The bill, if passed, should be easily discarded as unconstitutional. Pursuit of life, liberty,…

. . .
Is anyone offering Pelosi “end of life” counseling I wonder (I refer to political life, of course).

shaken on August 12, 2009 at 5:42 PM

First of all, you are neglecting to take into account that a WISE LATINO WOMAN is now on SCOTUS..

As far as your point about Pelosi, judging from her face, she died about 10 years ago.

The difference is that Dear Leader wants that decision made earlier. He can then use the money to insure those who are in the country illegally or are too irresponsible to buy their own insurance, even though they have the means. This group accounts for roughly 40 of the 47 million uninsured.

After a lifetime of dieting, I actually, agree with Rush on the exercise myth for losing weight…it’s about limiting calorie intake.

This is one of the extremely rare things I disagree with Rush about. Rush dismisses exercise but the truth is that Rush is an extremely active person. He plays alot of golf and is constantly on the go. Sure you can say that he’s being flown around the country and chaufferred around in luxury but it is still a very active life. Keep in mind that Rush also has a personal chef and the money to buy the best, healthiest food. I would bet Rush’s chef understands his current diet as well if not better then Rush. When he dismisses exercise he is talking to people who may not have the active life he enjoys. Sure, limiting intake will effect weight but exercise and movement are very important to overall health and to lasting weight loss.

Living Wills are a good idea, but I fear that their motives are not good ones.

idahoconservative on August 12, 2009 at 12:33 PM

I’m not convinced that Living Wills are a good idea, since they were developed through the efforts of euthanasia advocates such as the Hemlock Society. Old folks are still under the impression that hospitals and insurance companies will move heaven and earth to keep them alive, but a Living Will spells out how little care they are required to provide.

It seems to me that a better alternative is the Will to Live that is available through the National Right to Life Committee (nrlc.org) and its affiliates in every state (such as mine, the Kentucky Right to Life Association).

One problem with Living Wills is that the language in them can be re-defined by one’s state legislature over time. What you spell out in a Living Will may not hold up over time, if your legislators redefine, say, “heroic measures” or other terms.

Another problem is that people sign them when they are comparatively healthy and think that they would never want to be “hooked up to a machine,” only to find that when that day comes, they want very much to remain alive long enough to see their just-born great-grandchild. Conditions that seem intolerable now may become acceptable to us when they are all that stands between us and the grave.

An elderly relative of mine has been saying that he does not want to receive nourishment or water through a tube, but wants to die “peacefully,” like Terry Schaivo. Although I’ve explained to him that Terry died a horrifying, painful and slow death, he refuses to believe it. He says, “Well, when that time comes, if it’s that awful for me, the doctors will listen to you and not what I signed.”

Don’t believe it, I tell him. The mother of a co-worker signed a Living Will that prohibited nutrition and water by tube; and even though she begged for food and water, the doctors stuck by the document. It took her six days to die, and for much of that time, she was crying. There wasn’t a damn thing her loved ones could do for her. Not legally, anyway.

So who’s really smarter??

(HINT: It ain’t the Washington crowd.)

pre-owned vehicles = used cars

full-figured = fat

coalition of stake-holders = death panel

HUGE difference.

You force them to acquiesce. You see the government has police power and power of the purse. So if you don’t want to play by the rules…well what happens when you don’t pay your taxes?

You end up in the President’s Cabinet.

But when you take 8% from the employee and 8% from the employer for 40 years in the promise that you are going to provide Medicare – it’s the morale thing to honor that – don’t ya think?

katablog.com

More importantly, if you stopped taking that money from people, there would little need for medicare.

Before Medicare? People had nothing and just died from very treatable reasons, very early in life.

How did Medicare fix that? Medicare is for the elderly, not people who are very early in life. Therefore, the people who were dying very early in life from so-called very treatable reasons would still be dying early in life from those same very treatable reasons.

But that point aside, your entire premise is wrong. People were not going without care before Medicare came along. I guess in your world, the streets were littered with the bodies of the elderly dead until the benevolent hand of big government stepped in to save the day. I’m guessing Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny live there too.

Robert17 on August 12, 2009 at 8:06 PM

2 birds; 1 stone
it is blatant

And if such decisions are not to be made by a “panel”, then by whom? A spin of the Thunderdome wheel?

Yes, the term “death panel” is inflammatory. But so was the slogan “Bush lied, people died.” At least the former is, by at least one Washington Post liberal’s reckoning, grounded in truth.