Did not intend to insult you. It is only that most of what you posted I have seen/heard refuted and I find that more believable by far than the version you posted.. With such a wordy bill, I can not claim that I am expert on it..With unbelievable bad beginning, I truly feel embarrassed for anyone who has to say they are connected to it..the end of life counseling I have gone thru and done my living will. common practice in Minnesota..I am still recovering from that little adventure. I got some replacement parts and fell better each day.. so the "death panels" always catch my eye...will be 71 next month..hope your reference to having only one year was not concerning your personal health.. I read most of your post and enjoy your contribution...I know we will never agree, but find what you say interesting.. You represent the reason I joined the forum, to get a different viewpoint then my own..Merry Christmas....

Is she attractive? I suppose so, But the main thing is: she is honest, and forthcoming! Obviously NOT a LIBERAL. The democrats are so afraid of her, they constantly impune her and Bork her! Like they did Cain! And the Tea Party! All of the accusations of the Tea Party are False! There is Absolutely NO T***H in Liberals! If they tell you the sun is shineing, you better get a flashlight! As for intelligence, You can compare her to Pelosi, or Feinstein? (Probably related to Biden) The t***h is: liberals are less intelligence than conservatives! And recognized as mentally ill!

I was a democrat for the first 30 years? The democrats stood for the "People" But I noticed that the party changed! They are now AGAINST the common people! They make deals with Bankers and big business! (While dissing them in public) They get more money from the big businesses than the republicans do! The democrats harbor liberals, who always are trying to find ways around the constitution! They publically claim the constitution is out of date! And "Written by old dead WHITE MEN" And Should be changed to accommodate Marxism! While the republicans are and were the party of capitalism! (horrors!) but big business needs customers! And Customers with purchasing power! That means jobs, and employment! Something overlooked by Marxism! Conservatives want the rights of the constitution! Marxists want only GOVERNMENT RIGHTS! The Marxists (c*******ts, progressives) took over the democrat party in 1971, Leaving us common people little choice, and the republican party at least understood jobs! While the c*******ts use slogans, and empty promises! If you had your eyes open you would have seen the t***h of how c*******m works! No one sneaks over the border INTO c*******t countries! They all sneak OUT! Isn't c*******m wonderful? Think! Most of the democrats have c*******t backgrounds! Although they deny it...then act like c*******ts while telling you they aren't? The tea party wants origional values! So they are a threat to the l*****t democrats! The c*******ts revert to their old standby, lying and demonizing! The choice is simple! Do you want America to resemble soviet Russia, or America of the past! Progressive means progressing toward complete c*******m from socialism!

As you said to me earlier, show me proof instead of all your emotionalism. You are swallowing the Tea Party pronouncements which are primarily based on emotionalism.

There is an old saying, "Put your money where your mouth is." It is obvious that the Reps, under the influence of the TPers, are putting out a great deal of money in order to convince the commoners that they are doing this for "the people." Their approach is, rather than factual, emotional. They are predicting a future. Who can positively do that? One of these predictions is primarily against Obama and the ACA. I personally think that, over time, the ACA will be a boon to this country. It has run into problems and will probably be presented with more which will be solved.

Remember, TPers they are in the 1%. Do you really think they're looking out for the country or their own pockets? Thank goodness the moderate Reps are thinking now and one can see, or read about, how they are separating themselves from the Tea Party. Members of the Tea Party have been solely using Republicans they can buy to carry out their own plans. They bank on greed! They are not concerned with the GOP as their TP leadership has proven to make the Rep Party lose face. It has actually fallen apart. Can't you see that they don't care?

There are no longer any statesmen - only politicians. I would recommend a writer to you. His name is John Jakes. I think you'll enjoy his offerings. I do believe he has written seven or eight books - all on American history. He is not biased. Proof of this is his book North and South where he shows how people come to their conclusions. These conclusions, once one thinks about them, are not easy. It is so much easier to follow - without thinking.

Please also understand that finance is no longer like one purchasing something from another. It hasn't been for a long time. Money never actually changes hands. It's quite complex.

Please look into the other side's reasoning and actions critically. Perhaps then you will not be so biased. Everything is not black and white.

I find the rationalizations of liberals interesting! How they can see things happening right before their eyes but still deny them! Their idolization of Obama in the face of his criminal acts, just because his appointees won't allow him to be investigated and prosecuted! Appointing one liberal lesbian to the supreme court in return for keeping his BC out of consideration by the court! And excepting the hired advertising actors extolling the cheap, wonderful insurance they got from Obamacare, those that tried can testify that it's much costlier than before! No one can find the cheap policies touted by the ACA Actors! But the liberals still want to believe!

Thank you for your comment.

Where I come from a saying goes, "If you are ignorant or stupid, try not to show it." Palin is the biggest insult to humanity I have ever come across. She is not only ignorant but has been proven so in her many interviews giving others the right to smirk at her. And she doesn't have the brains to pick up on it!

How do you like her comments on Pope Francis one of which is that "not many people attend his masses in the 16th chapel." This is how far her intelligence goes. I question, "what ever happened to the 15th chapel?" Or, "I keep a menorah lit throughout the month of December to teach my children about the Jewish faith."

I wonder if the dumbing down in schools did not begin in Alaska for how smart are its citizens to have elected such a dumb ass. She is too stupid to have shame.

"Death panels " (misnomer) do not exist in order to do away with the elderly or terminally ill. This is an opportunity for the ill person to choose how they would wish to die. I would much rather die a week or so earlier than to be connected to a lot of machinery which will not cure but will prolong my physical life. I'd prefer to die with dignity. This is also part of a "living will." Too often the family will feel guilt over making such a decision.

You have a lot of gall to call Sarah Palin ignorant, you couldn't pack her lunch. You are dumber than a bag of hammers, a regular mental midget. FYI, it is not labeled "Death Panels" in the bill, just in case you ACTUALLY did one small iota of research in the bill. Even Obama himself admitted, in so many words, that the panel existed, when having his infamous campaign talk with Joe the plummer.

Now, lets say you're over the age of 76 (that appears to be the magic age in the bill) and you're diagnosed with cancer. A panel of bureaucrats will do a cost-benefit analysis on what it will cost to keep you alive. You will be told to take the pain pill and go home. Don't think so? Take a look at the National Healthcare Plan in the UK, or Canada, and then tell me it doesn't exist, Obamacare will be no different.

Democrats don't care about senior citizens, when they become too expensive to keep alive, they figure they have a duty to die. Just like a******ns, they have no respect for life.

More evidence of 'death panels' in Obamacare

Rationing concerns based on age, race, ethnicity

Published: 01/05/2013 at 7:43 PM
Aaron Klein

The foundations for health-care rationing and even so-called death panels may have already been quietly laid in largely unreported sections of President Obama’s health-care legislation, WND has found.

There is also concern for preferential treatment based on race, ethnicity and so-called life preferences.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, called for the establishment of a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

The new institute’s purpose is to carry out “comparative clinical effectiveness research,” which is defined in the law as evaluating and comparing “health outcomes” and “clinical effectiveness, risks and benefits” of two or more medical treatments or services.

The purpose of the research is purportedly for the government to determine which treatments work best so that money is not spent on less effective treatments.

Such research was already previously alloted $1.1 billion in Obama’s 2009 “stimulus” package. That legislation first created a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Obamacare now allows for about $3.8 billion in additional funding for effectiveness research, with the establishment of the new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

The institute is to be governed by a “board” to assist in identifying research priorities and establishing the research project agenda.

Also weighing in will be an “expert advisory panel” of practicing and research clinicians, patients and experts in scientific and health services research and health services delivery.

A section of Obamacare makes clear the secretary of health and human services may not use research data from the new institute in a manner that treats the life of an elderly, disabled or terminally ill individual as lower in value than that of an individual who is younger, non-disabled or not terminally ill.

However, the dictate comes with a qualifier some many find concerning.

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.

Reads that qualifier:

Paragraph (1) shall not be construed as preventing the Secretary from using evidence or findings from such comparative clinical effectiveness research in determining coverage, reimbursement, or incentive programs under title XVIII based upon a comparison of the difference in the effectiveness of alternative treatments in extending an individual’s life due to the individual’s age, disability, or terminal illness.

Paragraph (1) refers to the section that bars the health secretary from valuing the life of an elderly, disabled or terminally ill patient as lower than that of the younger or nondisabled patient.

The qualifier leaves the health secretary with the power to use government-provided research data to determine whether “alternative treatments” are effective in extending the life of the elderly, disables, or terminally ill.

Health-care rationing based on ethnicity?

Another section of Obamacare calls for the new institute to study the effectiveness of treatment in “subpopulations,” including “racial and ethnic minorities, women, age and groups of individuals with different comorbidities, genetic and molecular sub-types, or quality of life preferences.”

The effectiveness of such research has been widely called into question.

In a 2009 study, the CATO Institute raised concern about such government-funded research being politicized or influenced by lobbying.

“Unlike market-generated research, a federal comparative-effectiveness agency would be subject to political manipulation, which could block the generation of any useful research,” wrote CATO.

Continued CATO: “Such research necessarily poses a direct threat to the incomes of pharmaceutical manufacturers, medical device manufacturers and millions of providers. If a government agency produces unwelcome research, those groups will spend vast sums on lobbying campaigns and political contributions to discredit or defund the agency.”

During the “stimulus” debate, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., fought the $1.1 billion spending on effectiveness research, spotlighting countries like Britain as cautionary tales.

“Think about this a moment,” Kyl said on the Senate floor. “Do you want Washington bureaucrats, such as those who brought you the AIG mess, making your health care decisions for you and your family?”

Currently, in the U.K., the equivalent to Obamacare’s institute is the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE.

The New England Journal of Medicine related that “NICE considers treatments cost-effective if their cost-effectiveness ratio is £20,000 ($34,000) per QALY (quality adjusted life year).”

A QALY is an extra year of “quality” life expectancy added based on the treatment.

There were recent reports that NICE was refusing to fund four new treatments for kidney cancer because they only change a patient’s life expectancy from six months to a year.

Andrew Dillon, NICE Chief Executive, commented on the denial of one drug for kidney cancer: “Before we recommend any new treatment we have to be sure the evidence on how well it works is robust and that it is cost effective. We do not want to divert NHS funds to a treatment that costs more but doesn’t help people live longer.”

Writing in Forbes last month, Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute, slammed effectiveness research under Obamacare as a “recipe for cook-book medicine, where the government can pressure doctors into prescribing treatments according to average results rather than an individual patient’s needs and preferences.”

ObamaCare approval drops to record low

By Peter Sullivan

Support for the Affordable Care Act has dropped five percentage points in a month to a record low, according to a CNN/ORC poll released Monday.

The poll finds that just 35 percent of the public supports the law, compared to 40 percent in late November.

The drop in support indicated in the poll could be particularly troubling to the Obama administration because almost all of it came from women, whose opposition rose from 54 percent to 60 percent in a month. The administration has tried to highlight advantages for women, such as free preventative care that covers mammograms.

Some of those who oppose the law, 15 percent of all respondents, continue to do so because they think it is not liberal enough. That means half of the public either supports the law or thinks it is not liberal enough.

Just 16 percent said they think their family will be better off when most of the law takes effect next year, a number essentially unchanged from earlier in the year.

Some Republicans have targeted the pledge to be able to keep one's doctor as the next assurance to be proven wrong. Still, 61 percent said they believed they could keep the same doctor.

The story is different when it comes to cost though, with 63 percent saying they believe their healthcare costs will rise under the law.

Again this statement has been taken OUT OF CONTEXT!. Obama did say that "you can keep your insurance" IF "the insurance company has not changed their policies from the time this statement was made." It is the insurance companies who are making the changes so they may cancel coverage and blame it on the ACA. If they cannot keep up with the basic demand for coverage I would tend to think they are being paid to do so. By whom? Evidently they have nothing to lose by refusing coverage. They lose by having to cover people and incidents which include pre-existing conditions. This cuts into thier profits.

The ACA is demanding that the greater percentage of their premiums go into HELPING the insureds instead of lining their own pockets. I'm sure you have read that they must refund moneys NOT spent on providing medical coverage.

Who do you think are backing this lie? Certainly not the Democrats. I tend to look to the Koch brothers.

Please get the entire story BEFORE mouthing one part of a statement.

I just found your grouping of absolutely false words and decided that you need some t***h to hit you in the face. You say that Obama did not say those words about keeping your insurance, period. Too many times he finished with period and you seem to have failed to see those times. Please show us examples of him saying anything about if your policy came before 2010. He started that line of talk about November of 2013. That would be expanding his lie, to me. Try to hear all of these examples of The One saying you can keep those things if you like them and then you come up with something before November of this year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7fvpjkxEVs

Maybe the serious people here will appreciate watching this Young Turks video in which they lie, lie, lie, and confuse the t***h from time to time to see what I am saying. Actually I wonder how many of you libs here get your information from the Young Turks and old Cenk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw8ELu5_2Cw