NATIONAL HEALTH SCARE By Rick Joyner

August 2, 2009

I read those links. Neither changed my mind.

It's all open to interpretation, which is why it is written that way. They go to

great lengths to deceive us through the language.

The other day a poster here wrote a explanation of why not to take echinacea

with a hemorrhagic fever - a complicated thing to explain, yet he did it very

well and in a way that anyone can understand plainly what he was saying.

The opposite is true with this bill. It's a mammoth effort to obfuscate -

because deception is necessary to sell this evil. All this language is left

open, intentionally needing interpretation, meant for a judge, court or

appointed official to make a precedent setting interpretive ruling on an easily

manufactured case.

This bill will also be the usher that brings CODEX enforcement to the USA. They

complement each other like a hand and glove.

And whats to happen to the present boogeyman - the " insurance company hack " ?

I'll predict the same thing that has happened in the other areas the trojan

horse is bringing " change " to.... He will be given a position of increased power

and status --- in the government healthcare system!

As with everything else done by this administration to date, the foxes that are

guilty of causing the original damages will be put in charge of the henhouse.

In a nutshell, this bill means government healthcare will be run by big pharma.

While writing this, a song has started playing in my mind...

Oh, painting the roses red

And many a tear we shed

Because we know

They'll cease to grow

In fact, they'll soon be dead

And yet we go ahead

Painting the roses red

- kcpopps

oleander soup , " ohlisa1 " <lmcdewey wrote:

>

> No, not true

> http://snopes.com/politics/medical/euthanasia.asp

> also

> http://firebrandblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/cry-wolf.html

> national health scare is right. this bs probably came from some insurance

company hack.

>

August 2, 2009

You know, there are times when I have seen that snopes is not accurate. And this is one.I have read the Bill, various links, and the link provided to the blog with interest. One glaring sentence in the blog jumped out and it made me cringe."... and one of the most shocking things I found in this bill - and there were many - is on page 425 where the Congress would make it mandatory, absolutely

required, that every five years people in Medicare have a required

counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner.

How to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go into

hospice care..." At the end of this quote the blogger goes on to state..... "Um, no." I am here to state, "Um, yes." And I will tell you why. My recent visit to the State of California, especially the hospital, was very enlightening. I have heard that California is the first to implement these healthcare changes. I don't know what the policy is in other states, so I cannot say this for sure. However, I was in California. I was in the hospital there, and what I witnessed was very disturbing.First of all, when I was admitted into the hospital, they thought that there was something seriously wrong with me. Much more serious than a pulmonary infection and asthma. For one thing, I was put on the floor for lung cancer patients. While there, I observed many interactions between doctors and patients and as I felt better, I was able to walk around and personally visit with the patients there.One of the big changes coming to our country is facilitated deaths which are to be done under the guise of hospice care. No, let me rephrase that. The truth is that facilitated deaths are already here. I know for a fact that it is being implemented in the State of California.Take a look at the portion of the quoted text that is in bold. This is one of the ways that they are doing it. By withholding nourishment. In a conversation with one of the patients daughter's, hospice care came up. Her mother happened to be my roommate. Under professional advice, it was recommended that she put her mother in hospice. There are two blessings in this particular situation. The first is that the daughter elected to care for the mother at home. The second is that she had the freedom to be able to remove her from the "hospice" situation. Her major complaint was that she was instructed not to give her mother food or liquids unless she specifically asked for them. And you know, I guess not knowing better and trusting that these people knew what they were talking about, she complied. After day 4 of very little to no nourishment, yes, her mother was dying. She took one look at her and saw the drastic change, the graying skin, and became overcome with panic. After finding it necessary to remove her from hospice, she called an ambulance to have her brought to the hospital. The problem was dehydration. Once hydrated, she started eating normally and regained normal skin color.Through the hospital curtain, I witnessed a conversation between the daughter and her mother's doctor where the daughter described what had transpired during hospice and the doctor's reply was to state that older patients are put into hospice earlier than needed and that "hospice tends to facilitate death." Then he said...... "Your mom still has a lot of life left in her." Well, there is still honesty in the medical profession. Some still do have a heart.I am afraid that the proposals in this Bill are not only about to happen but that they are already occurring in some parts of the country. Either the blogger referenced in the prior post is grossly misinformed or she is purposely deceiving the public. And this is mainstream medicine's and mainstream media's main tactic. To slyly deceive the public.At this time more than ever we need common sense.

August 2, 2009

Dearest , Please may I share this with others? Will remove headers etc.Love always, Mara--- On Sun, 8/2/09, May <luellamay129 wrote: May <luellamay129 Re: NATIONAL HEALTH SCARE By Rick Joyneroleander soup Date: Sunday, August 2, 2009, 11:44 AM

You know, there are times when I have seen that snopes is not accurate. And this is one.I have read the Bill, various links, and the link provided to the blog with interest. One glaring sentence in the blog jumped out and it made me cringe."... and one of the most shocking things I found in this bill - and there were many - is on page 425 where the Congress would make it mandatory, absolutely

required, that every five years people in Medicare have a required

counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner.

How to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go into

hospice care..." At the end of this quote the blogger goes on to state..... "Um, no." I am here to state, "Um, yes." And I will tell you why. My recent visit to the State of California, especially the hospital, was very enlightening. I have heard that California is the first to implement these healthcare changes. I don't know what the policy is in other states, so I cannot say this for sure. However, I was in California. I was in the hospital there, and what I witnessed was very disturbing.First of all, when I was admitted into the hospital, they thought that there was something seriously wrong with me. Much more serious than a pulmonary infection and asthma. For one thing, I was put on the floor for lung cancer patients. While there, I observed many interactions between doctors and patients and as I felt better, I was able to walk

around and personally visit with the patients there.One of the big changes coming to our country is facilitated deaths which are to be done under the guise of hospice care. No, let me rephrase that. The truth is that facilitated deaths are already here. I know for a fact that it is being implemented in the State of California.Take a look at the portion of the quoted text that is in bold. This is one of the ways that they are doing it. By withholding nourishment. In a conversation with one of the patients daughter's, hospice care came up. Her mother happened to be my roommate. Under professional advice, it was recommended that she put her mother in hospice. There are two blessings in this particular situation. The first is that the daughter elected to care for the mother at home. The second is that she had the freedom to be able to remove her from the "hospice"

situation. Her major complaint was that she was instructed not to give her mother food or liquids unless she specifically asked for them. And you know, I guess not knowing better and trusting that these people knew what they were talking about, she complied. After day 4 of very little to no nourishment, yes, her mother was dying. She took one look at her and saw the drastic change, the graying skin, and became overcome with panic. After finding it necessary to remove her from hospice, she called an ambulance to have her brought to the hospital. The problem was dehydration. Once hydrated, she started eating normally and regained normal skin color.Through the hospital curtain, I witnessed a conversation between the daughter and her mother's doctor where the daughter described what had transpired during hospice and the doctor's reply was to state that older patients are put into hospice earlier than

needed and that "hospice tends to facilitate death." Then he said....... "Your mom still has a lot of life left in her." Well, there is still honesty in the medical profession. Some still do have a heart.I am afraid that the proposals in this Bill are not only about to happen but that they are already occurring in some parts of the country. Either the blogger referenced in the prior post is grossly misinformed or she is purposely deceiving the public. And this is mainstream medicine's and mainstream media's main tactic. To slyly deceive the public.At this time more than ever we need common sense.

August 2, 2009

By all means Mara. Love and Hugs,oleander soup , Maracuja <howdurdago wrote:>> Dearest , Please may I share this with others? Will remove headers etc.> Love always, Mara>

August 4, 2009

With all due respect to and my other comrades on this forum, you really

should investigate this issue a bit further and you will find that it has been

blown out of proportion and frought with misunderstanding by the folks who are

afraid of health insurance changes. It is my understanding from investigating

this that it is simply a way for people to be counseled about end of life issues

and perhaps set what is called an Advanced Directive, or what your wishes are

regarding whether you want to be on life support. I have a legal document that

was drawn up specifically stating my wishes....that I do not wish to be

sustained by artificial life supports if I am declared brain dead or in a

permanent coma. Perhaps some folks would want life support, so that would be

your directive. Everyone should have this so your relatives know what you wish.

Somehow this has gotten twisted into the government forcing older Americans to

check out early in order to save money. This is ridiculous paranoia. Obama has

stated that this part of the bill would easily be dropped if people continue to

fear it or be so upset by it. No one is going to force-euthanize grandma--

Please educate yourself, dig a little deeper and then maybe have a rational

discussion about this.

Thanks for listening, best of health to all!

fondly,

Dan

In oleander soup , " May " <luellamay129 wrote:

>

> You know, there are times when I have seen that snopes is not accurate.

> And this is one.

>

> I have read the Bill, various links, and the link provided to the blog

> with interest. One glaring sentence in the blog jumped out and it made

> me cringe.

>

> " ... and one of the most shocking things I found in this bill - and

> there were many - is on page 425 where the Congress would make it

> mandatory, absolutely required, that every five years people in Medicare

> have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their

> life sooner. How to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated,

> how to go into hospice care... "

>

> At the end of this quote the blogger goes on to state..... " Um, no. "

>

> I am here to state, " Um, yes. " And I will tell you why. My recent

> visit to the State of California, especially the hospital, was very

> enlightening. I have heard that California is the first to implement

> these healthcare changes. I don't know what the policy is in other

> states, so I cannot say this for sure. However, I was in California. I

> was in the hospital there, and what I witnessed was very disturbing.

>

> First of all, when I was admitted into the hospital, they thought that

> there was something seriously wrong with me. Much more serious than a

> pulmonary infection and asthma. For one thing, I was put on the floor

> for lung cancer patients. While there, I observed many interactions

> between doctors and patients and as I felt better, I was able to walk

> around and personally visit with the patients there.

>

> One of the big changes coming to our country is facilitated deaths which

> are to be done under the guise of hospice care. No, let me rephrase

> that. The truth is that facilitated deaths are already here. I know

> for a fact that it is being implemented in the State of California.

>

> Take a look at the portion of the quoted text that is in bold. This is

> one of the ways that they are doing it. By withholding nourishment. In

> a conversation with one of the patients daughter's, hospice care came

> up. Her mother happened to be my roommate. Under professional advice,

> it was recommended that she put her mother in hospice. There are two

> blessings in this particular situation. The first is that the daughter

> elected to care for the mother at home. The second is that she had the

> freedom to be able to remove her from the " hospice " situation.

>

> Her major complaint was that she was instructed not to give her mother

> food or liquids unless she specifically asked for them. And you know, I

> guess not knowing better and trusting that these people knew what they

> were talking about, she complied. After day 4 of very little to no

> nourishment, yes, her mother was dying. She took one look at her and

> saw the drastic change, the graying skin, and became overcome with

> panic. After finding it necessary to remove her from hospice, she

> called an ambulance to have her brought to the hospital. The problem

> was dehydration. Once hydrated, she started eating normally and

> regained normal skin color.

>

> Through the hospital curtain, I witnessed a conversation between the

> daughter and her mother's doctor where the daughter described what had

> transpired during hospice and the doctor's reply was to state that older

> patients are put into hospice earlier than needed and that " hospice

> tends to facilitate death. " Then he said...... " Your mom still has a

> lot of life left in her. " Well, there is still honesty in the medical

> profession. Some still do have a heart.

>

> I am afraid that the proposals in this Bill are not only about to happen

> but that they are already occurring in some parts of the country.

>

> Either the blogger referenced in the prior post is grossly misinformed

> or she is purposely deceiving the public. And this is mainstream

> medicine's and mainstream media's main tactic. To slyly deceive the

> public.

>

> At this time more than ever we need common sense.

>

August 4, 2009

Hi Dan,

The directives to which you reference have been in effect for a very long time. My mother had the same Advanced Directives and she chose to be listed as DNR. As a sidenote, the hardest thing I ever had to do was respect those wishes and stand by while a heart attack took her. She was also in hospice at home, so I am very familiar with how hospice works. At no time was I given instructions with regard to not feeding or hydrating her. In fact, even to the last day I would do whatever it took to feed her. I understand that when in hospice, there is a limit as to what type of care a patient will receive. For example, I knew that I could not call an ambulance should it be required. Also, please realize that back then, I knew nothing about natural health. I was the best mainstream "little nurse" that you could imagine and I look back on those days with regret. But with the tools I had I did the best I could.

However, this bill goes one step further. The lady I referenced knew deep in her heart that something was wrong. Why would they advise her not to prepare meals for her mother? And why would a doctor acknowledge that "hospice facilitates death?" Those are very strong words. And thank goodness for his honesty.

We have entered a new day and time where the goal of our government is to control the population, not only with regard to healthcare but in all areas. And the time is very, very near. CODEX is just around the corner. We are about to lose our freedom of choice, freedoms that are now quite limited.

You know, you may think I'm paranoid, but my opinion is that the counseling being offered to older Americans is actually "brainwashing" or indoctrination.

My Best,

August 4, 2009

dan, you're absolutely incorrect. we don't need a trillion dollar healthcare bill to compel people to have an advance directive drawn up. a minor tweak to medicare would accomplish that goal by making it one of the requirements to receive medicare treatment. i am a 30 year old male and i have had an advance directive since the horrible case involving terri schiavo. it is easy and inexpensive, and imo, every adult over 18 should have one.

it is absolutely NOT paranoia and it absolutely IS the government forcing older people to " check out early. " much of the funding for this bill comes from medicare cuts. at a time when doctors are refusing new medicare patients already, i hardly think that now is the time to cut the programs and the amounts paid to doctors even further. funding cuts plus a medical standards board that determines the course of treatment rather than your doctor plus long waits to receive needed treatments will result in an increased mortality rate among the elderly. we have seen it in canada. we have seen it in britain. we will see it in america if this bill becomes law.

obama seeks to cover upwards of 40 to 50 million new people. where are the

extra doctors, nurses and other professionals going to come from? neither the

obama white house nor anyone on the capitol hill have proposed anything to add to

the supply of medical services even as they plan vastly to increase the

demand.end result? rationing. rationing that will make the group who need it the most, our elderly, wait in line when their time is running out. the mortality rate in canada from advanced colon cancer is 41 percent. the mortality rate in the united states? 32 percent. the average wait time in canada for a colonoscopy? 8 months.

this isn't about right vs. left. this is about right vs. wrong. unemployement is spiraling out of control, we are losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month, people are losing their homes and their cars, and we are still fighting two foreign wars. healthcare reform is NOT the most pressing matter at this time. oh, and has anybody thought of the thousands of jobs lost and the billions of dollars that will vanish from our economy when the private health insurance industry disappears due to the public option? this bill will destroy our healthcare system. our system is far from perfect, and it definitely needs some serious work, but turning us into canada isn't the solution. if the canadian system was so amazing, then americans would cross the border to seek treatment there, not the other way around.

blessings from reno, sean. On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:36 PM, dncrw <dncrw wrote:

With all due respect to and my other comrades on this forum, you really should investigate this issue a bit further and you will find that it has been blown out of proportion and frought with misunderstanding by the folks who are afraid of health insurance changes. It is my understanding from investigating this that it is simply a way for people to be counseled about end of life issues and perhaps set what is called an Advanced Directive, or what your wishes are regarding whether you want to be on life support. I have a legal document that was drawn up specifically stating my wishes....that I do not wish to be sustained by artificial life supports if I am declared brain dead or in a permanent coma. Perhaps some folks would want life support, so that would be your directive. Everyone should have this so your relatives know what you wish. Somehow this has gotten twisted into the government forcing older Americans to check out early in order to save money. This is ridiculous paranoia. Obama has stated that this part of the bill would easily be dropped if people continue to fear it or be so upset by it. No one is going to force-euthanize grandma-- Please educate yourself, dig a little deeper and then maybe have a rational discussion about this.