It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You would think that if Republicans wanted to totally mischaracterize a health care provision and demagogue it like nobody's business, they would at least pick something that the vast majority of them hadn't already voted for just a few years earlier. Because that's not just shameless, it's stupid.
Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!
Let's go to the bill text, shall we? "The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning."
Grassley told a Panora, Iowa crowd on Wednesday that end-of-life planning “ought to be done within the family and considered a religious and ethical issue and not something that politicians deal with.”
Except that in 2005, Grassley supported government intervention in the case of Terri Shiavo. I'm sure you remember that case. Shiavo was a Florida woman who had suffered brain injuries and had been in a vegetative state for 15 years. Why was it OK for politicians to "deal with" that case?
In a bad economy, the minority party is out to get the majority party.
Imo, anyone who votes with either party and calls the other side out on being hypocritical is themself a hypocrite for not seeing what their own party does, amazingly oblivious while tooting their horn
Originally posted by milesp
I thought I was numb to politics, but this is just so rich I can't take it...
I'm sure that the GOP didn't bother actually reading what they voted for back in 2003, either.
Originally posted by VinceP1974
The problem was the Federal Govt WAS MANDATING THAT THE MEETING HAPPEN.
That is what was objectionable. That the Fed Govt would force this conversation to occur. And the reason for it was for cost savings.
"The only thing mandatory is that Medicare will have to pay for the counseling," said Dau.
For our ruling on this one, there's really no gray area here. McCaughey incorrectly states that the bill would require Medicare patients to have these counseling sessions and she is suggesting that the government is somehow trying to interfere with a very personal decision. And her claim that the sessions would "tell [seniors] how to end their life sooner" is an outright distortion. Rather, the sessions are an option for elderly patients who want to learn more about living wills, health care proxies and other forms of end-of-life planning. McCaughey isn't just wrong, she's spreading a ridiculous falsehood. That's a Pants on Fire.
Originally posted by VinceP1974
Americans are getting dumber and dumber. Can't read. Can't remember. Get all emotional.