to address this issue.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by OutKast Searcher]

i live in va and what im thinking is they are passing the law to give the go ahead to assisted suicide no matter who you are.which i mean if u wana die that bad i guess its a good thing but why all this legal mumbojumbo? just let us kill us if we want to and go on with your day