Commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education
- from a neoconservative perspective! - Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to!
We need health care reform people like you do nothing but spread lies. The people voted for change and thats what is going to happen. And you are always talking about pulling somebody hair out of their head now you cant take it when the shoe is on the other foot.You need to shut up and get out of the way before you get hurt or your family gets hurt. People are under a lot of stress out here it wont take much to set them off.
Yes, I forwarded this to the proper channels. I do not take anything lightly.
Remember how leftists refuse to be labeled as "socialists"? The preferred terminology nowadays is "progressive," but underneath you''ll find the same hardline radicals who advocate revolutionary change to sweep away the capitialist order.
The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in 'society as a whole', i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.
... we actually have a well-established method of taking market distributions of income and trying to transmogrify it into a more just, useful, and welfare-enhancing deployment of social resources—taxes and public services. The world of finance has been the main driver behind the growth in inequality at the extreme high end, and establishing additional tax brackets with higher rates would help lean against that trend. So would something like the Obama administration’s proposal to curb the extent to which high-income individuals can shelter income from taxes through itemized deductions.
It strikes me as ultimately unlikely that the political process will be able to micromanage high finance in a way that strikes people as meeting the claims of justice.
And Yglesias' last point about "justice" is the dead giveaway. Here's this, on what "social justice" means for today's radical left:
The quest for social justice, or a just and equitable society, is perhaps the foremost stated objective of the modern Left ....
The unbroken line from The Communist Manifesto to its contemporary adherents is the notion that economic inequality is the monstrous injustice of the capitalist system, which must be replaced by an ideal of "social justice" - a "classless" society created by the elimination of all differences in wealth and "power." Thus "social justice" in its contemporary sense has come to mean a rejection of capitalism and of each man's economic freedom - be he a manufacturer or a consumer -- to do as he wishes with his own intellectual, physical, and material resources; this freedom is the origin of income disparity under capitalism.
I watched the interview this morning. Mike Sola, whose son could be denied treatment under ObamaCare cost rationalization, appeared with Megyn Kelly on "America's Newsroom." It's dramatic, "I will use every means available to us ... my wife is terrified ...":
At their moment of great political ascendancy — when they control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and a recession has rocked faith in free market capitalism — they still can’t get the country to go along with their big government schemes.
Each day brings a new batch of bad polling news for the president. The public is wary of his spending, is convinced he is too liberal, and doesn’t much care for ObamaCare. Meanwhile, the speaker of the house has Dick Cheney-like poll numbers and the Democrats’ generic poll numbers have slid.
Under such circumstances, the only reasonable thing to do is attack the voters and the Republican Party. That at least seems to be the conclusion reached by the Obama White House, which now is convinced that smearing citizens who bother to come to town hall meetings and painting their opponents as intransigent critics of all reform — or as fruitcakes — are the keys to success.
And from Obama himself, the once presidential candidate who wanted to have civil discourse and get beyond name calling, the message to his critics is: “get out of the way.” Anyone who disagrees with ObamaCare is now a crank, a stooge, or an obstructionist. Even the Washington Post editors have had quite enough of the “round-up-the-usual-suspects demagoguery.”
You're asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there clearly are people in America who believe in -- in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards.
I've read the key passage of the bill, to which George Stephanopolous is referring; and I wrote about it last night, see "End of Life: ObamaCare and the Elderly." The entry triggered a lively discussion, and Dr. Ahmadinejad Chavez Biobrain weighed in with a subsequent post, "In Defense of Palin's Death Panel." At one point, Dr. Biobrain claims that " Donald's solid ground' just crumbled out from beneath him."
Actually, not so fast. The "death panel" terminology is not mine. Yet, I do know that President Obama is indifferent to the beauty and sanctity of life (he's President Infanticide, remember). And the legislation is clear: It requires "orders" for end of life decisions, a choice of language which is totally at odds with traditionally individualistic "patient's directives" terminology - and which is thus typically authoritarian in tone. That is fact, not opinion. It's explicitly set forth as such in the key sections of the House bill I cited last night. And why "orders"? Well, the Democrats hate private autonomy and personal liberty. It's no wonder that Newt Gingrich argues that President Obama is "asking us to decide that we believe that the government is to be trusted." I don't trust President Obama. He's a liar and a sneak, and he's gathering information on his political enemies. Perhaps one of those enemy's parents or grandparents might not be approved for some life-sustaining medical treatment. Of course, it's not a political decision, so the administration and the Democratic majority will have plausible deniability. It's a technocratic decision, which will be carried out by the government's "Sandmen" ObamaCare technocrats empowered with life-and-death authority to "order" treatment limitations for the elderly. Only a hard left radical like the not-a-real-doctor-who-posts-cowardly-under-a-pseudonym Dr. Ahmadinejad Chavez Biobrain would defend this monstrosity of Democratic big-government neo-Stalinism.
Dr. Biobrain has yet to prevail in debating me, although he's a glutton for punishment. I've been trying to ignore him lately, though, disgusted as I am with his recent outburst of unspeakable anti-Semitism. It really crosses a line.
In any case, check some other sources for reference.
* Betsy McCaughey, "DEADLY DOCTORS: O ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE". McCaughey writes of Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obama's health adviser at OMB and an Obama point-man at the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research:
Emanuel ... believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.
He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "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" (Lancet, Jan. 31).
Who Makes Medical Decisions? What is the right medical treatment and should bureaucrats determine what Americans can or cannot have? While the House and Senate language is vague, amendments offered in House and Senate committees to block government rationing of care were routinely defeated. Cost or a federal health board could be the deciding factors. President Obama himself admitted this when he said, "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," when asked about an elderly woman who needed a pacemaker.
Mr. Obama's soothing bedside manner masks the reality that getting health costs under control will require making difficult choices about what procedures and medications to cover. It will require saying no, or having the patient pay more, at times when the extra expense is not justified by the marginal improvement in care.
Imagine it's four years ago and an aide to President George W. Bush posted a blog on the Whitehouse.gov Web site that bemoaned Internet criticism of the Iraq war, then continued: "These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain e-mails or through casual conversations.
we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an e-mail or see something on the Web about anti-war protests that seem fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
Substitute the words "health insurance reform" for "anti-war protests," and you get the exact wording of a blog posted by Macon Phillips, the White House director of new media, on Tuesday.
"I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward e-mails critical of his politics to the White House," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, wrote in a letter to President Obama. "I suspect that you would have been leading the charge in condemning such a program."
No lie.
Now I don't think Obamaland was working on an "enemies list" - as some conservatives have charged. But I do want to note how deftly the left has abandoned its old rallying cry, "Dissent is patriotic" ...
I want to be clear: I want nothing to do with any protesters who carry swastikas, hang our leaders in effigy or show up to disrupt when a duly-elected official speaks. Over the years, I've seen too many signs depicting the president as a Nazi and too many extremists who think they are so right that they don't have to respect the free-speech rights of others.
The problem is: When anti-Bush protesters behaved badly, when Code Pinkers shouted and anti-war protesters brandished signs with swastikas, they did not rate nearly as much press scrutiny as the ObamaCare protesters. There seems to be the impression in my profession that comparisons of Bush with Hitler were to be expected, but not of Obama with Hitler. That's below the belt.
Below the belt ... that pretty much summarizes all the Democratic activities of late, from the White House down to the local union office. (Read the whole thing at the link.)
Supporters of President Obama formerly signed up as members of "Obama for America" received an email today from Mitch Stewart, the director of the group's current incarnation, Organizing for America, to show up at town halls and congressional offices as a counter to the protestors against the president's health care reform push.
Painting the protestors as "Insurance companies and partisan attack groups...stirring up fear with false rumors about the President's plan," Stewart's email tells supporters whom their member of Congress is and even provides information about town hall meetings they may be holding.
Writes Stewart: "As you've probably seen in the news, special interest attack groups are stirring up partisan mobs with lies about health reform, and it's getting ugly. Across the country, members of Congress who support reform are being shouted down, physically assaulted, hung in effigy, and receiving death threats. We can't let extremists hijack this debate, or confuse Congress about where the people stand."
Supporters are told to stop by local congressional offices to show support for health care reform with the option of a "quick conversation with the local staff, tell(ing) your personal story, or even just drop(ping) off a customized flyer and say that reform matters to you."
After participants sign up, they're sent to a webpage (an example of one for Nevadans is HERE.) where they're told to "Stay calm and positive. While some are attempting to disrupt and shut down debate, our goal is to engage in meaningful, respectful discussion. Remaining calm, positive and polite while speaking to any staff member is the best way to be heard."
Democrat Party bigwigs are passing down the directives to their Congressional membership that townhalls are verboten from this point forward. Congressmen returning to their districts are being told to find ways to avoid their voters as much as possible.
Instead of holding large meetings, now Democrats returning back home are trying to corral voters into small gatherings, one-on-one meetings, phone calls, or simply not meeting with them at all. These cowards realize that their efforts to back Obama's socialist take over of nearly 20% of the American economy is anathema to a large portion of the electorate and they don't want to hear about it. These elected officials' minds are made up and what the voters want is immaterial.
When asked (at 6:00) to comment on Rush Limbaugh comparing the White House's health care logo to a Nazi swastika, Douglass remarks: "I just don't even want to say about something like that... People are saying crazy things right now."
Our representatives are under attack by Washington insiders, insurance companies, and well-financed special interests who don’t go a day without spreading lies and stirring up fear. We need to show that we’re sick and tired of it, and that we’re ready for real change, this year.
"Under attack"?
Be sure to check President Obam's "Organizing for America" website, which features the same allegations.
Seriously? Representatives are “under attack?” That’s what it’s called when they refuse debate, call their constituents names simply because people want to ask sincere questions?
You don’t say. The district is Harold Ford Jr.’s old district. It has a 23% Democratic advantage. It is the only majority black district in Tennessee (59%), yet the meeting was stuffed with non-black conservatives.
It’s like the whole thing is a phony joke, or something.
Geez, it's almost like blacks own the district. And check the comments at Willis' post. The failure of black constituents to turn out for a health care town hall is automatically turned around by the leftists as "racist". Here's the local news report:
And one attendee, said to be armed, was apparently escorted out of the hall. And that's held up by the lefties as "evidence" of conservatives wanting to go on "a shooting spree."
Interesting note: Representative Cohen invited local physicians to the meeting, and by a ratio of 3 to 4, as mentioned at the article, the doctors interviewed had some degree of reservations about ObamaCare.
Since Obama took office, there have been very few public expressions of discontent. We've heard very little about everyday Americans--workers facing layoffs and the loss of health insurance, jobless Americans exhausting their unemployment insurance, renters facing eviction, homeowners facing foreclosures, farmers losing their farms, high school students facing cuts in school programs and college students facing rising tuition--mobilizing to demand immediate action to end their hardship and suffering ....
This week, in response to the right-wing mob attacks on Democratic legislators, Obama wrote to the 13 million people on his OFA e-mail list and asked them to commit to attend at least one event this month to show support for his healthcare plan.
These polite activities are necessary, but they don't create a sense of urgency or crisis. With some exceptions, they don't generate TV stories and newspaper headlines ....
How can progressives help put an end to this legislative gridlock?
Well, how about blowing out the eardrums of conservative town hall protesters!
Here comes our community organizer with his bullhorn. For the next half hour or more, he will chant “FREE HEALTH CARE NOW”, “YES WE CAN” etc. with his horn directed at the faces of the health care dissenters.
During the election, on September 17, 2008, at a campaign stop in Nevada, Obama said “I want you to argue with them (neighbors) and get in their face”.
What we see here is “astroturfing” or manufactured fake grassroots. The dissenters are genuinely concerned and informed about their health care but they maintain their civility. The DNC knows their anger is real and they are desperately trying to deligitimize dissent by claiming it’s paid for “by insurance corporations” yet they don’t name a single one or provide evidence.
It’s David Axelrod, Obama’s senior advisor, who is famous for inventing AstroTurfing ...
This woman worked in tandem with the other organizer and blasted the same people from behind. These bullhorns are extremely powerful. I saw demonstrators repeatedly ask them to point their bullhorns away. This woman in particular responded by moving the bullhorn closer to a woman who complained of ear pain.
Obama, on March 18, said “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry. I’m angry. What I want us to do, though, is channel our anger in a constructive way.“
Right.
With the "constructive way" the ObamaThugs are protesting, conservatives are going to need RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY on their eardrums!
On Tuesday, August 11, 2009, President Barack Obama will travel to Portsmouth, New Hampshire to hold a town hall where he will discuss the need for health insurance reform for the future of our economy and the health of our communities.
Members of the public wishing to attend the town hall should visit the following website to register for the opportunity to attend the town hall: http://www.whitehouse.gov/advance/PortsmouthTownHall8-11-09/. The website will be available until 3:00 pm ET, Saturday, August 8th.
The meeting will be conducted at Portsmouth High School Tuesday afternoon after the president arrives at Pease Air National Guard Base. At 3:00 pm on Saturday, August 8th when the online sign-up has expired, a limited number of individuals will be selected and contacted regarding ticket pick-up information. Each individual selected will have the opportunity to pick up a maximum of TWO tickets.
Please note that the White House will not be able to respond to all requests for tickets. Individuals will only receive a call if they are selected to pick up a ticket.
Pres. Obama holds his OWN town hall in New Hampshire this Tuesday where the issues of the economy and health care are likely to be the dominant issues. Of course, what many will be watching is to see if this town hall invites the same passion as we've witnessed at town halls for members of Congress this last week.
I suspect we'll see some interesting back-n-forths both in the town hall itself and outside the venue. First, New Hampshire (and New England in general) arguably invented the entire town hall meeting concept so Granite Staters take these forums VERY seriously.
And as much as some might want to believe the White House will be staging the questions, don't believe that hype. The White House knows the political price for being caught doing that is MUCH higher than having to deal with a confrontation or two at the meeting itself. If anything, I'd bet some inside the White House are hoping for a confrontation since they believe the president's demeanor alone will politically play well with the folks the White House cares most about right now, ACTUAL independents.
Barack Hussein Obama will be arriving in Portsmouth on Tuesday to hold a STAGED "Town Hall Meeting", where he will essentially hand pick who the guests will be and what types of questions will be asked of him.
A MASSIVE protest rally is being organized just outside of the facility where Obama will be holding his "Town Hall Meeting" to promote his plan for a government takeover of your healthcare decisions.
There will be news media from all over the world at this event and it will be the ideal opportunity for us to tell the rest of the country exactly how NH voters feel about Obamacare (taxed/rationed healthcare). It will be the most important pro-liberty event of the year in NH and it is critically important that every one of us attend.
If you can, bring a sign that says something like, "OBAMACARE=TAXED/RATIONED HEALTHCARE", etc.
Come anytime between 8am-4pm (peak time will be 11am-4pm)
See you there!!
Don't expect a lot of fireworks inside the town hall; and, actually, Chuck Todd's probably right that President "Thin Skin" Obama will look for a confrontation. He just wants critics to shut up, remember.
A day after holding up a square of Astroturf to denounce the orchestrated attacks on Democratic town hall meetings on health care, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office said he would be talking with his Nevada constituents this month over the phone lines.
Reid’s office is scheduling a telephone town hall meeting for August, opting to avoid the shouting matches and microphone speeches that have erupted at events across the country. The senator expects to reach thousands of Nevadans, including those in the state’s rural expanse.
“It’s a forum that obviously lets us reach more people, but also provides a more respectful environment that allows all sides to be heard,” said Reid spokesman Jon Summers.
“It’s more the dialogue that town halls were meant to be, as opposed to the organized disruption we’re seeing in other town halls,” Summers said. “This is so Nevadans who want to be heard can voice their concern, support and their opinions.”
When your congressional representative can’t find some kiddie human shields to hide behind, he or she may be choosing the next best method of constituent avoidance:
During the past week, I’ve had conversations with old friends – leftist, centrist, and conservative – with whom I experienced the political battles of the 1960’s. All of us have a similar take on what’s happening now, compared to then. Then, it was a challenge against authority primarily by the privileged young who didn’t want to serve in the war, which dissipated rapidly once the draft ended, while their ideologues took refuge in academia to rise to insulated tenure of attachment to their old slogans and some of their ilk to gerrymandered seniority in Congress. Obama was a tot then, but raised on their radical bromides. Now, it is the broader swath of working and middle class Americans, a far larger and more potent population, who are fed up and angry with being exploited and insulted by those who feel it their right and duty to impose their schemes to rearrange and endanger everyone else’s lives and weaken the America that sustains us. We all feel the potential for violence is high. Enough everyday Americans will defend themselves against thuggish attacks upon their right to speak out.
I wasn’t a proponent of street violence then, nor am I now. I abhor it. And, just let any one of the Democrat thugs try to physically attack me or silence me or anyone nearby and they better stand the f*ck by for a real thumping. At 61, I still fit in my Marine Corps uniform, and know well how to defend myself. I’m just one member of a rapidly expanding, reluctant force of ordinary Americans who will. Those who have spent their lives cloistered in ivy and Congress have never met our resistance before, are shocked, and are in for more rueful surprises if they keep on their vile attacks on our democracy, peace and prosperity.
Lawmakers battled Sunday over whether demonstrations against health care reform legislation at town hall meetings across the country are real or contrived.
One prominent Democrat continued to assert that scenes in which protesters are interrupting and shouting at reform proponents are "clearly being orchestrated," while the top Senate Republican said it's "absurd" for Democrats to criticize members of the public for being organized.
The fresh round of debate over the heated summertime sessions comes after a meeting in Des Moines with Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin was interrupted several times by critics in the audience. He drew outrage Saturday when he told the crowd there is a "nationally coordinated effort" to disrupt the town halls.
"How dare you claim that I'm part of a conspiracy," one man yelled, claiming he sent himself to the meeting.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Ky., told "FOX News Sunday" that it's not clear who's organized and who's not but that Democrats' efforts to "demonize" the protesters reflect weak spots in the substance of their plan.
"I think attacking citizens in our country for expressing their opinions about an issue of this magnitude may indicate some weakness in their position on the merits," McConnell said. "And I also think it's particularly absurd for the Democrats, who have over an $8 million e-mail list over at the DNC called Organize America, to be criticizing citizens for being organized."
He said concerns over how the plan will be paid for are probably triggering a lot of the passion and tempers at the meetings, and predicted the tension will not slacken -- with dozens of other town hall meetings scheduled throughout the month of August.
The piece goes on to quote Dick Durban, who is interviewed by CNN's John King above.
This pair of images below records of one the more sickening incidents taking place during Nancy Pelosi's visit to the Stout Street Clinic in Denver last week.
Take note of the lady on the right. She is holding a sign that reads “Pants on Fire” with Pelosi’s image. The image is repeated three times on her sign. There are no other words. I left the event early but the photo below, from the Denver Post, shows what I missed. The astrozoid on the left below, with the HOPE T-shirt, decided that she didn’t like the Nancy Pants on Fire sign. Not a problem. Just grab it.
The woman in black struggles to maintain her free speech while calling for help from police nearby.
The Denver Post's piece is here. It includes this caption:
"A supporter of health care reform, left, who did not want to give her name, pushes forward to rip a sign out of Kris McLay's hands outside the Stout Street Clinic visited by Nancy Pelosi."
The "supporter of health reform" is an ObamaCare thug. We've been seeing them in action for weeks now.
Just as bad, in the sense of doing violence to the truth, has been the mainstream press. (See for example, Newsbusters, "Media Ignore Democrat Astroturfing at Pelosi Event.") Bloggers have been providing crucial coverage around the country, documenting the town hall protests and the Democratic Party's extremist efforts to quash dissenting opinion. Things are so messed up that SEIU, subsequent to their union goons beating up Kenneth Gladney, spliced raw video footage to revise the story and make it look like their own people were attacked. The rank bullying and dishonesty among the Democrats is unbefitting of a worthy opponent. Indeed, from the White House on down - with its call to "flag" dissenters - we're seeing the total self-immolation of the "hope and change" promise from 2008. The Democrats are not only losing the healthcare debate, they deserve to lose. They've dissed the common sense and good graces of everyday Americans, and they've underestimated the strength of genuine civic solidarity and traditional grassroots community action.
The report covers the big issues of debate on ObamaCare and medical treatment of the elderly.
On the one hand, there's the suggestion, stretching back to early this year, that President Obama favors the steep rationalization of elderly care, which has been described by some as "euthanasia." More recently, former Gov. Sarah Palin wrote a post on Facebook this week suggesting:
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
The Post's article responds, saying "There are no such "death panels" mentioned in any of the House bills." And of course, right on cue, leftists attacked Palin as wacko. But as both William Jacobson and Ann Althouse indicate, the former vice-presidential candidate is on solid ground. And Althouse, pointing to this video below, argues that Palin's conclusion is "cool-headed and manifestly sane."
There's also a second strand of debate on "end-of-life" counseling, which is sounds less dramatic than "euthanasia," but in some respects comes pretty close to it. Charles Lane addresses the issue in his piece, "Undue Influence: The House Bill Skews End-of-Life Counsel." Looking at the House bill, Lane argues:
Section 1233 ... addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they're just trying to facilitate choice -- even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to "bend the curve" on health-care costs?
Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite "purely voluntary," as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, "purely voluntary" means "not unless the patient requests one." Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist.
Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit "formulation" of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would "place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign," I don't think he's being realistic.
What's more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation. The doctor "shall" discuss "advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to"; "an explanation of . . . living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses" (even though these are legal, not medical, instruments); and "a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families." The doctor "shall" explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint).
Top administration officials have been developing a policy known as "The Complete Lives System." The model provides the theoretical basis for President Obama's plan for the rationaliztion of elderly care.
It's really awful, no matter how you look at it. Leftists will keep pulling their hair out over this, screaming that it's just a bunch of right-wing demagoguery. But all folks have to do is READ THE BILL itself. This first passage, from page 429, Lines 10-12, is particularly gruesome, and later sections indicate the "limitation" of treatment:
‘‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.
‘‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that—
‘‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in igning such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the in dividual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;
‘‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, in cluding an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual; ‘(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and ‘‘(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the in dividual.
‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subpara12 graph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified 14 interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items—
Yeah, what do you know, according to Polifact, Obama said this at a Town hall meeting on Aug. 21, 2008, in Chester, Va:
To achieve health care reform, “I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.”
Well, when did that happen? Did I miss it? Where’s the transparency?
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. Thank you for shopping through my links.
