They Say It's a Myth

Members of the Congressional "Progressive Caucus", pro-government-run healthcare non-profits, and news reporters from many of the country's biggest agencies are force-feeding the notion that, when it comes to HR 3200, some of the concerns raised by anti-government-run healthcare activists, concerned citizens, and lawmakers are "myths".
They go on national television or radio programs and shout to the heavens that there is absolutely no truth to much of what these rabble rousers are saying. However, they never bring up the language of the bill. They never go to a contested page of the bill and explain to the public what it actually means.
Fortunately, I've seen the publicly available HR 3200. And it's pretty important that every concerned person reads--at the very least--some of the more volatile language. So here is a piece of text from the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009":

Section 1233, Subsection 5:
(A) For purposes of this section, the term 'order regarding life sustaining treatment' means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that--
(i) is singed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scop of the professional's authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professional and providers across the contiuum of care;
(ii) effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and
(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if execurted by the individual.
(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items--
(i) the insensity of medial intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
(ii) the individual's desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.

So, essentially, the public option that is supposed to save everyone and provide better health insurance than any private company has sold previously has embedded in it a clause that gives both doctors and the government carte blanche to deny a patient medical care because he or she is "too sick".

This isn't "Change", nor does this fix the healthcare industry. This is just one more health insurance company, except this one is run by the government and subsidized by taxpayers.