flipper wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:54:13 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:17:54 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

UltimatePatriot wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 10:06:39 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
Fascism at its finest...

Repeat After Me: There Are No Death Panels in Socialized
Heathcare...

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/291725.php

==quote==
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care
for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being
wrongly judged as close to death.
Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and
medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid
and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation
until they pass away.

"Doctors and medical staff...can."

So, where are the governmental death panels?



But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition
is improving, the experts warn.

As a result the scheme is causing a "national crisis" in patient
care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care
experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of
Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a
consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke's cancer centre in
Guildford, and four others.

"Forecasting death is an inexact science," they say. Patients
are being diagnosed as being close to death "without regard to
the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

"As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as
family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to
patients."

The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients
Association estimated that up to one million patients had
received poor or cruel care on the NHS.

We certainly know the same and worse is true of the US health
care system. 45 million are uninsured, for starts.


45 million are also without employment.

We do not need our president manipulating the current health care
system,

Name me a president who has not done so.


Irrelevant because past sins, whether real or perceived, are not an
excuse to commit more and even greater sins.

I wasn't talking to you, redefining sad sack.

It's irrelevant who you were 'talking to'. Past sins, whether real or
perceived, are still not an excuse to commit more and even greater
sins.

"Sins", lol Better go find another strawman, puerile intellectual
coward.