flipper wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:25:46 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:21:03 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:


Ouroboros Rex wrote:
Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:57:06 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:


If you were any more retarded, I'd swear that you were one of
his kids.

I get that a lot from people with no real response. lol

From the master of "real responses".

In the health bill thread, how many times did you claim that others
were not citing the text completely, without ever seeming able to
cite the "missing part" yourself.

You're a callow and ignorant youth. If I'm wrong then you're a
callow and ignorant old man.

Read pages 424 onward... with Medicare you will be required to have
every-five-year "counseling" as to whether treatment should
continue, or whether you should go to hospice and die. I kid you
not :-(

Funny, seems to be nothing there except a requirement that your
doctor explain the alternatives.

What a crock. No one needs 'permission' from the government to ask, or
discuss with, their doctor any damn thing they feel like, including
'alternatives'.

And no such thing is in the bill. Fantasize much?



Where's the downside?

For one, that it's none of the government's damn business

Medicare is none of the government's damn business? Funny fantasy world
you live in.

and just
what do you think the point is in 'dictating' physicians lecture you
on things both you and he are already perfectly free to discuss at any
time?

Exactly the same as any other regulation anywhere that mandates any
professional discuss anything with anyone. To make sure you don't get
screwed.

The hilarious part is someone bitching about it when they have no downside
to bitch about. One conversation in five years to prevent profiteering
you'd scream bloody murder about if it happened? Get a life. lol