Matthitjah Posted January 8, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted January 8, 2013 Dave, if you don't mind could you give me a backdrop on how it is being used to persecute the saints? Hobby Lobby and the Catholic Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted January 8, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted January 8, 2013 maybe it opened up the wrong article for you two? it matched it for me, perfectly when I read it, I especially like this paragraph "Obamacare contains largely unreported text that allows the health secretary to limit any “alternative treatments” of the elderly, disabled or terminally ill if such treatments are not recommended by the new research institute." speaks to the title very well if you ask me. Maybe you should read the article all the way through, just because it doesnt have "death panel" every other word, and it goes through and lists the different areas and wording, doesnt mean thats not what is about. Alternative treatments is what this is talking about, not treatments in general. Think about that Alternative is....... you have one treatment and someone wants to do some other. If they have researched it and found that it does not work for the patient, then it will not be paid for by the government. Even in some cases, treatments that cost a half million dollars will only keep people alive for less than three or four months....... it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend that much to live for three months. Call that cold is you will, but it's crazy to do so...... get yourself ready and meet your maker. Who determines whether it works or not? (You guy's have got to remember who it is that you are dealing with.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted January 9, 2013 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 596 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,095 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,834 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Online Share Posted January 9, 2013 maybe it opened up the wrong article for you two? it matched it for me, perfectly when I read it, I especially like this paragraph "Obamacare contains largely unreported text that allows the health secretary to limit any “alternative treatments” of the elderly, disabled or terminally ill if such treatments are not recommended by the new research institute." speaks to the title very well if you ask me. Maybe you should read the article all the way through, just because it doesnt have "death panel" every other word, and it goes through and lists the different areas and wording, doesnt mean thats not what is about. Alternative treatments is what this is talking about, not treatments in general. Think about that Alternative is....... you have one treatment and someone wants to do some other. If they have researched it and found that it does not work for the patient, then it will not be paid for by the government. Even in some cases, treatments that cost a half million dollars will only keep people alive for less than three or four months....... it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend that much to live for three months. Call that cold is you will, but it's crazy to do so...... get yourself ready and meet your maker. Who determines whether it works or not? (You guy's have got to remember who it is that you are dealing with.) I can't tell you who will be on the board in the future but right now they are doctors, hospital controller people, patients and some general public along with people in the Pharisaical realm. I can't tell you that it won't change....... but you really can't tell me that it will either. But this article even points out that when they are deciding these things they can't put a young person over an older person in the decision making. There are times when older people are much healthier than young, especially if the young is or has been on drugs or alcohol. Carrying things to the absolute worst just doesn't seem fair to anyone in this whole situation. There are so many things that Obama and Pelosi/Reid can't get the rest of Washington to go along with that it's hard for me to go along with your stand with everything being the absolute worst thing we might think of. That kind of thinking/talking is hurting the Conservative movement because the people we need to be agreeing with us just think we are a bunch of paranoid nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted January 9, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted January 9, 2013 maybe it opened up the wrong article for you two? it matched it for me, perfectly when I read it, I especially like this paragraph "Obamacare contains largely unreported text that allows the health secretary to limit any “alternative treatments” of the elderly, disabled or terminally ill if such treatments are not recommended by the new research institute." speaks to the title very well if you ask me. Maybe you should read the article all the way through, just because it doesnt have "death panel" every other word, and it goes through and lists the different areas and wording, doesnt mean thats not what is about. Alternative treatments is what this is talking about, not treatments in general. Think about that Alternative is....... you have one treatment and someone wants to do some other. If they have researched it and found that it does not work for the patient, then it will not be paid for by the government. Even in some cases, treatments that cost a half million dollars will only keep people alive for less than three or four months....... it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend that much to live for three months. Call that cold is you will, but it's crazy to do so...... get yourself ready and meet your maker. Who determines whether it works or not? (You guy's have got to remember who it is that you are dealing with.) I can't tell you who will be on the board in the future but right now they are doctors, hospital controller people, patients and some general public along with people in the Pharisaical realm. I can't tell you that it won't change....... but you really can't tell me that it will either. But this article even points out that when they are deciding these things they can't put a young person over an older person in the decision making. There are times when older people are much healthier than young, especially if the young is or has been on drugs or alcohol. Carrying things to the absolute worst just doesn't seem fair to anyone in this whole situation. There are so many things that Obama and Pelosi/Reid can't get the rest of Washington to go along with that it's hard for me to go along with your stand with everything being the absolute worst thing we might think of. That kind of thinking/talking is hurting the Conservative movement because the people we need to be agreeing with us just think we are a bunch of paranoid nuts. Keep telling yourself these things Sam. I will say that it is telling that the sane rationale is now called paranoid and nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chloe_fantastic Posted January 9, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 868 Content Per Day: 0.18 Reputation: 221 Days Won: 2 Joined: 06/09/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/17/1981 Share Posted January 9, 2013 maybe it opened up the wrong article for you two? it matched it for me, perfectly when I read it, I especially like this paragraph "Obamacare contains largely unreported text that allows the health secretary to limit any “alternative treatments” of the elderly, disabled or terminally ill if such treatments are not recommended by the new research institute." speaks to the title very well if you ask me. Maybe you should read the article all the way through, just because it doesnt have "death panel" every other word, and it goes through and lists the different areas and wording, doesnt mean thats not what is about. Alternative treatments is what this is talking about, not treatments in general. Think about that Alternative is....... you have one treatment and someone wants to do some other. If they have researched it and found that it does not work for the patient, then it will not be paid for by the government. Even in some cases, treatments that cost a half million dollars will only keep people alive for less than three or four months....... it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend that much to live for three months. Call that cold is you will, but it's crazy to do so...... get yourself ready and meet your maker. This is the problem I have with socialized medicine, or anything that the government pays for, really. If I pay, I get to decide on the treatment. If the government's footing the bill, they have control. They may decide to give me some choices, and from what I know of folks that depend on government-provided healthcare, they do have some choice in things, but not like if it was private-pay, and from what I know of the Affordable Healthcare Act, the trend doesn't seem to be headed towards the direction of more choices for the patient. Of course many people can't afford to self-pay and are forced to just take what the government is willing to give them. On the other hand, government-provided healthcare is funded by taxpayers. It's really unfair to ask them to pay untold amounts on treatments that may not work, or may not do much good, like in your example. I suppose this is why folks keep going on about these "death panels". It's only logical that there's going to have to be someone or a group that looks out for the program's bottom line and assesses cost to benefit ratio. This is one of the eventualities in the way this bill is set up that leads me to the conclusion that the approach is totally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts