Palin's Misunderstood "Death Panels" Remark Has Been Mostly Mis-Reported

Given the poor press reports, few people likely understand that Sarah Palin never claimed that any "Death Panels" would be brought about by immediate legislation. An examination of the actual record makes that clear.

Usually Charles Krauthammer is very sharp. He seems to have fallen into a bit of a media trap, as have most of us, in discussing Sarah Palin's infamous "Death Panels" remark. If the nuance of her original invocation of the term had been reported, there really should be no issue here at all. h/t to Lisa Grass for pointing it out in comments.

Dan, I haven't read any of your posts on what the "death panel" actually is. You didn't address it in this post, so I'm not being critical of you. No reason to be critical of something I'm not really aware of our position on!! It is Krauthammer who doesn't get it in this case and it is Krauthammer I am frustrated with at the moment.

It's been in quotes every time Palin has used it - first, with a further explanation by her here. But it didn't stem from direct discussion of the current health care bill. Her original use of the term referenced a YouTube video (see below) of Rep. Michelle Bachman in which she was discussing the known views of Obama's team of health care advisers.

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

No, she doesn't use the term. But the address is purely about the known views of Obama's health team and questions what would evolve as any plan moved on from potentially passed legislation to a mostly under-reported upon mess of a bureaucratic nightmare known as Big Government. That machine is what would be crafting guidelines and administering things going forward. Obama himself has expressed a desire for that very thing. In short, Sarah Palin never claimed that "Death Panels" would automatically be created from any legislation. Actually, what she did was accurately express the concerns many of us have from a Big Government scheme ultimately designed to save money and not lives.

Comments

[Bob]

"In short, Sarah Palin never claimed that "Death Panels" would automatically be created from any legislation. Actually, what she did was accurately express the concerns many of us have from a Big Government scheme ultimately designed to save money and not lives."

Why quibble over whether you think she meant it was "automatic" or not? The distinction is meaningless because it's intellectual dishonesty either way. Why pretend that you care about facts under the circumstances? It's like Joe Klein said: the Republicans have become a party of cynical nihilists. All they care about is defeating their enemies, even if the nation as a whole is harmed in the process.

[Lisa Graas]

I'm confused. Are you disagreeing with my contention that the advisory panel (I think it's on page 30 of HR3200) is the panel that will be rationing care? Hence "death panel"? Because that is clearly in the legislation. You are correct in saying that the rationing itself is not delineated in the legislation, however the mechanism for it (the panel) is clearly in the legislation.

Thanks for speaking more on this, Dan.

"Death", arguably, isn't specified. "Panel" is specified" albeit not with the word "panel". "Death" arguably will occur when care is rationed......hence "death panels".

[Lisa Graas]

Dan, things like Emanuel's position, Obama's "take a pain pill" comment at the CBS townhall, the VA guidelines, liberal practices in Oregon, the science czar's view on infanticide, etc., are all circumstantial evidence that liberals do not value "life unworthy of life" so to speak. It is an opinion that the panel will result in a conscious effort to "off" people. Whether or not it is a reasonable opinion would depend on how much you trust liberals with your life. My position is that the circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming that letting liberals handle health care truly is like letting the fox guard the chickens.

I worked my butt off against Clinton's rationing. This round of liberals are more "gray and fuzzy" in their legislation regarding the legalese, but the desire to embrace death is more pronounced, more clearly evident, in the Obama White House than in the Clinton White House.

[Bob]

"Whether or not it is a reasonable opinion would depend on how much you trust liberals with your life."

No, it would depend on whether it's based on an honest and reasonable reading of the legislation and the intent, as opposed to making up hysterical shit.

[Zeb Zebrowski]

I'm confused about all of the support for Sarah Palin's opinions. There are at least 5 versions of the bill pending. Palin can't even name the newspapers she reads regularly; should we believe that she actually read all of this proposed legislation? Let alone be able to authoritatively comment on it?

Come on folks.

Yes, we can easily stall health care reform once again. But to whose advantage? Small businesses? (Certainly not.) Big businesses? (They pay even more.) Folks who want to change jobs, or work only part-time? (Certainly not.) Health insurance companies? (Yep, stalling reform perpetuates their profits.)

Come on, guys. Whether or not yall like Obama, reform is a good thing for the country.

[rrpjr]

I found it remarkable how few on the "intellectual" right got the instrinsic, metaphoric truth of what Palin said. How else could such a leftist scheme -- given its frightening elements of ambiguity and open doors to the exercise of government authority over matters of life and death -- turn out? The entire bill is a "death panel", of sorts. Did not anyone read Orwell? But then I realized how few understand the Left. Or how many refuse to; who cannot accept such a terrible truth about the people in their midst, in their "club".

As Andrew McCarthy notes today, this isn't close to over.

[David R. Graham]

@Lisa, I think Dan is agreeing with you (obviously I have no right to speak for him and may misunderstand entirely) in the sense that the bill's intention to save money rather than lives must lead to bureaucratic structures and actions which amount to "death panels" even though that phrase is not in the bill. I think his point (again, I have no right to speak for Dan and may misunderstand) is that Sarah Palin in using the phrase "death panels" expressed the premonition animating increasing numbers of Americans and others that costs will be kept down by ending lives.

Personally, I would add another and more elderly reason for this bill, which is not about health but about life control: the old eugenicists' goal of reducing population, especially of undesirables. In olden days the undesirables were identified by race (remember, these were that day's "liberals" making the identification) and specifically blacks. Prison populations, especially blacks but also so-called "white trash" were identified then as handy test beds for medications and experiments in termination, with a view to enabling like-ending programs in local, state and national legislation and executive policy. Now the "liberal" descendants of those "liberals," the premonition runs, identify undesirables by race (the earlier standard, but now reversed), religion, age, health (don't get sick, infirm or handicapped), education level (also an earlier standard) and political views (although these are inconsequential if a bureaucrat has a death quota to reach for a day, month or year).

Rep. Michelle Bachmann is a very brave Lady. She has been at this several times. Gutsy Lady!

That "liberal" scenario is fascist and evil, no argument on that score. I am continuously amazed, however, regarding another, rarely mentioned factor. It is that were this fascist program to go into effect, among its earliest targets would be most of the foot-soldiers who initiated and implemented it. Dictators are prone, for good reason, to start with very clean slates, eliminating those who helped them into place because they are the ones who most easily could force them out of place. Were I an MSM denizen or a liberal arts professor or a "Democratic Party" Congressional leader I would be close to sleepless right now and planning for precipitous emigration to a hyper-secret destination if this bill or anything like it is passed. It won't be the grassroots or the Republican Party coming after them intending "extreme prejudice." It will be the White House's current occupants.

[Croaker Norge]

Like you, I have an appreciation for Krauthammer, but I suspect that Krauthammer has a bit of class disdain for Palin. He has been negative at worst, condescending at best, every time I have seen him discuss her on Fox, and what I have read on the Internet. I think he would like to have a conservative Obama, polished, well-spoken, maybe an Ivy League education. Of course, we haven't had much luck with the Ivy Leaguers since WFB. Just saying.

The proof,if you will, of Palin's statement on death panels can be found in two things. First, too many public health care plans have implemented, Oregon being the worst. The Clinton administration, and recently resurrected by Obama, did a similar thing with the VA, who certainly seemed to ask veterans to consider suicide. (It took Bush to discontinue the practice.)

The second "proof," if you will, is that the Senate removed the provision as soon as the silly woman brought the subject up. If there was no consideration of death panels, or suicide counselling, or whatever the hell you want to call it, in the Senate version, why did they move so fast to remove the provisions immediately after she mentioned them? And ditto the VA. Now that the WSJ published the article "The Death Book for Veterans", the VA is backing off. Death panels again? Naw. Silly conservatives. And look, we are even removing them so there wouldn't be death panels. Not that there ever were.

Why are you still listening to that stupid woman? After all, she's not even an Ivy Leaguer.

[Dan Riehl]

Carry on, David. You seem to understand my position very well. I'm only trying to bring back the original nuance into the debate. Palin expressed two rationales in her follow up Facebook posting. No need to seize on one or the other, both have merit. But I was returning to the scene of the crime to come by journalists by7 stripping out her actual and original intent by referencing Bachman echoing the Obama tribe with the words: Death Panels.

[crosspatch]

I believe this all goes way back to when she ran against Murkowski and beat him in the primary for Governor. Murkowski was a serious good ol boy and good friend of Ted Stevens. Then a short time after that was Palin's behavior during the VECO scandal and her criticism of Stevens. She really didn't offer him much in the way of support.

She is going to be made to pay a price for that, I think. I also think that when McCain selected her as VP candidate, it set some heads to spinning in that good network. That is why you saw all the sniping and leaks and all sorts of damaging talk out of school. Stevens is a powerful man. You cross powerful people at your own peril.

[Jack Okie]

Having read Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel's Lancet article before ever hearing about Sarah Palin's "Death Panel" reference, it was immediately clear to me what she meant. It would be impossible to implement a "Complete Lives" policy without such panels. Given Dr. Emanuel's position in Obama's administration, it is quite rational to assume he will influence the implementation of the health care policies, regardless of what may or may not be in the final bill.

And Bob, given the facts of Canada's system ("imploding"), Oregon's setup ("we won't treat your cancer, but we'll pay for assisted suicide") and Britain's NHS (much worse outcomes for prostate cancer, for example), it is not "hysterical" to predict equally bad results for Obamascare. How do you suppose Oregon arrives at decisions like the above if not through some kind of review panel? Which for that lady, since it would have resulted in an earlier death than if she were treated, could legitimately be called a "death panel".

From an article by the Catholic News Agency:

“Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan,” said the letter Wagner received from LIPA, the Eugene company that administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County.

“I think it’s messed up,” Wagner said. She said she was particularly upset because the letter said doctor-assisted suicide would be covered.

“To say to someone, we’ll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it’s cruel,” she said. “I get angry. Who do they think they are?”

A doctor appealed to Genentech, the company that markets Tarceva in the U.S., to cover Wagner’s medication. On Monday Wagner was told the company would cover the drug treatment for a year, after which she could re-apply for the drug.

“I am just so thrilled,” Wagner said. “I am so relieved and so happy.”

According to the Register-Guard, Oregon oncologists say they have seen a change in state health policy, saying their Oregon Health Plan patients with advanced cancer are no longer covered for chemotherapy if it is considered comfort care.

“It doesn’t adhere to the standards of care set out in the oncology community,” said Dr. John Caton, an oncologist at Willamette Valley Cancer Center. He said many studies have found that chemotherapy in a palliative setting decreases pain and time spent in the hospital and increases quality of life.

Link: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12857

Bob, my mother was a cancer survivor, and spoke often to other cancer patients. It was clear that while the doctors could give statistical odds, individual patient outcomes showed that there was no telling who might go early, and who might go into remission. But that's the great divide, isn't it, between those of us who believe life is God's gift and is equally precious for all, including the unborn, and those who take a utilitarian approach.

[Bob]

"I found it remarkable how few on the "intellectual" right got the instrinsic, metaphoric truth of what Palin said. How else could such a leftist scheme -- given its frightening elements of ambiguity and open doors to the exercise of government authority over matters of life and death -- turn out? The entire bill is a "death panel", of sorts."

"Metaphoric truth?" What a hoot. I guess in wing-nut world, any piece of objective truth like the language in a piece of legislation + anything a wing nut wants to say about it = whatever the wing nut wants it to mean. Hey, you know what? It seems like you can just leave out the objective information completely and the formula still works the same! In other words, facts don't matter at all! Wing nuts can just make stuff up and say it's true! It's brilliant!

[North Dallas Thirty]

"No, it would depend on whether it's based on an honest and reasonable reading of the legislation and the intent, as opposed to making up hysterical shit."

Tell us, Bob; was the Obama Party-written law in Oregon written to deny chemotherapy to people because it was too expensive and suggest suicide instead?

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/03/video-oregon-says-no-to-chemotherapy-offers-assisted-suicide-instead/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,392962,00.html

Well, maybe kinda sorta, intent and all that....

"The letter, which has been sent to other terminal patients throughout Oregon, follows guidelines established by the state legislature.

Oregon doesn't cover life-prolonging treatment unless there is better than a 5 percent chance it will help the patients live for five more years — but it covers doctor-assisted suicide, defining it as a means of providing comfort, no different from hospice care or pain medication."

So let's see:

-- The Obama Party believes that, unless you're going to get at least five years out of it, it's not a good value

-- The Obama Party sees suicide as being no different than hospice or pain medication

The entertaining part is that Barack Obama didn't follow his own rules that he's trying to impose on anyone else with his "typical white grandmother". Then again, that's typical; he and his own party members don't want the health plan they impose on others, nor do they have any intention of paying the taxes they're demanding others do.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203946904574300013592601036.html

Like I said, Bob, it's no surprise you're passionate for Obamacare; since you don't pay taxes, it would give you free health care without having to work for it, and even better, you're getting rid of all those old people like your grandparents who don't vote for or support the Obamamessiah and his "progressive agenda".

[geoffb]

Any and all government single payer healthcare plans have to have a way to contain costs, rationing is a built-in part of these systems. Otherwise costs go through the roof. One scheme used is called by the name "Comparative Effectiveness".

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg2239.cfm
Quote:
"During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama proposed an Institute for Comparative Effectiveness that would make formal recommendations on medical technologies, devices, and drugs. In Congress, champions of comprehensive overhaul of U.S. health care favor policies that would explicitly accelerate America’s trajectory downward toward a European-style medical interventionism.

Fearing the impact of the rising costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and the highly regulated arrangements of the private insurance sector, many American legislators and other top policymakers are becoming attracted to the idea of a body that would make top-down pronouncements on the cost-effectiveness of new medical technologies. The idea of a statutorily created agency charged with system-wide cost containment and rationing of medical services and technologies is becoming surprisingly fashionable in Washington policy circles."

A mechanism has already been put in place to do this work.

http://readthestimulus.org/hr1_final.txt

"HR 1 The Stimulus Bill
SEC. 804…There is hereby
established a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative
Effectiveness Research"

As of now it is simply to gather information and it's reports are not mandates on payments, treatments etc.

There are also two other "Comparative Effectiveness" groups that are in the HR 3200 Healthcare Reform Bill. They too are to be at this time advisory only. That could change in a heartbeat. A few amending lines in any bill is all that would be needed.

One device to limit care and ration healthcare is built, two more are planned. Once done they can be activated whenever costs increase to where the cry goes out to "do something". This is how all of the government single payer plans evolve. To think that this one will be any different is magical thinking.

[Bob]

"But that's the great divide, isn't it, between those of us who believe life is God's gift and is equally precious for all, including the unborn, and those who take a utilitarian approach."

Jack, are you saying that medical care is not currently being denied to people based on who does or doesn't have insurance, or based on decisions of insurers about whether to pay for their customers' treatments or not?
How about this case, just as the first example I ran across on Google:

http://cbs5.com/local/cancer.treatment.denied.2.1007394.html

**************
"Insurance Won't Pay NorCal Mom's Cancer Treatment"

In late April, Shelly Andrews-Buta was scheduled to undergo treatment for breast cancer that had spread to her brain, threatening her life.

[...]

But instead of having doctors working to remove her brain tumors on the day the surgery was scheduled, she sat in a San Francisco hotel room. Why? Because at the last minute, her insurance company, Blue Shield, decided it wasn't going to pay for the treatment her doctors at UCSF Medical Center had recommended.

[...]

But the doctor said when it came to getting Blue Shield's approval for the procedure; she was surprised to learn that the company's policy lays out that a patient who has more than three brain tumors, what doctors call lesions, would not be covered for the gamma knife procedure.

*************

So please spare me the self-righteous tripe about "those who belief life is God's gift . . ." What do you care about all of those uninsured people, 20,000 of whom die every year because they don't have health insurance. You can't even see past your own political hackery to give a damn.

[mark l.]

"What do you care about all of those uninsured people, 20,000 of whom die every year because they don't have health insurance."

I'd be glad to provide you with a link where you can see how much money went to obama, so that the donor could get invited to the inaugrural ball.

let me borrow your phrase...

"So please spare me the self-righteous tripe..."

[North Dallas Thirty]

LOL....did you read your article, silly Bob?

"Blue Shield said it would pay instead for a less expensive treatment called whole-brain radiation, in which doctors try to kill tumors by exposing the entire brain to radiation. But Dr. Sneed said that wasn't the best option for Andrews-Buta.......

So why did Blue Shield overrule Dr. Sneed? In emails, a company representative told CBS 5 Investigates that Blue Shield's position is that for patients with multiple tumors, gamma knife surgery 'does not improve survival' better than whole brain radiation."

In short, Blue Shield is doing exactly the same thing that you support and endorse when Obamacare does it -- denying someone a more-expensive treatment in favor of a less-expensive one that has the same effect on survivability.

Good thing she wasn't on Obamacare, though; Obama would have told her to commit suicide because she might not live five more years.

"What do you care about all of those uninsured people, 20,000 of whom die every year because they don't have health insurance. You can't even see past your own political hackery to give a damn."

Yawn.

""Moochers" demand others' earnings on behalf of the needy and those unable to earn themselves, however, they curse the producers who make that help possible and are jealous and resentful of the talented on whom they depend."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

Pay for it yourself instead of demanding it of others, Bob. We don't demand you contribute to our churches; give your own money to your Messiah. All you're doing is using "the poor" to legitimize your stealing from others and your hatred towards those with talent and productivity who work for a living.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203946904574300013592601036.html

[mark l.]

Donate to Obama for a Chance to Win Inaugural Tickets!
http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/News%20&%20Features/capitalcomment/10675.html

noticed that the healthcare changeover doesn't go into effect until 2013, if ever.
20k a year, means 60k die waiting for treatment.

why doesn't the messiah lend his voice to fill in the gap? he was a community organizer after all. he has the biggest pulpit in the world. why aren't the dems organizing to actually and specifcially address the need you speak of...

unless this was never about helping people, so much as getting credit when he finally does.

doesn't hurt to ask, unless of course, it works.

[rrpjr]

Yes, Bob, metaphoric. For we agree, there was no literal death panel. Yet there were and would be death panels, as sure as life and death itself. This is what Palin knew, and why her words resonated through much of the consciousness of the country, as well as scared the bill's backers, and why when great artists render the stuff of tyranny in their art (and great leaders evoke its horrors in their words) they render and reimagine reality for us all. Their metaphors are real. They are truth.

[geoffb]

20,000 is a nice round figure. It comes from the Urban Institute,
http://www.urban.org/index.cfm

A group originally put together in 1968 by President Lyndon Johnson to monitor the "Great Society" programs his administration put into effect. Since 1980 they have been pressing for socialized healthcare in the United States.

Their figure may or may not be correct but they do have an institutional bias toward government healthcare and on their site are putting out papers with talking points aimed at passage of the current HR 3200.

[Bob]

"I'd be glad to provide you with a link where you can see how much money went to obama, so that the donor could get invited to the inaugrural ball."

Mark, you seem to specialize in irrelevant bits of trivia. But just to put things in perspective, the maximum donation to Obama's inaugural ball was lowered to $50,000 per individual. At Bush's last inauguration, the limit was up to $250,000. Of course, if relative peanuts like that could solve the nation's healthcare crisis I'd be the first to congratulate you on your great idea. But it can't, so it seems that your suggestion is just a petty, unserious cheap-shot.

[mark l.]

well bob, 22k die.

hate to go all sally struthers on you, but if the obama voters donated 40 bucks a year, from their welfare, social security, or even tax rebates, you'd wind up with over 100k for each of the 20k that die from no treatment.

that's 3.33 cents a month, and you'd have 100k to give for the 22k's treatment.

the problem?
no govt official has ever asked me if I wanted to donate money to a specific cause. if bush had, I'd cut him a check for well over the request per person, if I knew the specific task and I approved.

i do see that thingy on my taxes about 3 dollars to the presidential election fund and tend to laugh. why not ask me to give to something I give a crap about?

obama doesn't want a charitable nation. his proposed tax policies against charities have said as much.

"But just to put things in perspective, the maximum donation to Obama's inaugural ball was lowered to $50,000 per individual. At Bush's last inauguration, the limit was up to $250,000."

i think my perspective is just fine. that you'd offer 50k as sign of how much better obama is than bush, rather addressing the actually 'utility' of money and priorities just tells me you find obama very much like bush.

i'm pointing out that you are concerned with money for the sick, but the only way you'd accept it, is if it came from taxes and was handled by the govt, deflating its effectiveness. i sincerely doubt that the people who are dying in the numbers you provide would care mcuh how it was obtained.

[mark l.]

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/June/200706261522251CJsamohT0.8012354.html

it is a beautiful article, about charitable donations in the US.

since we exchange a good deal of money with our govt, it is sad to see that no one takes 'advantage'.

some bottom line numbers?

"Washington -- Americans increased their charitable donations significantly in 2006 to more than $295 billion -- a record, according to a study released June 25 by the Giving USA Foundation, which reports on charitable contributions."

our govt budget for 2006 was 2.7 trillion.

basically, charitable donations were the equivalent of 10% of the federal budget.

trying to imagine what a good community organizer could do as president...

the operative word being, "good".

[mark l.]

here, bob,
I'll throw you a bone...

military budget is 515 billion. obama announces tomorrow that he is going to cut the budget by 100 billion, BUT he would match any donation to make up the shortfall, up to 50 billion.

my guess is that he would fall short of having to pony up 50 billion, but would probably wind up with having to give 40 billion in matching funds. The bottom line?

the govt would save 60 billion, and wind up cutting the military budget by only 20 billion, instead of a the proposed 100 billion.

while military wouldn't be my choice of running the expermient with, it is convenient for a lib to grasp and accept.

I'd start small myself, with the NEA, and I would eliminate them from the budget, but would match up to the necessary amount to restore their origianl budget.

A lib would never do this, because it gives too much power to the people.

[WBestPresidentEver]

Don't forget to take part in a anti obama care protest tomorrow. Read about them here.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/21/tea-party-organizers-plan-anti-obamacare-rallies-country-saturday/

Find your state and nearest office here.
http://recessrally.com/

Don't just sit there. Become a part of the movement against Obama care !!

[mark l.]

parting shot for you, bob.
2 questions:

1. Why is the sieu involved in this govt health care plan, and desperately advocating a govt option, when unions already are known for making sure their employees have health insurance?

I'll give two very possible answers:
a) they have set up an insurance company/health trust fund which they have been managing. If the govt option goes thru, they turn over the insurance side to the govt, and pocket the money in the trust fund. call it the jackpot theory.

b)(which is probably the most likely) their trust fund is alomst completely gone and they are about to default. if they cancel their insurance, the people running it will likely go to jail for financial mismangement. they are not a public organization, so their records are theirs. like almost every other insurance company of late, they made some poor financial decisions, compoundly heavily by theft and graft along the way. No public option for their employees to go to? their ponzi scheme falls. trust me, they have been running a ponzi scheme.

question 2 is simply:
why no tort reform, if the plan is to be taken seriously?

[David R. Graham]

Dan, thanks, I endeavored to express what I thought you were saying with the utmost trepidation, knowing the danger of such an undertaking. Strong concur on bringing back the original nuance into the debate. An elderly General Officer admonished me once, "Never leave the scene of an incident." I think he meant what you do, that the truth of a situation is always at the situation itself, so stay there, find it and write it up. Linking Rep. Bachmann is brilliant. She deserves a Nobel Peace Prize and much more besides. It could be said that she and Sarah Palin are the situation.

As now oft remarked, ladies are at the point of this movement. Their initiative puts them there. They are not put forward by men, and they certainly are not hired. IMO, they are aroused, as gentlemen are also, because they grasp in direct experience, without having to be told or having it "proven" to them by documents or statistics, than which nothing is more malleable, that the molten core of evil bearing down upon them, their children and families is misogyny. I think (without presuming to speak for them) that this grasp is driving Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann also. Certainly it drives my wife and me.

There is a story in the Mahabharata which illustrates the depth of feeling and the terrific power of anger inside American Ladies and focused by them at the White House's current occupants and their associates in Congress and state and local governments. The evil Kaurava brothers have just tried to strip her sari from Drupadi in open court by way of shaming her and her husbands the Pandava brothers, who are honor-bound for related reasons to remain immobile. Upon Drupadi's desperate prayer, Lord Krishna causes her sari to become endless, so that no matter how much is taken off, more remains, ensuring that Drupadi's modesty and virtue remain inviolate. Finally the Kauravas give up in frustration and exhaustion, mountains of sari lie on the floor and still Drupadi is fully clothed.

Drupadi now rounds on the Kaurava brothers and their parents and clan and utters upon them the most fearsome curse in the universe. Her eyes are ablaze with such a fury of Divine Wrath that her own husbands avert eyes for fear of incineration.

Let us implore God to avert the misogynistic destiny planned for American and all ladies by the current occupants of the White House and Congress as well as by officials of state and local governments. And let us be grateful and avert eyes from their irenic wrath as those ladies tell the truth regarding intentions inside the Beltway and its state and local clones.

[mark l.]

the bonus for the b answer?

the seiu is actually blackmailing the wh. axelrod is the go between, and if they don't get bailed out via a public option, they would know 'where the bodies are buried' and be forced to share such knowledge. bad news for chicago democrats on that front. it would explain the haggard look on axelrod's face on election night. it wasn't just fatigue...there was worry in his eyes.

[Americannodash]

Bob,

Why the rush to pass Obamacare before the summer recess? Well, what everyone knows now is that the main reason was because the White House & Democrat leadership wanted (Obamacare) more power & control. So they pushed hard & fast to get it thru congress. Are they aware it is not supported under the existing articles & amendments of the US constitution? They were trying for a 787 billion dollar stimulus redo except this Obamacare would set a presedent that exceeds the federal government contitutional limitations.

Obamacare itself is federally unconstitutional. It will die in the floor of the house of representatives w/out a new constitutional amendment. Review the 10th amendment w/ a constitutional scholar & get back to us Bob. Health care itself qualifies as a commodity or as a "good[s]" such as something that is bought, sold or traded on an open & free market. Food, water & shelter are commodities as well & are sometimes regulated but they are not a right under the US constitution. Hence, health care is not a right. Health care can be regulated but it can not legislated by the federal government. It falls under the resposibilty of the individual States constitutions. These types of issues are described & defined by and under the 10th amendment of the US constitution. If a constitutional convention is called for today perhaps this health care issue can be addressed someday down the road by a new constitutional amendment. The problem is that it takes awhile to convene something like a constitutonal convention. So let's get into a robust debate about the fact that this national health care, as the US constitution reads today, cannot be legislated, passed or signed into a law. Obamacare as it stands now is an act of futility.

[xerocky]

All of the focus on the phrase "death panels" by the MSM is to try to paint those who oppose Obamacare as being of 2 shades; 1)Dumb (like they seem to think Palin is) and 2) paranoid, because the exact phrase "death panel" isn't mentioned in the bill.

They've tried to tie the phrase to her, but that's only going to work with the people who already hate her. What they fail to do, over and over again is address the fact that rationing will happen, and people will suffer for it. Not to mention that as people flock to get more care, demand will go up, costs will go up, and then taxes will go up, if by then the govt. truly does intend to still pay.

If it seems so crazy then ask the auto dealerships if they've gotten their money yet! For each claim there is a ton of paperwork, and the govt. is stalling on the payments.

Each and every time that they try to manipulate the market by keeping costs down, or giving things to people who don't really have the money for them (houses, cars, hopefully not healthcare) they end up destroying that market.

I wish that the news media could explain why these things won't happen, instead of deamonizing Palin... again.

[WestWright]

Why does anyone continues to even respond to the asinine & disagreeable 'Bob'?

[Philip McDaniel]

David R. Graham, interesting take on the subject. Excellent post! Nice to see someone who has a wide intellectual background.

Bob, if you don't understand what Rep. Michele Bachmann is saying or the implications of what she is revealing, then none of us can help you. Go play in another sand yard. One of the measures of a debater is that he understand the question at hand. You, sir, appear to be completely out of your league.

[jd]

For what its worth, I equate the phrase "death panel" with the phase "separation of church and state". Neither are actually "written" in the documents they are most closely referred to, yet both seem to carry extreme weight. Bob seems to be sent to cloud the waters, yet finds his task difficult, as he is trying to defend the indefensible.

[mark l.]

"Obamacare itself is federally unconstitutional."
the argument is pretty compelling. sorry that more people aren't making it.

[Bob]

"Yes, Bob, metaphoric. For we agree, there was no literal death panel."

Wow, it's news to me that "we agree" on that. The wingnuttosphere has been perfectly happy to entertain that as a LITERAL issue, I guess until there was sufficient pushback about its blatant dishonesty. Now you're belatedly pretending like facts and honesty matter to you, I guess to try to save face or something. Sorry -- too little, too late. Your movement's inability to argue this issue with anything other than bad faith is too well established to take you seriously.

"20,000 is a nice round figure. It comes from the Urban Institute"

Actually, the study that I've been referring to was done by the Institute of Medicine, which is part of the National Academies of Science. The NAS is the most prestigious -- and completely non-partisan -- scientific association in the country. They estimated 18,000 deaths per year back in 2004, and that figure is predicted to rise by around 1,000 to 2,000 per year. So 20,000 seems like a conservative estimate.

http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175

Mark has a "brilliant" (rolls eyes) scheme where if only we could identify these hapless dead-persons-to-be and somehow give them money before they die, that this might be a solution to the problem. Of course he's not serious, but silly mocking suggestions like this seem to be the closest that any right winger has yet come to acting like they actually care. Unfortunately, not knowing in advance who's going to die means that healthcare can't be targeted like that. You have to give everybody healthcare coverage to hope to stave off those unnecessary deaths.

"Bob, if you don't understand what Rep. Michele Bachmann is saying . . ."

Philip, you're not SERIOUSLY suggesting that Bachmann is anything other than a nut, are you? You can be a pretty nice guy sometimes, but I hadn't realized how far gone you really are.

[mark l.]

"where if only we could identify these hapless dead-persons-to-be and somehow give them money before they die, that this might be a solution to the problem"

you're the one saying the are dying for lack of treatment.

is it your contention that if they had insurance they would be alive?

the statisitcal fine line that you are walking is that those with insurance do not die from lack of treatment, which is most defintely not the case. your 20,000 number only works if you don't filter out the rate at which people with health insurance fail to seek medical attention. got a rate for that?

can we use this rate to readjust your 20k? i imagine it would drop it off below 300 people.

[xerocky]

"The wingnuttosphere has been perfectly happy to entertain that as a LITERAL issue, I guess until there was sufficient pushback about its blatant dishonesty."

By the wingnuttosphere, you mean MSM? Because nobody took that as a literal statement but them. If you actually read what Palin had said in the first place they/you wouldn't ever have distorted her death panel remarks in the way they have been. The truth is that it's a very thin line between literal and non literal in this case, and only the left pointed to the fact that the words "death panel" don't appear in the bill (you remind me of Jan Brady "exact words Marcia! EXACT WORDS!").

EVERYONE ELSE has gotten the point. Obviously Obama would never come right out and say the words "I want death panels so we can save costs", I know that simply because he never comes right out and says much of anything until he feels that he has the political leverage to do so. In this case he didn't speak out about how there will be no death panels or how we don't want to "pull the plug on grandma" until Palin had her words twisted and misrepresented.

And even now in the clear light of day where we all agree that there will be no office with the words "Office of pulling the plug on Grandma" printed on the window, you can't make a reasonable arguement against the simple fact that rationing = death.

[mark l.]

[if only we could identify these hapless dead-persons-to-be and somehow give them money before they die,]

scroll up, bob.

"Insurance Won't Pay NorCal Mom's Cancer Treatment"

funny bob, this was YOUR factoid. i give you a solution, and you bite the hand that feeds you. you are f'n crazy.

i can play this game with you from here to eternity...

you show me someone denied care, I show you obama's fundraising.

[mark l.]

the above cite of a woman denied care is consitent with you cindy sheehan fetish.

libs need people to suffer in order to cash in. prevent suffering? it would be like cutting their fingers off.

death, pain, sickness...hey it's your ad campaign, no need for libs to fix it, until they can fix it THEIR way.

[mark l.]

"death, pain, sickness..."

i guess you guys haven't been cashing in on afghanistan lately. nor iraq.

little different when it's your chips on the table? crawl back into your sanctimonious hole. you and your lib brethern are a cancer.

[Bob]

"you're the one saying the are dying for lack of treatment.

is it your contention that if they had insurance they would be alive?"

I'm not the one who's saying it; I'm only passing along the conclusions of these scientific studies. Do you know how scientific studies work? They're done using statistical-demographic models that ensure that apples-to-apples comparisons are always being made. They're controlled, as they say, to isolate just the factor in question -- in this case the effects of a lack of health insurance. So when they say "18,000 excess deaths due to a lack of health insurance," it means exactly that this is the difference that having or not having insurance makes. As the report says:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10874&page=46

"The Committee has estimated that uninsured adults have age-specific mortality rates approximately 25 percent higher than those of privately insured adults, based upon its extensive review of health outcomes studies and as estimated in longitudinal studies of overall mortality that adjust for multiple sociodemographic and health-related characteristics. The Committee estimated that, for the year 2000, an estimated 18,000 excess deaths among adults between ages 25 and 64 could be attributed to lack of coverage.

[...]

Uninsured adults are at greater risk of premature death, reflecting the fact that they receive fewer screening services for serious illnesses such as cancer and less intensive and effective treatment for acute conditions such as traumatic injury and heart attacks."

But please, mark, don't pretend that you're really interested in facts, or that this information has any chance of satisfying your specious demands. So I'm looking forward to seeing what your next pretext for dismissing the scientific evidence will be, and what "facts" you can muster to support your "claims." Yes, maybe the Cindy Sheehan gambit can raise a smoke screen for now until you come up with something better. It doesn't really make any sense, but when you've backed yourself into a corner any diversion will do.

[Bob]

"By the wingnuttosphere, you mean MSM? Because nobody took that as a literal statement but them."

Oh come on, xerocky. You know perfectly well that you want to have your cake and eat it too. If it were simply trying to make it a metaphorical description of rationing, then why on earth would there be any mention of euthanasia and end-of-life counseling? As Newt Gingrich said,

http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/shut-up-and-trust-the-government-by-newt-gingrich/

"How can you say that 'death panels' aren't a vitally descriptive term for what is going on when people who have advocated population control/euthanasia are so deeply involved in this process?"

See? Euthanasia is not a matter of rationing. It's a matter of intentionally causing people to die. Intentionally. So not only is the "death panels" claim in and of itself a lie, now you suckers are lying about what you mean by it. Like I said before, your lack of good faith is well established now. Don't try to clothe your naked dishonesty in any scraps of pretend-decency now.

[mark l.]

here bob, file this under advice that will never be taken...

there are thousands of people, who can't get hip or knee replacement done becuase they don't have insurance.

i know two of them. both at seperate times saved up enough money to cover the operation, but no hospital will do the operation becuase they don't have insurance. they can't get a job, becuase they can't move 35 hours a week, but other than that, they are fine, for now.

the doctors in our area sympathize with their plight, but can't perform a procedure unless the pt has medical insurance, becuase the doctors will lose their license and/or malpractice insurance if they don't follow the prcoedure.

if congress would allow a form of waiver for these people, where they could waive their rights to sue, they could not only have the procedure done, but pay 2/3 of the actual cost. one doctor even said he would do it for free, but can't for legal reasons. they were advised to get a plane ticket and go to another country to have the procedures done.

the reason we don't have a insurance waiver in place?
the same reason we are 'fixing' healthcare without tort reform.

[Bob]

"if congress would allow a form of waiver for these people, where they could waive their rights to sue, they could not only have the procedure done, but pay 2/3 of the actual cost. one doctor even said he would do it for free, but can't for legal reasons. they were advised to get a plane ticket and go to another country to have the procedures done."

So you think it's just fine that these people have had to save up their own money to cover the operation, and that the "solution" is to simply let them spend it? What if they have a complication -- which is always a serious risk in any extensive procedure like joint replacement surgery -- like an infection or a blood clot? Who's going to cover their costs then? Will they have to "save up" more of their own money?

I have a neighbor who went in for what he thought was going to be a relatively routine heart valve replacement. Due to complications during surgery -- including a heart attack -- he spent the next year in the hospital. What if he thought originally that he was "only" going to have to pay for the valve replacement alone -- even to the extent that any regular person would be able to afford it? How much do you suppose that year of additional care would cost him if he were paying it himself? Basically, if you're seriously ill and you don't have health insurance, you're screwed.

I just find it absurd that you would seriously entertain such a grotesque scenario rather than simply advocating for the only decent and fair solution: universal health care that does not create unequal haves and have-nots in our society like that. Nobody should have to go broke or limp around on a bum hip just to protect the profits of insurance companies.

[Linda]

I blogged about it here too:

http://thexliberal.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/palin-never-said-death-panel-was-in-the-bill/

I am getting real tired telling people that Palin never said Death Panel was in the bill.

[Bob]

"I am getting real tired telling people that Palin never said Death Panel was in the bill."

--Linda

Go to Linda's post and you see:

"She simply stated that once healthcare cost gets too high, government would refuse to pay the cost (because Obama said no new taxes on the middle class and you can only tax the rich so much), care would then be rationed."

--Linda

But then you look at what other wingnuts are saying and you see stuff like this:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/08/12/2029124.aspx

"There is some fear because in the House bill, there is counseling for end-of-life. And from that standpoint, you have every right to fear. You shouldn't have counseling at the end of life. You ought to have counseling 20 years before you're going to die. You ought to plan these things out. And I don't have any problem with things like living wills. But they ought to be done within the family. We should not have a government program that determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandma."

--Senator Charles Grassley

Do you see the problem here? The wing nuts are so disingenuous and unconcerned with facts that they can't even keep straight what imaginary issue with the healthcare legislation is supposed to constitute a "death panel." Palin and Linda say it's about rationing, Grassley, Gingrich and Betsy McCaughey say it's about end-of-life counseling, euthanasia and "pull[ing] the plug on grandma."

Obviously, "death panels" have always been in the eyes of their wingnut beholders, meaning anything they said it was supposed to mean at the time, and acting only as a bad-faith "issue" to scare people. Now that its obvious dishonesty is being exposed in the mainstream media, they're trying to claim they didn't really mean it that way.

Bullshit.

[mark l.]

"Nobody should have to go broke or limp around on a bum hip just to protect the profits of insurance companies."

or lawyers? "tort reform" if you are being serious bob, otherwise you are just a tool.

[mark l.]

the heart complication you offer, would also provide for the pt to obtain medicare/medicaid.
basically if a life threatening incident occurs, there are triggers in place which address it.

if you hate insurance companies, i'm offerring you a way of striking back.

[Bob]

"the heart complication you offer, would also provide for the pt to obtain medicare/medicaid. basically if a life threatening incident occurs, there are triggers in place which address it."

But mark, the IOM study already says that even when they can get care, people without health insurance get worse care and their outcomes and overall health are significantly worse. What you propose will never change that basic problem because it's not a system-wide reform. It's a piecemeal half-measure that actually has people paying out-of-pocket for the kind of life-sustaining treatment that you or I (or anyone else with employer-provided health insurance) takes for granted. I know that people like you think that that's all that uninsured people deserve. But any of us is just one layoff or catastrophic illness away from being one of those uninsured ourselves. And in any case, it's not fair to have haves and have-nots in our society when it can mean the difference -- literally -- between life and death.

[mark l.]

simple world view, bob?

govt is your christ.

the only "unforgivable sin"?

Mark 3:28-30: "Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven all their sins and all the blasphemies they utter. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin. He said this because they [the Pharisees] were saying, ‘He has an evil spirit’."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_sin

looks like I'm 2 for 2. damned by christians, damned by govt worshippers.

if i were you, i would never mock a christian...

my sin is holding the belief that christ and govt aren't going to fix us.