Sarah Palin, Death Panels, Oh, And Apples And Oranges, Too

What is it that makes even The Hill either stupid, or dishonest every once in a while.

Former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) recently claimed that the end-of-live provision in the health care reform legislation would create a government "death panel" to decide such issues. But during her term as governor, she signed a resolution that "encouraged hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices" to help patients make end-of-life plans.

Suddenly they can't understand a resolution encouraging prudent counseling for anyone, versus implementing a total re-vamping of the actual health care system in what will ultimately be a failed attempt at saving money, or more likely result in precisely the type of "death panel" Palin meant?

I give up. It must be the water down here inside the Beltway. I'm glad I drink soda instead. Though I fear if Obama and the Democrats get their way, it won't be long before they ban that in an effort to save money on health care, too.

When government wants to tell you what's good for you, it's time to realize that Big Government is one of the worst things for you in the world.

Comments

[Ran]

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis

Lewis got one thing wrong: Omnipotent moral busybodies are sociopaths - there is no "conscience" and thus no need for approvals. Rather, for them it is about power, and doing whatever is necessary to obtain it and to keep it.

[Nishner]

Actually, I think it's Little Green Men that will be running the Death Panels. The factual base for both is pretty much the same.

[Lala]

That Mary person posted it on one of your threads the other day. Somehow she too thought it showed us all that Sarah was lying. I blame it on poor reading comprehension.

[Viewer]

"Suddenly they can't understand a resolution encouraging prudent counseling for anyone, versus implementing a total re-vamping of the actual health care system in what will ultimately be a failed attempt at saving money, or more likely result in precisely the type of "death panel" Palin meant?"

No one, not even the kooky konservative from Alaska, has ever explained *how* all of this would likely result in precisely the type of "death panel" Palin now claims that she allegedly meant. What gives Palin the authority or experience to be dishing out health care opinions, anyway?
In 2003, most of the GOP in Congress voted for essentially the same provision that they are demonizing today.

When corporate America and the 'C Street Family' wants to tell you what's good for you, it's time to realize that the corporate/.religious shadow government is one of the worst things for you in the world.

[IslamoLlama]

http://factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/

Full run down of "death panel" claims.
You'll see such luminaries as former Republican lieutenant governor of New York Betsy McCaughey, Republican Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House minority leader, and Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan.

This isn't just Princess Sarah screeching about death panels coming to kill her children. The entire GOP leadership is in on it.

And then, of course, there's the insanity surrounding Congressman Isakson (R-GA)
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/08/11/2027345.aspx

So the GOP has no idea where it even stands on this issue, except to say that they oppose Barack Obama. Comical, really. I'm sure they'll ride this double talk right into Congressional triumph in 2010.

[Croaker Norge]

Can someone ask Alaska Senator Murkowski about her "making stuff up" comments?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08/murkowski-attacks-palin-on-death-panels.html

Apparently the good Senator from Alaska didn't know what was in the bill. Or perhaps she did and she was simply taking the opportunity to get in a cheap shot to keep her Senate seat, should Palin decide to run for it. Or perhaps she is simply unconcerned about the provisions of the bill. Or perhaps she was simply retaliating for Palin's unseating of her father.

All of these MAY be good reasons for taking a cheap shot. Any of these ARE good reasons for Alaska choosing a different Senator.

[Ad rem]

We can only pray, LoonyLlama.....

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Right Wing tv dingbat Rachel Maddow reminds us that the "death panels" were a repugnican idea from way back. The thing people seem to miss among the very cloudy language of HR3200, is the word "mandatory" end of life counseling. Who the F is some govt pogue to mandate counseling for anyone?

Chains we can believe in

[unseen]

Are you people that stupid. Can you not not get to C if given A + B. What the hell do they teack people in school anymore.

The governments main objective in a national healthcare will be to provide the greatest amount of care at the cheapest cost. Therefore care will be rationed. How will it be rationed? Lets say the government has a choice provide care for a 30 something in the prime of their life or give care to an 80 year old. By denying care to the 80 year old the government gets 2 for the price of one since her death will not only save on medicare but also social security. The incentive for the government to ration care will be iresistable.

The rules of "death panels" are set up already. The fact finding committee has already been formed in the stimulus bill. This "research" will be used by faceless unelected governmental personel to decide which precedures to fund and at what price and which not to at any price. those deemed to be a drag on society will be placed at the back of the line thus a "death panel"

Now you all can pretend to be stupid and "not get it" but you are showing the world how stupid you are.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Un- Because the EOL counselling was a repugnican idea consrvatives are supposed to jump on the "that's fine then" bandwagon, lockstep like demonrats to anything Obie proposes or flies on a gut wagon, whichever analogy you prefer.

And Pookie the LLama, if you're going to call Sarah a princess, I prefer you use the whole title Sarah the warrior Princess. I bet you'd make an adorable Gabrielle.

[Ran]

"That Mary person posted it on one of your threads the other day. Somehow she too thought it showed us all that Sarah was lying. I blame it on poor reading comprehension."

Bloody public schools.

[Ad rem]

"By denying care to the 80 year old the government gets 2 for the price of one since her death will not only save on medicare but also social security. The incentive for the government to ration care will be iresistable."

Not only that, but when the 80 yr. old passes, the government can tax the inheritance as well.

[Proud Liberal]

"I give up. It must be the water down here inside the Beltway"

You should give up Dan. What an incredibly stupid post, even for you. All that this provision provided for was that voluntary counseling sessions with the patient's doctor would be paid for. No government panes. No bureaucrats. What a dishonest argument. Oh, and by the way, this same provision was in the Medicare Prescription bill passed by the Republicans.

So who voted for the Death Panels at that time? you got it, Senator Grassley as well as 42 other Republican Senators.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/grassley-voted-for-socall_n_259750.html

[Proud Liberal]

"is the word "mandatory" end of life counseling"

liar. The counseling was not mandatory. You guys just lie, lie, and lie... amazing.

[Hyman Roth]

So many lies and denials about the 0bamateur's scheme to take away citizens health care freedom.

Golly gee whiz, I wonder what 0bama himself told the New York Times about death panels?

"THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03Obama-t.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

And these "death panels" that 0bama sycophants claim do not exist and were never proposed in the 0bamaCare bill? They are being removed from the bill.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/finance-committee-to-drop-end-of-life-provision-2009-08-13.html

[Ran]

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/290938.php

Heh. The "conversation" - the death panel discussions - about end-of-life "care" was started by B. Hussein Obama, and quoted in the fvcking New York Times.

Was it not Bill Clinton who said "No end of life counseling session ever saved a dying senior"? Man. Was it Hillary? Michelle?

Fvcking public schools.

[Hyman Roth]

"Factcheck.org, a Web site run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania"

Nah, no liberal bias there.

[Nellie]

You drink soda? Better stop that, 'cause under Obamacare you're going to lose worthiness points for that. We can't afford everybody's careless lifestyle choices, you know.

[Proud Liberal]

So the question of course becomes, are right wingers incredibly stupid or are they intentionally lying through their asses? Hmmmm... hard choice as they exhibit the qualities of both in abundance, but I'd have to go with the "lying" in the case of the Death Panels. Anyone else want to vote:

Liars or Stupid? Lets have a Riehl World Poll.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"The counseling was not mandatory."

Most stupid poster on the board, I never said madatory was in HR3200. I said it was missed....duh, in english that pretty much means it wasn't there you cowardly piece of effluent. I've actually read big parts of this bill (I wonder what semi literate dumbass wrote it) without "two lawyers" See, research helps a person not look near as stupid as you do most of the time. Thanks to my girl Pookie the googling LLama for the link to factcheck.org one of my favorite places.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Here ya go Proud to be a dumbass. You wont look nears as stupid if you begin reading this.

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Strangely, HR3200 isn't alone out there, nor is it in it's final form. There are at least 4 other versions in various committees. It's kinda like buying a car without knowing whether it has a six cylinder or eight, or tires or a warranty of any kind. Seems like people who are as omnipotently smart as demonrats would at least decide what color my car had to be before it was "given" to me. But the salesman can't even sneak off to the office to "ask his bossman" about my offer.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Proud offal brains must've had to go back to the closet.

[jakee308]

"The members of Congress call the section a throwback to 1977 when the old Department of Health Education and Welfare proposed federal promotion of living wills for cost-savings purposes described as "enormous."

"At that time, the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago decried this effort by saying, "'The message is clear: government can save money by encouraging old people to die a little sooner than they otherwise would. Instead of being regarded with reverence, and cherished, human life is subject in this view to a utilitarian cost-benefit calculus and can be sacrificed to serve fiscal policy and the sacred imperative of trimming a budget."

"One of the most shocking things is page 425, where the Congress would make it mandatory absolutely that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session," she said. "They will tell [them] how to end their life sooner."

Posted by: Proud Liberal | Friday, August 14, 2009 at 04:19 PM
"is the word "mandatory" end of life counseling"

liar. The counseling was not mandatory. You guys just lie, lie, and lie... amazing.

_____________________________________
Proud Liberal:
You are such a moron.

Ad rem | Friday, August 14, 2009 at 04:12 PM
Said the same thing the other day.(don't remember if I said that here or somewhere else.

Posted by: unseen | Friday, August 14, 2009 at 04:05 PM
Absolutely correct.

Wahoo Willie: also absolutely correct.

Glad to see that some here have some sense and don't just parrot the party line.

P.S To Proud Liberal: how's it feel having Obama's hand up your ass working your mouth? Doesn't it get uncomfortable now and then? How much pride can you take commenting here and repeating talking points fed to you by your masters? Liberal that you are, you must love being ordered around, told exactly what to do, what to say and never ever go off script. If you don't have a speech impediment and have stayed away from the doughnuts, maybe you can be Gibbsy's replacement. (he's about past his sell-by date) (for obama anyway).

[Lala]

One of the advisory groups for Obama care is the old Hemlock Society, now known as something else, maybe Compassionate Choices. (I'm busy and can't look it up right now but had to put it in here)

[Glen]

My favorite part is where the democrats argued that there is no death panel clause in the bill, and to prove it they took it out. Exquisite unintentional comedy.

[Bob]

"Suddenly they can't understand a resolution encouraging prudent counseling for anyone, versus implementing a total re-vamping of the actual health care system in what will ultimately be a failed attempt at saving money, or more likely result in precisely the type of "death panel" Palin meant?"

The "death panel" bullshit is a lie. It is an intentional distortion of a provision for voluntary end-of-life counseling that was submitted by a REPUBLICAN, Senator Johnny Isakson, who says the furor about death panels is "nuts."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/opinion/14krugman.html

Sorry, Dan, but after promoting disingenuousness and lies, you can't suddenly pretend that you're interested in an honest debate.

[Phil T. Scumbag]

Bob,

Wow......linking to Paul Krugman......gee, now we're totally convinced......yep, that beats four aces!

[geoffb]

How to build a stealth "Death Panel".

First you build it somewhere.

http://www.readthestimulus.org/hr1_final.txt

Where no one is looking.

"TITLE VIII SEC. 804. FEDERAL COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR COMPARATIVE
EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH. (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is hereby
established a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research"

Then you staff it with your own people.

"H. R. 1—74
(1) NUMBER AND APPOINTMENT.—The Council shall be composed
of not more than 15 members, all of whom are senior
Federal officers or employees with responsibility for health-
related programs, appointed by the President, acting through
the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this section
referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’). Members shall first be appointed
to the Council not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act."

Then you put it on ice, don't want to activate it too soon. Wouldn't be prudent.

"(1) COVERAGE.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to permit the Council to mandate coverage, reimbursement,
or other policies for any public or private payer.
(2) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.—None of the reports
submitted under this section or recommendations made by the
Council shall be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines
for payment, coverage, or treatment."

Next you deploy something which will make the arming of the panel, it's activation, a crucial and necessary development.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

You will be hailed as one of such amazing foresight. The savior of the nation in a time of crisis.

Then you sit back and watch as your stealth bird flies free and joins it's previously hatched cousins

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg2239.cfm#_ftn24

[Bob]

"Wow......linking to Paul Krugman......gee, now we're totally convinced......yep, that beats four aces!"

Isn't it just like an ignorant wing nut to mock a nobel prize winner. Since you're so smart, where in any of the current healthcare legislation is there a provision for a "death panel?" Go ahead and show it to us. I dare you.

[Bob]

"How to build a stealth "Death Panel"."

So even though the provision you present says explicitly that the council will not mandate coverage, reimbursement, clinical guidelines for treatment, etc, you imply that there's a secret conspiracy to do just the opposite?

And tell us, do insurance companies under our current healthcare system ever deny treatment to patients for any number of reasons? Do they? Of course they do. And do people without health insurance currently die because they can't afford medical care? Of course they do, to the tune of about 20,000 unnecessary deaths per year:

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

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/bill-pascrell/pascrell-says-22000-americans-die-yearly-because-t/

How many imaginary deaths would your imaginary death panels cause per year, and how would it compare to the current 20,000 REAL deaths that happen under our current system? As I've said before, it's as if people like you are standing on a pile of bodies and refusing to acknowledge it because you're so busy trying to bullshit everyone with right wing propaganda.

[Lala]

Isakson is saying that HIS amendment gives the individual a choice rather than a mandate.

"Isakson vehemently opposes the House and Senate health care bills and he played no role in drafting language added to the House bill by House Democrats calling for the government to incentivize doctors by offering them money to conduct “end-of-life counseling” with Medicare patients every five years. Isakson also strongly opposed the House bill language calling for doctors to follow a government-mandated list of topics to discuss with patients during the counseling sessions."

http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/mythical-support/

[geoffb]

Companies are such pikers.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

Takes a Government to really get the job done right.

[Bob]

So when challenged to prove that there's anything anywhere in the current healthcare reform legislation that might constitute something like a "death panel," wingnut geoffb throws down a link to some web site that discusses mass casualties during Mao's China or the Nazis. Mass casualties? How about massive f*#king ignorance, of the wingnut variety.

Can't you suckers get it through your thick heads? That's all it took to prove that geoffb's death panels charge was bullshit. Make him try to prove it. Of course he can't prove it, because it's a lie. So instead he tries to pull some more bullshit about Mao's communist China. It's pathetic. This is like "the dog ate my homework" level of lameness. What would happen if you actually entered into an honest debate for a change? Maybe you could actually help make this country better for regular people. As it is, you're worse than useless.

[geoffb]

Reading comprehension, reasoning and critical thinking skills are so lacking on the Left.

I already showed you where the thing was stuck. How the same type of panel is used in all single payer government healthcare systems to ration treatments and in so doing kill people, on purpose, planned. Planned death, it's what is, has to be, part of that kind of "healthcare" system. Otherwise it can't function.

You brought up companies and lack of insurance causing 20,000 deaths a year. Pulled that number out of your hat. I said ok, that number, even if true, pales in comparison to what a Government can do when it puts it's mind to eliminating the useless. You know like all those who disagree with you. The "suckers", "thick heads", "lame", the "worse than useless". All those who are inconvenient to your side.

[Bob]

"I already showed you where the thing was stuck."

No, you pulled some unconnected links out of your ass. You didn't prove anything, because the death panels charge is a fabrication, i.e. a lie. I challenged you to show a specific provision in the actual legislation that would constitute anything like a "death panel." You presented a link about communist China. F&#k you and your lame-ass bullshit.

[WBestPresidentEver]

I read an article today that a sugar shortage was coming. Bet that is just a made up senerio to save on healthcare, too. LOL
And to boost the stock market with higher prices. Better stock up on it now before it goes sky high.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/07/thank-uncle-sam-for-looming-sugar-shortage/

[P Jean]

pages 425-430 were there but deleted because of the seniors making such a fuss.
Hey, you can't delete something if it didn't exist. So, what does that tell you? Sarah was right.

[Bob]

"pages 425-430 were there but deleted because of the seniors making such a fuss. Hey, you can't delete something if it didn't exist. So, what does that tell you? Sarah was right."

The part of the legislation in question was inserted by a Republican, Senator Johnny Isakson, of Georgia, and only had to do with voluntary counseling about living wills and other such healthcare directives SPECIFIED BY THE PATIENTS THEMSELVES, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. He said the following about the phony controversy:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/more_on_isakson_and_end-of-lif.html

"I have no idea. I understand -- and you have to check this out -- I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's Web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up."

But Republicans can't simply have an honest debate about things like living wills. Being political terrorists, they have to lie about what it really is to try to scare people. It's not about what's best for patients in the American healthcare system, but about the power of the conservative movement and its only real concern in all of this: trying to break Obama. And now P Jean is just the latest wingnut to spread lies to further that dishonest goal.

[geoffb]

Every nationalized healthcare system requires a group that decides what drugs, treatments, and care is to be made available to which patients. They thus decide which sick people get to survive, and how that survival will take place. That's a "Death Panel"

Take the UK. The United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is their "Death Panel".

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/health-services-guide/nice.htm

http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/murdock-government-medicine-stumbles-canada-uk

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg2239.cfm#_ftn24

Ours will be, if we nationalize our healthcare, the "Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research". It exists now to issue voluntary guidance on medical treatment, coverage, and payment.

That will have to change with the nationalizing of healthcare. There has to be a mechanism to deal with the difference between unlimited wants and limited means. With nationalized healthcare there will be a group, a panel, who will determine who gets treatment, who gets the pain pill, and who gets Dr. Kevorkian.

Even President Obama agrees.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/08/the-obama-death-panel-rumors-the-times-looks-everywhere-but-the-mirror.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03Obama-t.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

"THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now."

The difference is right now you get choices, perhaps not all good ones but there are choices and you have responsibility for them. Under single payer healthcare, nationalized healthcare those choices will be made for you by a Government appointed group.

That's all for my "lame-ass bullshit".

Posted by: geoffb

[WestWright]

Why does BOB the Obot get so excited and nasty? I think his dreams of utopia are sliding out of reach!

[Rick Caird]

I am amazed at how much trust the left puts in government. There are no "death panels" because even though we have end of life counseling which the government will pay the doctor to do and to initiate, and even though we have a panel to determine effective treatments, there is just no way that could be a slippery slope.

Now, I wonder what the left would be saying if this were proposed and championed by George Bush. The left never seems to understand that the power they give a Democrat will eventually be wielded by one of those dreaded Republicans. Another example, the left hated signing statements when Bush issued them, Obama's not so much.

Rick

[Bob]

"I am amazed at how much trust the left puts in government. There are no "death panels" because even though we have end of life counseling which the government will pay the doctor to do and to initiate, and even though we have a panel to determine effective treatments, there is just no way that could be a slippery slope."

So counseling about living wills + studies on the effectiveness of medical treatments = euthanasia?

It's either a case of hysteria and paranoia, or probably more likely, intellectual dishonesty and cynicism on your part to make such ridiculous claims. If we were to take you at your word that this is really what you believe -- and all just because a moderate liberal of African-American descent is in the White House -- then there wouldn't be enough Depends in all the world if the wingnuts ever had to face a REAL crisis.

And go ahead and try to tell us that medical care is not already rationed, or that insurance company employees don't already decide to pay or not pay for certain medical procedures. Tell us that people are not denied treatment for any number of reasons, like having pre-existing conditions or being dumped by their insurers because they misspelled something on their enrollment forms. But that would require intellectual honesty on your part, so never mind.

[geoffb]

Every nationalized healthcare system requires a group that decides what drugs, treatments, and care is to be made available to which patients. They thus decide which sick people get to survive, and how that survival will take place. That's a "Death Panel"

Take the UK. The United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is their "Death Panel".

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/health-services-guide/nice.htm

http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/murdock-government-medicine-stumbles-canada-uk

Ours will be, if we nationalize our healthcare, the "Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research". It exists now to issue voluntary guidance on medical treatment, coverage, and payment.

That will have to change with the nationalizing of healthcare. There has to be a mechanism to deal with the difference between unlimited wants and limited means. With nationalized healthcare there will be a group, a panel, who will determine who gets treatment, who gets the pain pill, and who gets Dr. Kevorkian.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html

Even President Obama agrees.

http://tinyurl.com/lesu42

"THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now."

The difference is right now you get choices, perhaps not all good ones but there are choices and you have responsibility for them. Under single payer healthcare, nationalized healthcare those choices will be made for you by a Government appointed group.

That's all for my "lame-ass bullshit".

[Rick Caird]

Bob,

There are none so blind as a liberal. If you cannot see how end of life counseling in conjunction with a panel who decides what are valid treatments in conjunction with a national health care plan that is supposed to save money do not lead inevitably to the solution we see in Oregon, then I pray you go quietly. You may not be aware that Oregon ranks diseases, then reranks them via politics, and then selects a cut off point where they expect to run out of money. For example, drug abuse treatment - OK, but stage 4 breast cancer and prostate cancer - not OK. You may trust the politicians not to implelement such a program nationally, but you really ought to look at how Canada and England do exactly that.

It is neither hysteria nor paranoia, nor is it intellectually dishonest. In fact, I doubt a guy like you could even define "intellectually dishonest". I will agree it is cynical, but that comes from watching the lies and misrepresentations of Presidents and Congresses since Ike.

Bob, you are a fool if you try to play the race card. It is even more foolish to claim Obama is a moderate. Close to 80% of the country believes he is liberal of very liberal. The only ones who think he is moderate are the ultra liberal cry babies like you.

Medical care is rationed. It is rationed by price. So is food and drink and no one is proposing we have some government program to ration food. We tried to do that with gasoline under Carter. It didn't work.

Bob, you are so ideological you would not recognize a fact or logic if it bit you on the nose. You have proven that not only do you know nothing, you are quite happy to show your ignorance to all.

Rick

[Mike Licht]

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel hasn't told OMB anything about Advance Care that Newt Gingrich hasn't proposed himself.

See:

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/20317-newt-gingrich-advance-directive-advocate/

[Bob]

geoffb, do insurance companies currently decide what treatments they'll cover, and even what persons they'll cover or not cover, depending on whether or not they have pre-existing conditions? If an insurance company won't even give you insurance at any price because of a pre-existing condition, and if that condition, left untreated, leads to your death, then isn't that a much more real "death panel" than your wholly made-up scenarios? Of course it is. And in fact, as I've pointed out before, the Institutes of Medicine did a study that found that 20,000 Americans per year die of the effects of not having health coverage:

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

I say that 20,000 real deaths per year trump your made-up death panels. You're a cowardly little wingnut propagandist who doesn't even have the decency to acknowledge the toll of lost lives under our current lousy healthcare system, and who probably doesn't even care. Why a person like you would put the profits of big business ahead of the lives of real Americans is beyond me, but it seems to be a symptom of being an extremist conservative. I'm amazed that you put so much naive trust in the decency of insurance companies. Do you work for one, or are you just a sucker?

[Bob]

"If you cannot see how end of life counseling in conjunction with a panel who decides what are valid treatments in conjunction with a national health care plan that is supposed to save money do not lead inevitably to the solution we see in Oregon, then I pray you go quietly."

What about the military, Rick? They're the government. They have guns and other weapons that can kill people. Why not say that this will lead inevitably to our military engaging in mass murder of Americans? I mean, if your fevered and paranoid imagination is allowed to run free, I can imagine murderous government plots cropping up all over the place.

Look, dude, show me where in the current healthcare legislation it says that life-saving treatment can be withheld by a decision of a government panel. Show me where that is or shut the hell up, you ignorant, paranoid fool.

[SDN]

Maybe because the military has a proven track record of defending the nation and the Constitution, unlike every Copperhead ever spawned?

[Rick Caird]

Bob, the connection between the effectiveness panel of the stimulus bill, the government's desire to save health care dollars, and the Ezekiel Emanuel "favor the 15-40 year old crowd has been pointed out on this thread multiple times. I also pointed out the approach in Oregon of withholding care for less "favored" illnesses. You can see exactly the same thing in England (and New Zealand)where some drugs are deemed "too expensive" even though they have a greater success rate than older drugs. Breast cancer drugs fall into this category. If you cannot connect these dots, you have a bigger problem than death panels. You have a problem with too much trust in government (which is exactly how I started this conversation).

Since you have been shown, multiple times, where the fear of death h panels comes from, there is no need for me to "shut up". There is a need for you to learn some analytical skills, an area in which you are sorely lacking.

It is not all clear what your fear of the military is and how it is applicable to this conversation. However, I offer, for your research, posse comitatus. I will leave it as an exercise for your keen analytical skills to determine the applicability.

Rick