Palin: My Baby Will Have to Stand in Front of Obama’s Death Panel

Politics • Views: 3,901

Sarah Palin weighs in.

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.

Sorry, Sarah, but you’re losing me here.

If she’s talking about the provision for “end of life” counseling in the health care bill, it’s completely voluntary — nobody “has” to stand in front of any “death panel.” And this is a type of counseling offered by many insurance plans today.

The very words “Obama’s death panel” are so far over the top I can hardly believe she wrote them. I had to make sure this really was her Facebook page.

Can you say “fear mongering?” There are plenty of valid arguments to be made against nationalized health care without taking the rhetoric into “death panel” territory.

Jump to bottom

397 comments
1 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:51:18am

Newt Gingrich is going to make grandma eat dog food!

These tactics were terrible then, and they're terrible now.

2 unrealizedviewpoint  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:53:03am

re: #1 Sharmuta

Newt Gingrich is going to make grandma eat dog food!

These tactics were terrible then, and they're terrible now.

Terrible. Effective.

3 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:53:05am

WTF? the Pro-Choice movement is about choice. Is she insinuated there will be 'forced' abortions?

4 Desert Dog  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:53:22am

Using hyperbole will only get you so far...She should stick to the actual facts of this bill, there's enough in there to kill it off, fair and square.

5 Charles Johnson  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:54:22am

re: #2 unrealizedviewpoint

Terrible. Effective.

If by "effective," you mean "encourages mob scenes like we saw at the town hall meetings," I agree.

6 solomonpanting  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:54:30am

re: #3 ggt

WTF? the Pro-Choice movement is about choice. Is she insinuated there will be 'forced' abortions?

My guess is she believes her baby won't be "fit" enough to qualify for care.

7 Mich-again  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:54:47am

Hey Sarah! Eric Holdren is working that corner.

8 Charles Johnson  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:55:43am

re: #3 ggt

WTF? the Pro-Choice movement is about choice. Is she insinuated there will be 'forced' abortions?

She's pretty blatantly hinting at euthanasia.

9 Pianobuff  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:55:47am

Seems like an overcharged statement intended to get headlines, but are you sure she's referring to end-of-life counseling section? I'm thinking she might be referring to something else in the bill that gets more in to comparative effectiveness determination. No?

10 Charles Johnson  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:56:08am

I mean, "death panel."

Come on.

11 unrealizedviewpoint  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:56:40am

re: #5 Charles

If by "effective," you mean "encourages mob scenes like we saw at the town hall meetings," I agree.

I just love to see it when the tactics of the left are turned back on them. Makes me chuckle.

12 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:57:09am

re: #11 unrealizedviewpoint

I just love to see it when the tactics of the left are turned back on them. Makes me chuckle.

It makes me cringe.

13 Charles Johnson  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:57:42am

Do people really think the conservative cause is helped when Sarah Palin throws around words like, "Obama's death panel?"

14 Flyers1974  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:57:57am

re: #11 unrealizedviewpoint

I just love to see it when the tactics of the left are turned back on them. Makes me chuckle.

Me too, especially when the tactic being used is ineffective and embarrasing.

15 wee fury  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:58:06am

Unfortunately, there is no honor in politics. Or politicians.

16 Pianobuff  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:58:48am

re: #13 Charles

Do people really think the conservative cause is helped when Sarah Palin throws around words like, "Obama's death panel?"

I think it was an inartful choice of words, and I hope she would re-calibrate them.

17 NukeAtomrod  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:58:55am

Palin is, most likely, overstating the problem here, but the question remains: When there's no more money in the public heath care budget, who will the government choose to deny treatment to? By what criteria will they make the decision?

18 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:59:08am

re: #8 Charles

She's pretty blatantly hinting at euthanasia.

I have to wonder about how much of this broohaha is about assisted suicides (the Right to Die). How long before the relatives of Terry Shaivo are brought out to protest?

19 unrealizedviewpoint  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:59:35am

re: #12 Sharmuta

It makes me cringe.

I'm sick and tired of witnessing the left demonize conservative candidates with similar blatant outright lies.

20 Shiplord Kirel  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:00:20am

re: #11 unrealizedviewpoint

I just love to see it when the tactics of the left are turned back on them. Makes me chuckle.

Since I've spent a big part of the last 40 years condemning the methods of the left, I am not about to endorse them for anyone else.

21 LC LaWedgie  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:00:22am

re: #15 wee fury

She's just an ex tv sports announcer now - they're supposed to be honest!

22 Athens Runaway  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:00:24am

What's up with basically every tag except "Sarah Palin" there? This has nothing to do with Facebook, Alaska, Resignation, or 2012.

Trying to score points with Palin-bashers?

23 SixDegrees  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:00:27am

OH NOES!

Youtube Video
24 unrealizedviewpoint  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:00:37am

Exaggeration brings points home for all to understand.

25 Shiplord Kirel  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:01:31am

Palin has well and truly jumped the shark here. Is she lining herself up as the chosen candidate of the self-declared "Mob?"

26 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:01:33am

re: #13 Charles

Do people really think the conservative cause is helped when Sarah Palin throws around words like, "Obama's death panel?"

Yes- because they want to be the mirror image of the angry left. They really do think it's "our turn" and they fail to recall how ugly we called this behavior just a few years ago. It's really stunning and sad to watch.

27 NelsFree  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:01:51am

Good Afternoon everyone,

Senator Ted Kennedy, 1 July, 1987:
Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... "
/Turnabout is fair play?

28 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:01:51am

I'm going to get on with my day.

Have a good one all!

29 KingKenrod  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:01:56am

I'm not defending Palin, because she's become incomprehensible. But choice and freedom quickly go out the window when the govt is picking up the tab.

For instance I recently read a story of a man who was hired as a teacher in Australia, but was not allowed to immigrate to take the job because the Australian authorities would not let him bring his 13 yr old son with Down's Syndrome into the country - because it would be too much burden on the health care system.

30 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:02:18am

re: #19 unrealizedviewpoint

I'm sick and tired of witnessing the left demonize conservative candidates with similar blatant outright lies.

So we should stoop to their level? Very mature. It will cement our image as adults, I'm sure.

31 satan sidekick  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:02:51am

re: #13 Charles


Charles
What do you think about Dr Emmanuel's comment about "non-particpating citizens?" I believe that is what Palin is talking about.

[Link: www.eternalvigilanceusa.com...]

32 Mich-again  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:03:20am

re: #20 Shiplord Kirel

Since I've spent a big part of the last 40 years condemning the methods of the left, I am not about to endorse them for anyone else.

Same here.

33 Flyers1974  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:03:40am

re: #13 Charles

Do people really think the conservative cause is helped when Sarah Palin throws around words like, "Obama's death panel?"

This is why I think those who thought Palin's woes were/are caused by the media were way off base. If you have the party faithful locked up, why use such a term as "Obama's death panel?" Whether one likes Reagan's politics or not, he wouldn't have used that term in a million years. And much less after having gained the loyalty of the base.

34 SixDegrees  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:03:58am

re: #27 NelsFree


Turnabout is fair play?

No. It's not. Repugnant behavior is repugnant no matter who engages in it. "Timmy did it first!" is an argument employed by three year olds, not adults. If the actions of others are wrong, they need to be condemned - not emulated.

35 Cato the Elder  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:04:29am

Anyone still think Sarah should be president?

36 dwells38  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:05:34am

re: #3 ggt

I think her point is since they can't explain how they'll pay for this they must be intending to prioritize and limit care.

It might be difficult to justify paying for a Downs syndrome baby when so many other non-handicapped babies need care not to mention otherwise young, relativiely healthy people with a lot to live for.

Because they just want the power and the money and can't really explain specifics people's minds naturally turn to speculation.

How do we know that they're hiding behind not being sure exactly how it works or gets paid for when in reality they just don't want us to know how it works and gets paid for?

37 NelsFree  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:05:46am

re: #34 SixDegrees

No. It's not. Repugnant behavior is repugnant no matter who engages in it. "Timmy did it first!" is an argument employed by three year olds, not adults. If the actions of others are wrong, they need to be condemned - not emulated.


I agree that the behavior is repugnant. The tactics were successful in preventing Bork's joining the SCOTUS. The Democrats won.

38 Pianobuff  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:05:50am

re: #31 satan sidekick

Charles
What do you think about Dr Emmanuel's comment about "non-particpating citizens?" I believe that is what Palin is talking about.

[Link: www.eternalvigilanceusa.com...]

Yeah... I sensed too that she is probably referencing Ezekiel and the comparative effectiveness stuff, not the end-of-life counseling.

39 unrealizedviewpoint  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:06:07am

re: #30 Sharmuta

So we should stoop to their level? Very mature. It will cement our image as adults, I'm sure.

Personally I find Obama's plan: the govt takeover of 20% of the American economy important enough that I don't give a rats ass right now.

40 Racer X  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:06:25am

The mobs and the rhetoric is mean to put congress on notice. America will not sit idly by while mistakes are made. That happened in the past and look where we are. Both sides need to meet in the middle to produce well thought out legislation that works for the majority of Americans.

The era of "shut up and get out of the way" (while we fuck things up our way) aint gonna fly.

41 Cato the Elder  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:06:53am

I mean, "a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society'" is what we do now. Good job? Get sick? Get treatment! Get well! No job? Get sick? Drop dead! Go to hell!

Palin should be deeply, deeply ashamed of herself. Something that is sadly impossible for a sociopath.

42 wahabicorridor  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:06:54am

re: #8 Charles

She's pretty blatantly hinting at euthanasia.


No that's NOT what she's saying. From the article.

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.

This is the 'rationing' concern and there are many of us that share it.

43 LC LaWedgie  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:07:01am

re: #35 Cato the Elder

Anyone think BarryO should?

44 FightingBack  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:07:07am

re: #29 KingKenrod

I have had patients (I am a pediatrician) ask me to help them with Canadian immigration Medical investigations. And these folks were employed by corporations in their home countries; needed temporary residencies only.

45 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:07:09am

What the hell IS it with this woman?

Ok, calming down.

46 Flyers1974  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:07:20am

re: #35 Cato the Elder

Anyone still think Sarah should be president?

I still think she should run for president as the GOP nominee. Unless Mike huckabee is still available.

47 SixDegrees  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:07:22am

re: #37 NelsFree

I agree that the behavior is repugnant. The tactics were successful in preventing Bork's joining the SCOTUS. The Democrats won.

It is not an excuse to employ them. The ends don't justify the means when the means are contemptible.

48 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:08:03am

re: #6 solomonpanting

My guess is she believes her baby won't be "fit" enough to qualify for care.

I assume the Palins have private coverage, although they may be changing plans now that she's left office.

49 albusteve  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:08:11am

I wish the GOMob would start talking about fiscal responsibility again, I'm bored with all these shiny objects laying about...pop politics

50 wahabicorridor  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:08:26am

re: #38 Pianobuff

Yeah... I sensed too that she is probably referencing Ezekiel and the comparative effectiveness stuff, not the end-of-life counseling.

Her statement names Ezekiel explicitly.

51 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:08:36am

re: #8 Charles

She's pretty blatantly hinting at euthanasia.

Oh, I don't think she's hinting. I think she's saying flat out.

52 FightingBack  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:09:10am

re: #41 Cato the Elder

Not in my State. We have Medicaid for the poor. Also, EMTALA laws require treatment at hospitals, regardless of ability to pay.

53 Pianobuff  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:09:20am

re: #50 wahabicorridor

Her statement names Ezekiel explicitly.

Ah...ok, then that is what she is referring to. A quite different matter.

54 Wendya  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:09:54am

re: #9 Pianobuff

Seems like an overcharged statement intended to get headlines, but are you sure she's referring to end-of-life counseling section? I'm thinking she might be referring to something else in the bill that gets more in to comparative effectiveness determination. No?

Yes, that is what she is referring to. It was over the top for this stage in the debate.

55 NelsFree  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:09:58am

re: #47 SixDegrees

It is not an excuse to employ them. The ends don't justify the means when the means are contemptible.

This makes me wonder how Ted Kennedy could remain in office so long.

56 albusteve  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:10:22am

re: #35 Cato the Elder

Anyone still think Sarah should be president?

rather than Attila the Hun or Caligula, yes

57 Mich-again  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:10:22am

re: #31 satan sidekick

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Once the Hippocratic Oath is in the dumpster, then its a slippery slope to so-called "death panels". Call it what you want, but once politicians get the power to write the guidelines for who gets medical attention and who is considered unworthy of them, there will be people who land on the wrong side. Maybe the term "death panel" is too scary. I say call it a "life panel" instead. Much more better.

58 jaunte  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:10:44am

Equality of results vs. equality of opportunity.

59 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:10:45am

re: #20 Shiplord Kirel

Since I've spent a big part of the last 40 years condemning the methods of the left, I am not about to endorse them for anyone else.

I'll let that stand on it's own merit. I can not add anything that makes it better.

Nicely said, my friend.

60 WinterCat  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:10:56am

She really needs to work on her manner of expression. But then, this has always been one of her problems. I hope this is not the tone to expect from her going forward. Death panels? Seriously? What is this, Logan's Run?

61 NelsFree  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:10:56am

BBL. Thank you, all, for an interesting exchange of thoughts and opinions.

62 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:11:12am

re: #25 Shiplord Kirel

Palin has well and truly jumped the shark here. Is she lining herself up as the chosen candidate of the self-declared "Mob?"

Probably. However, she would look zippy on waterskis. Since Trig is being pulled into this mess, perhaps he should shark-jump with her, but I think he's too little for his own waterskis, and probably too big now to fit into a chest carry.

63 fizzlogic  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:11:25am

It's the Terry Schiavo card. The "Culture of Death" has you in its crosshairs.

64 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:11:41am

re: #17 NukeAtomrod

Palin is, most likely, overstating the problem here, but the question remains: When there's no more money in the public heath care budget, who will the government choose to deny treatment to? By what criteria will they make the decision?

How do we do it now, when the Medicaid budget runs low?

65 dwells38  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:11:59am

re: #51 SanFranciscoZionist

Eugenics is what she's implying. Not euthanasia.

66 Ayatrollah  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:12:01am

Not sure why its such a stretch of the imagination to see "Death Panels" in our future under the Dems and Obummer. The EU and other socialist states get to euthanasia pretty quick at the end of life. Just because you don't like the term does not mean the risk is potentially there at some point. 5 years ago would you say Uncle Sam would own the auto industry? Finance? Media? Insurance? Medical is next. Turn your head to the side and cough, but make sure you don't burden the state or you might be pushing up daisies before you want to.

67 Wendya  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:12:12am

re: #56 albusteve

rather than Attila the Hun or Caligula, yes

Rather than Obama? Yes.

68 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:12:41am

re: #27 NelsFree

Good Afternoon everyone,

Senator Ted Kennedy, 1 July, 1987:
Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... "
/Turnabout is fair play?

Revenge is a dish best served after twenty-two years in the freezer?

69 Cato the Elder  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:13:06am

re: #57 Mich-again

Once the Hippocratic Oath is in the dumpster, then its a slippery slope to so-called "death panels". Call it what you want, but once politicians get the power to write the guidelines for who gets medical attention and who is considered unworthy of them, there will be people who land on the wrong side. Maybe the term "death panel" is too scary. I say call it a "life panel" instead. Much more better.

Because having for-profit, overpaid insurance executives writing the rules is so much better. Why, they would never be heartless and cold to a sick person just to get a bigger bonus.

70 AuntAcid  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:13:55am

Just how many nails are there in a political coffin?

71 albusteve  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:13:57am

re: #67 Wendya

Rather than Obama? Yes.

I don't care about Palin, never did...she does not deserve the attention she gets

72 FightingBack  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:14:44am

re: #69 Cato the Elder

The Insurance Industry is already regulated by the Govt. How's that working out for us?

73 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:14:54am

re: #46 Flyers1974

I still think she should run for president as the GOP nominee. Unless Mike huckabee is still available.

I've said it before--I like Huckabee. I wouldn't vote for him if he were the last politician on earth, but I find him very interesting and pleasant.

74 SixDegrees  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:15:17am

re: #55 NelsFree

This makes me wonder how Ted Kennedy could remain in office so long.

Ted Kennedy is a drunk and a murderer who is a stain on his constituents, his state, the Senate and the United States. He is hardly someone to emulate.

75 Randall Gross  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:15:23am

I think Sarah's going full-bore Coulter. Mark this prediction so you can rub it in my face if I'm wrong. I predict a series of books, punditry, and speaking tours. There's more money to be made outside of government than in if you are a conservative and can do hysterical political theater.

76 clgood  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:15:28am

I took her to mean the inevitable feature of socialized medicine, which is the rationing of care. Rahmbo's brother has been proposing this for years, and seems to have the President's ear.

A lot of bad, deadly consequences to government-run healthcare exist without being featured in the legislation.

If this passes, there will be a de-facto "death panel" of some sort no matter what they claim now.

77 voirdire  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:15:45am

Soylent Green is people!

78 Pianobuff  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:16:10am

re: #54 Wendya

Yes, that is what she is referring to. It was over the top for this stage in the debate.

Agreed. I'm really not digging her lines.

79 wahabicorridor  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:16:37am

re: #64 SanFranciscoZionist

How do we do it now, when the Medicaid budget runs low?

There is something called the SGR - sustainable growth rate. It is the rate at which the budget can increase and is determined by Congress.

This admin's promise to 'adjust' that rate - and perhaps take the setting of it away from Congress to be given to a 'panel' was what prompted the AMA to endorse the health care bill.

Budget running low? Deny claims.

80 1SG(ret)  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:16:38am

re: #74 SixDegrees
Yet so many on the left fall all over themselves to do just that!

81 Wendya  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:16:41am

re: #71 albusteve

I don't care about Palin, never did...she does not deserve the attention she gets

Her detractors make sure every single word she utters becomes headline news.

82 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:16:46am

re: #39 unrealizedviewpoint

Personally I find Obama's plan: the govt takeover of 20% of the American economy important enough that I don't give a rats ass right now.

Yes- the devil may care.

83 dwells38  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:17:27am

re: #60 WinterCat

I don't know Wintercat. They won't exactly say whether it will be Logan's Run or not. If you ask them pointedly they'll just say no, of course but so far it's evidently not ruled out.

I didn't think they'd want to pass a bunch of spending that doesn't stimulate in the middle of a gigantic economic downturn either but sure as shit they did.

I didn't think they'd want to checkmate themselves into having to raise taxes this soon either but sure as shit they did.

So maybe it will be Logan's Run.

84 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:17:30am

re: #69 Cato the Elder

Because having for-profit, overpaid insurance executives writing the rules is so much better. Why, they would never be heartless and cold to a sick person just to get a bigger bonus.

That's the problem I see--right now we're all agreeing that some people won't get what they need, we're just in disagreement about who we trust less when the chips are down.

I would love to see some real changes come out of healthcare itself. They have such amazing people working in the field.

85 jvic  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:17:35am

Euthanasia is evil. (I grant that there are wrenching borderline cases.) It is a valid concern.

But I've noticed on occasion that people who opposite assisted suicide try to link it to euthanasia.

My life is mine. It is not the property of the State. Especially it is not the property of a State which presumes to act in loco Dei.

86 Westward Ho  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:17:37am

I was shocked when a poster compared Rahm to Dr. Mengele and went Nazi on the proposed health reform. Clearly he wasn't a lone hysteric.

87 Randall Gross  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:17:45am

re: #81 Wendya

Her detractors make sure every single word she utters becomes headline news.

These weren't uttered, she wrote them on her facebook blog.

88 Shiplord Kirel  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:18:12am

re: #27 NelsFree

Good Afternoon everyone,

Senator Ted Kennedy, 1 July, 1987:
Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... "
/Turnabout is fair play?

That was in 1987, when the libs essentially had a monopoly on major media. Teddy the Hutt wouldn't get away with that crap today.

89 Desert Dog  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:18:15am

re: #75 Thanos

I think Sarah's going full-bore Coulter. Mark this prediction so you can rub it in my face if I'm wrong. I predict a series of books, punditry, and speaking tours. There's more money to be made outside of government than in if you are a conservative and can do hysterical political theater.

I do not think she can win another election in Alaska, which leaves only the Presidency. That is not going to happen either. I would be on your side in that bet. She is going to cash in and laugh all the way to the bank. She can make a killing in books sales, speaking engagements, etc...That is what she is going to do.

90 albusteve  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:19:07am

re: #75 Thanos

I think Sarah's going full-bore Coulter. Mark this prediction so you can rub it in my face if I'm wrong. I predict a series of books, punditry, and speaking tours. There's more money to be made outside of government than in if you are a conservative and can do hysterical political theater.

that's a foregone conclusion

91 unrealizedviewpoint  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:19:17am

re: #76 clgood

I took her to mean the inevitable feature of socialized medicine, which is the rationing of care. Rahmbo's brother has been proposing this for years, and seems to have the President's ear.

A lot of bad, deadly consequences to government-run healthcare exist without being featured in the legislation.

If this passes, there will be a de-facto "death panel" of some sort no matter what they claim now.


You can bet your bottom dollar there will be. It'll take 20, maybe 30 yrs, but there will be. When the money is all gone, what other option will there be?

92 fizzlogic  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:19:24am

re: #57 Mich-again

Once the Hippocratic Oath is in the dumpster, then its a slippery slope to so-called "death panels". Call it what you want, but once politicians get the power to write the guidelines for who gets medical attention and who is considered unworthy of them, there will be people who land on the wrong side. Maybe the term "death panel" is too scary. I say call it a "life panel" instead. Much more better.

You mean like Medicare? I've never heard Medicare denying anyone the care they need even up to the day of their death.

93 Cato the Elder  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:19:41am

re: #75 Thanos

I think Sarah's going full-bore Coulter. Mark this prediction so you can rub it in my face if I'm wrong. I predict a series of books, punditry, and speaking tours. There's more money to be made outside of government than in if you are a conservative and can do hysterical political theater.

The only difference is, Ann O'Rexia can write her own stuff. Sarah will need a ghostwriting team and several minders to make herself sound coherent.

It can be done, but you'll hear the bionic whir every time she flaps her gums.

94 stryker  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:19:52am

I don't think Palin wasn't referring to "end-of-life counseling", but to the mechanism of preferences used by governments with socialized medicine to ration limited health-care funds.

It's hyperbole, because everybody with a special medical condition will need to justify their request to such a panel for special treatment outside of the normal health-care basket, not only those with Down's Syndrome, or pregnant with a Down's Syndrome child.

It's not a "death-panel", as long as government funding is available to provide the extra level of care, and there aren't cases with higher priority.

95 FightingBack  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:19:53am

re: #79 wahabicorridor


Budget running low? Deny claims.


That wrings it out of the providers (Doctors/Nurses/Hospitals.) Claims are not submitted until services have been provided. It will take a little while, but the unpaid providers, especially those with high overheads (read Malp Insurance coverage) will disappear. For all of us.

96 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:19:56am

re: #76 clgood

I took her to mean the inevitable feature of socialized medicine, which is the rationing of care.

What kind of medicine does not ration care? Right now we do it according to coverage, and how much you can pay for.

I don't know. I was flat-out denied coverage a few years ago, due to a pre-existing big butt, so I'm a tad skeptical of capitalist medicine too. (Covered now, thank. Being employed trumps being fat.)

97 jaunte  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:20:07am

re: #75 Thanos

I think Sarah's going full-bore Coulter. Mark this prediction so you can rub it in my face if I'm wrong. I predict a series of books, punditry, and speaking tours. There's more money to be made outside of government than in if you are a conservative and can do hysterical political theater.

I think you're probably right on this; it's too bad there's such a large, eager market for over the top fear mongering.

98 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:20:34am

re: #79 wahabicorridor

There is something called the SGR - sustainable growth rate. It is the rate at which the budget can increase and is determined by Congress.

This admin's promise to 'adjust' that rate - and perhaps take the setting of it away from Congress to be given to a 'panel' was what prompted the AMA to endorse the health care bill.

Budget running low? Deny claims.


Thank you.

99 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:21:01am

re: #75 Thanos

I think Sarah's going full-bore Coulter. Mark this prediction so you can rub it in my face if I'm wrong. I predict a series of books, punditry, and speaking tours. There's more money to be made outside of government than in if you are a conservative and can do hysterical political theater.

The good old boys network in that industry is more... "friendly" towards women.

100 FightingBack  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:21:36am

re: #83 dwells38

They did say so. Didn't I hear the POTUS say something about rethinking end of life decisions? Pain killers?

101 albusteve  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:21:40am

a gaggle of four F-16s just floated over my bunkhouse...makes me feel peaceful...I love those guys

102 Randall Gross  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:22:20am

re: #93 Cato the Elder

The only difference is, Ann O'Rexia can write her own stuff. Sarah will need a ghostwriting team and several minders to make herself sound coherent.

It can be done, but you'll hear the bionic whir every time she flaps her gums.

Actually Sarah's pretty good at writing. I've read several memos and letters she wrote prior to being picked as McCain's VP since early on I supported her. It started with a search on the infamous claim that she banned books. She obviously knows how to lob verbal grenades as we see here. That will sell.

103 wahabicorridor  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:22:24am
But perhaps most worrying of all, say critics, is the trend for other treatment to be denied to those who are terminally ill. Instead of being given the medicines that might prolong their lives, they are being offered £30 to cover the cost of drugs that will end their days in a matter of hours.
[ ]
It is something that came to blight 64-year-old Barbara Wagner's last days. Diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005, the former bus driver vowed to fight the disease so she could spend as long as possible with her family.

Even after her doctor warned last year that she had less than six months left, she refused to give up, pinning all her hopes on a new life-prolonging treatment.
But her request, at the beginning of last year, for the £2,500-a-month drug was refused by Oregon's state-run health plan as being too expensive. Instead, she was offered lethal medication to end her life.

linky

104 Desert Dog  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:22:39am

re: #99 Sharmuta

The good old boys network in that industry is more... "friendly" towards women.

She's attractive, pulls incredible numbers, is a lightning rod...can you say "FoxNews Show?" Watch for it...and, if it happens, she will clean up in the ratings too.

105 Gang of One  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:23:03am

re: #87 Thanos

These weren't uttered, she wrote them on her facebook blog.

Not looking for a fight, but is that not the same thing? And I do realize that a post on one's Facebook page is a public statement ...

106 Mich-again  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:23:26am

re: #69 Cato the Elder

Because having for-profit, overpaid insurance executives writing the rules is so much better.

OK then. government bureaucrats: good. corporate executives: bad.

107 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:23:29am

I don't fear a death panel.

I fear nine week waits for chemotherapy and ten-hour waits just to get into the ER.

108 Wendya  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:23:43am

re: #84 SanFranciscoZionist

That's the problem I see--right now we're all agreeing that some people won't get what they need, we're just in disagreement about who we trust less when the chips are down.

I would love to see some real changes come out of healthcare itself. They have such amazing people working in the field.

If your insurance company turns you down, you have other options. Friends, family members, loans. You can negotiate prices with the hospital and doctors. When the government is the final decider, there are no other options.

109 Wendya  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:24:44am

re: #87 Thanos

These weren't uttered, she wrote them on her facebook blog.

And that makes it even more absurd. Running around yapping about what someone wrote in a facebook account?

110 SixDegrees  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:24:45am

re: #86 Westward Ho

I was shocked when a poster compared Rahm to Dr. Mengele and went Nazi on the proposed health reform. Clearly he wasn't a lone hysteric.

Way over the top. Rahm is much more like Capone.

Youtube Video
111 Athens Runaway  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:25:03am

re: #104 Desert Dog

She's attractive, pulls incredible numbers, is a lightning rod...can you say "FoxNews Show?" Watch for it...and, if it happens, she will clean up in the ratings too.

That way some people can get in their Palin-bashing and Fox News bashing in one go. They're part of the problem, don't you know.

112 Randall Gross  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:26:03am

re: #105 Gang of One

I like lizards to be 100 pct. honest so nobody can trip us up. I"m not trying to pick on anyone here since it's a small point, but "uttered" and "wrote" are two different things, let's stick with the facts and we will always win in the end.

113 wahabicorridor  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:26:04am

re: #86 Westward Ho

I was shocked when a poster compared Rahm to Dr. Mengele and went Nazi on the proposed health reform. Clearly he wasn't a lone hysteric.

They weren't talking about Rahm. They were talking about his brother Ezekeil. lemme go find some links.

114 Desert Dog  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:26:06am

re: #111 Athens Runaway

That way some people can get in their Palin-bashing and Fox News bashing in one go. They're part of the problem, don't you know.

The people that love her will tune in, the people that hate her will tune in...it's got "HIT SHOW" written all over it. I wish I was her agent, I would be rich!

115 Mich-again  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:26:15am

re: #92 trendsurfer

You mean like Medicare? I've never heard Medicare denying anyone the care they need even up to the day of their death.

I was responding to what Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel said about how doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously. He is the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and has been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

116 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:26:25am

re: #104 Desert Dog

She's attractive, pulls incredible numbers, is a lightning rod...can you say "FoxNews Show?" Watch for it...and, if it happens, she will clean up in the ratings too.

I'm sure. She'll make them lots of money, and she'll get her cut. I can't say it's not in her interests to do either. There is too much misogyny in our culture still for me to think she can win office, but where that misogyny opens a door is punditry. She could make a lot of money and still influence the discussion.

117 lurking faith  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:26:31am

re: #22 Athens Runaway

What's up with basically every tag except "Sarah Palin" there? This has nothing to do with Facebook, Alaska, Resignation, or 2012.

Trying to score points with Palin-bashers?

Wow. Since you can't seem to link related things, here's a cheat sheet:

Palin posted these comments on Facebook. She was the Governor of Alaska, and only recently resigned. And a lot of people think she would like to run for President in 2012.

Happy now?

118 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:26:39am

re: #108 Wendya

If your insurance company turns you down, you have other options. Friends, family members, loans. You can negotiate prices with the hospital and doctors. When the government is the final decider, there are no other options.

I do not see us ever getting to that stage in the U.S., to be perfectly honest. Most nations with socialized programs don't go so far, and we're the last country to accept not being able to buy something for ready money.

119 Gang of One  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:26:55am

re: #112 Thanos

I like lizards to be 100 pct. honest so nobody can trip us up. I"m not trying to pick on anyone here since it's a small point, but "uttered" and "wrote" are two different things, let's stick with the facts and we will always win in the end.

Point taken. Thanks.

120 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:27:14am

re: #109 Wendya

And that makes it even more absurd. Running around yapping about what someone wrote in a facebook account?

Not 'someone'. A prominent and influential political figure.

121 FightingBack  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:27:24am

re: #107 EmmmieG

I don't fear a death panel.

I fear nine week waits for chemotherapy and ten-hour waits just to get into the ER.

What slows up the ER is creating CYA data for the patient instead of focusing on the immediate prob at hand. I don't want to be sued for missing something unrelated on the day of the gash that needs stitches. It's happened to me while I was distracted by providing respiration...

122 Cato the Elder  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:27:29am

re: #84 SanFranciscoZionist

That's the problem I see--right now we're all agreeing that some people won't get what they need, we're just in disagreement about who we trust less when the chips are down.

I would love to see some real changes come out of healthcare itself. They have such amazing people working in the field.

Well, my father is a retired physician and a pretty smart guy. He's spending his retirement (working as hard as he ever did in his career) trying to reform medical service provision from the inside.

Trouble is, the only rational solution - single payer - was taken off the table by the "reformers" in Congress, and though Obama mumbled about it some, he never took it seriously. People - respected doctors, professors of medicine, nurses - who tried to bring it up in committee were forcibly ejected from the hearing room.

You can be for it or against it, but never to allow it to be raised as an option?

Who you gonna trust - your congresscritters with their lobbyists and need for reelection, your for-profit insurer, your stockbroker - or your doctor - when it comes to your health? The fact is plenty of doctors think single payer is the only sensible choice. It would give medicine back to the practitioners.

Now tell me my father is a commie, people.

123 Flyers1974  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:27:39am

re: #73 SanFranciscoZionist

I've said it before--I like Huckabee. I wouldn't vote for him if he were the last politician on earth, but I find him very interesting and pleasant.

On a personal level, he seems to me to be one of the more likable pols out there.

124 Desert Dog  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:29:00am

re: #120 SanFranciscoZionist

Not 'someone'. A prominent and influential political figure.

When I post something on Facebook, the world reacts by a handful of my friends commenting on Desert Dog "drinking again"...when SP posts, it's a tad different.

125 Wendya  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:29:08am

re: #100 FightingBack

They did say so. Didn't I hear the POTUS say something about rethinking end of life decisions? Pain killers?

Youtube Video
126 albusteve  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:29:27am

re: #120 SanFranciscoZionist

Not 'someone'. A prominent and influential political figure.

ho hum...you do it to yourself you know

127 idioma  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:29:43am

Who is Sarah Palin? That name sounds familiar. Okay, wow, I just checked on google. I think I remember her saying some things in late 2008. Why does she matter again?

128 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:30:17am

re: #124 Desert Dog

When I post something on Facebook, the world reacts by a handful of my friends commenting on Desert Dog "drinking again"...when SP posts, it's a tad different.


Your friends react? I can only get a reaction by posting pictures of me looking ridiculous from 1986.

129 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:31:12am

re: #126 albusteve

ho hum...you do it to yourself you know

Personally, I wasn't involved in her becoming either governor of Alaska (I don't vote there) or a VP candidate (I'm not in McCain's inner circle). She just sort of showed up one day.

130 unrealizedviewpoint  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:31:13am

re: #107 EmmmieG

I don't fear a death panel.

I fear nine week waits for chemotherapy and ten-hour waits just to get into the ER.


Obama Health Reform and Wait Times Visualization

Youtube Video
131 albusteve  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:31:24am

re: #127 idioma

Who is Sarah Palin? That name sounds familiar. Okay, wow, I just checked on google. I think I remember her saying some things in late 2008. Why does she matter again?

because people want her to matter...they need her for one reason or another...take Cato for example...imagine how shallow and insignificant his life would be without her to bash around

132 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:31:26am
Can you say “fear mongering?”

No, but I can say a unmitigated idiot without the sense to vet herself before she opens her mouth. A lot like Obama.

133 avspatti  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:31:35am

I haven't read all of this thread, but what about that recent case in Oregon where a patient was refused treatment but was offered assisted suicide? It's this type of thing that people fear. Of course, I don't for a minute believe it will start off like that, but what about later? That's an awful lot of power from non-medical people.

I'll look for the link.

134 FightingBack  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:32:04am

re: #118 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, we won't be sitting there waiting for your ready money. Once the Gov't mandates single payor, and requires acceptance of that for licensing, bad money (Gov't Work) will drive good money (Private Pay) out of circulation.

135 Desert Dog  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:32:05am

re: #122 Cato the Elder

Well, my father is a retired physician and a pretty smart guy. He's spending his retirement (working as hard as he ever did in his career) trying to reform medical service provision from the inside.

Trouble is, the only rational solution - single payer - was taken off the table by the "reformers" in Congress, and though Obama mumbled about it some, he never took it seriously. People - respected doctors, professors of medicine, nurses - who tried to bring it up in committee were forcibly ejected from the hearing room.

You can be for it or against it, but never to allow it to be raised as an option?

Who you gonna trust - your congresscritters with their lobbyists and need for reelection, your for-profit insurer, your stockbroker - or your doctor - when it comes to your health? The fact is plenty of doctors think single payer is the only sensible choice. It would give medicine back to the practitioners.

Now tell me my father is a commie, people.

Single Payer option is where this is heading, Cato. And, it may come as a shock to you, but many people think that adopting a single payer system is not rational at all. From what I have read, most Doctors do not want a "National Heath" along the lines of the UK or Canada. And, if we do get that, we will start importing even more Doctors because many practicing now will leave and less people will want to to become a doctor.

136 Desert Dog  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:32:39am

re: #128 EmmmieG

Your friends react? I can only get a reaction by posting pictures of me looking ridiculous from 1986.

Poofy 80's hair, eh? :-)

137 Charles Johnson  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:32:59am

re: #22 Athens Runaway

What's up with basically every tag except "Sarah Palin" there? This has nothing to do with Facebook, Alaska, Resignation, or 2012.

Trying to score points with Palin-bashers?

You caught me. I crave the approval of those who bash Palin, and I slyly added those tags to please them in a sekrit way that only they will see. My scheme is revealed.

It couldn't be because they link to other articles about Sarah Palin. Nah.

138 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:33:09am

Palin is a fearmonger.

I never wanted her anywhere near the presidency or the vice-presidency, but this is it for me. i defended her against vicious attacks, I criticised the media (and especially the liberal media) for hypocritically wondering whether she could be a mother and a VP-- I deplored the misogyny and sexism that she was subjected to.

Palin is spreading outright lies. I am completely disgusted. Hey Palin, guess who really won't cover the insurance of kids like Trig? Insurance companies!

[Link: obsidianwings.blogs.com...]

But that said, Palin is sort of right on one point -- there are people who weigh whether children like Trig are worthy of insurance. They're called insurance companies, and they have decided that these children are not in fact worthy of coverage. That's because Down Syndrome is a "pre-existing condition."

Christian Science Monitor, 10/21/08 (Lexis):

Margaret Demko of Albany, Ohio, agrees everyone should be responsible for themselves. But she also believes the free market has failed the healthcare system miserably. That's left too many people, like her family and every other family that lives on her rural road in Appalachia, without healthcare coverage.

. . .

Ensuring that everyone has access to care has become a full-time cause for Ms. Demko. She and her family have been without insurance since her daughter was born four years ago with what doctors say is Down syndrome. Her husband is a self-employed contractor so the family had relied on her job as a substance abuse counselor for their health insurance.

But Demko said she couldn't keep working full time with an infant with special needs. When she quit, she didn't realize that would result in her family's being unable to get health insurance.

Ohio does not require insurance companies to cover children with disabilities considered to be preexisting conditions.

Done with her. Completely done. It's disgusting that this woman will exploit her own child for personal gain like this, yet not bother to educate herself about the health insurance situation for all the many other families with children like Trig. There are two choices here, and they are not mutually exculsive: either she's willfully ignorant, or she's deceitful.

Neither recommend her to me polticially or personally. Disgusting.

139 albusteve  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:33:09am

re: #132 Walter L. Newton

No, but I can say a unmitigated idiot without the sense to vet herself before she opens her mouth. A lot like Obama.

the cream of the crop in todays political environment...makes me want to smash a mailbox

140 Wendya  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:33:15am

re: #118 SanFranciscoZionist

I do not see us ever getting to that stage in the U.S., to be perfectly honest. Most nations with socialized programs don't go so far, and we're the last country to accept not being able to buy something for ready money.

Canada and Britain both go that far. The only way everyone gets the absolute best coverage on the government dime is if there is an unlimited source of money. There are limits as to how much we can be taxed without tanking the economy and you just can't print up some cash if Grandma needs a pacemaker.

141 DEZes  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:33:28am

The plans for the Death Panel will soon be back in our hands...

Darth Biden.

142 FightingBack  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:33:48am

re: #135 Desert Dog

If you pay me, I work for you. If the Gov't pays me...

143 notreallyme  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:34:30am

Sorry Charles, but you are IMHO way out of line, and way out of your depth. Ask anyone who is the parent of a special needs child, whether they are physically handicapped, Down's, PDD, ADD/AHD, or above 120 IQ and you will find that it is a constant uphill battle to get the public school system to provide the education that they need.

What Palin is suggesting is that the Obamacare system will use use QUALY's or quality adjusted life years, as the UK NHS does to ration health care. Her child with down's syndrome, never will have a "quality" year ahead of them compared to a "normal" child, so they can never compete for rationed resources. So she anticipates a similar fight for health care as now exists for schooling.

If there is one flew shot left, and two children, according the QUALY system, the normal, or higher IQ child will always get it. If her child needs an operation, they will be put at the end of the queue or refused treatment. Why spend $150,000 for an operation for a down's child. Better to let nature take it's course.

I suggest that you ask parents of Down's children what their concerns are before you criticize them.

Geoff.

144 Desert Dog  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:34:32am

re: #138 iceweasel

I think she can reach out and push your "anger button" anytime she wants :-)

Sorta like Al Franken can to me.

145 avspatti  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:34:35am

re: #133 avspatti

I haven't read all of this thread, but what about that recent case in Oregon where a patient was refused treatment but was offered assisted suicide? It's this type of thing that people fear. Of course, I don't for a minute believe it will start off like that, but what about later? That's an awful lot of power from non-medical people.

I'll look for the link.

Here's the link . . . it was last year.

[Link: hotair.com...]

146 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:34:48am

re: #136 Desert Dog

Poofy 80's hair, eh? :-)

My sister actually posted the picture of the two of us in the valley girl outfits our mother sewed for us. (Maroon tights and cream-colored leg warmers, feathered hair). She does not have access to the photo of the two of us in sequins and spandex, thank heavens.

147 wahabicorridor  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:34:53am

E Emamuel's Hastings rpt (pdf 4 pgs)

Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions (Lancet - pdf - 9 pages)

read it and weep. He reports to Orzieg (sp?), the head of OMB

148 nonic  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:34:54am

If you want to understand how socialized medicine leads to death by denial of treatment, hang around a British paper for a while. At the Mail, there are usually 2 or 3 stories PER WEEK about a patient who died because he or she was refused treatment by the NHS.

I've heard many people (including a physician friend) say that the insurance companies "ration" care and have been for some time.

What they MEAN is that the insurance companies DON'T PAY for certain care. But that is not to say that the patient cannot get the care and pay for it on his own. Your insurance company likely will not pay for a nose job or breast implants. Does that mean the surgery is "rationed"? No. It means you have to pay for it on your own.

As I understand it (please correct me if I am misinformed), under Medicare, patients can ONLY get the treatment that Medicare authorizes. Doctors are not allowed by law to do any other treatment, and patients are not allowed by law to pay for any other treatment. THAT IS RATIONING.

Inevitably, the "public option" will be like Medicare. And eventually (apparently about 5 years) we'll all be in it. And as money gets shorter and shorter -- as it unquestionably will --- everyone will be subject to more and more ACTUAL rationing, when you cannot get some care at any price.

Question: In a system that will deny Granny $50K heart surgery because she's 80 years old -- I think most people think we will see this under ObamaCare, what will happen to the severely premature baby who needs $500,000 of care and will end up blind, mentally disabled, and crippled anyway? Got any quesses?

149 albusteve  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:35:14am

re: #138 iceweasel

Palin is a fearmonger.

I never wanted her anywhere near the presidency or the vice-presidency, but this is it for me. i defended her against vicious attacks, I criticised the media (and especially the liberal media) for hypocritically wondering whether she could be a mother and a VP-- I deplored the misogyny and sexism that she was subjected to.

Palin is spreading outright lies. I am completely disgusted. Hey Palin, guess who really won't cover the insurance of kids like Trig? Insurance companies!

[Link: obsidianwings.blogs.com...]

Done with her. Completely done. It's disgusting that this woman will exploit her own child for personal gain like this, yet not bother to educate herself about the health insurance situation for all the many other families with children like Trig. There are two choices here, and they are not mutually exculsive: either she's willfully ignorant, or she's deceitful.

Neither recommend her to me polticially or personally. Disgusting.

Walter just pointed out how much alike Palin and BO are...circular man

150 Charles Johnson  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:36:01am

re: #143 notreallyme

I suggest that you ask parents of Down's children what their concerns are before you criticize them.

Geoff.

Please point out where I criticized parents of Down's children.

151 Desert Dog  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:37:03am

re: #146 EmmmieG

My sister actually the picture of the two of us in the valley girl outfits our mother sewed for us. (Maroon tights and cream-colored leg warmers, feathered hair). She does not have access to the photo of the two of us in sequins and spandex, thank heavens.


too funny. I told my two older sons that they will get a good laugh at the styles they have today as well...They always drag out my High School yearbook and marvel at my "rock star" hair. (It's cut close and mostly gray now)

152 Cato the Elder  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:37:37am

re: #108 Wendya

If your insurance company turns you down, you have other options. Friends, family members, loans. You can negotiate prices with the hospital and doctors. When the government is the final decider, there are no other options.

Right. Because the "death panels" will have taken away all your friends, family members, and bankers.

153 jaunte  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:37:50am

Anything scarce is rationed, either by price, or by some powerful authority establishing who gets priority. It's a fantasy to imagine no one will be at the bottom of the list in either case.

154 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:37:53am

re: #134 FightingBack

Well, we won't be sitting there waiting for your ready money. Once the Gov't mandates single payor, and requires acceptance of that for licensing, bad money (Gov't Work) will drive good money (Private Pay) out of circulation.

Doubt it, honestly. I think this is being blown waaay out of proportion.

155 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:37:54am

re: #144 Desert Dog

I think she can reach out and push your "anger button" anytime she wants :-)

Sorta like Al Franken can to me.

Dream on.

Hey, here's an idea- run Palin in 2012. :)

156 Randall Gross  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:37:55am

re: #143 notreallyme

Can you show us in the health bill the language that says that it will be managed that way?

157 Pianobuff  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:39:00am

re: #150 Charles

Please point out where I criticized parents of Down's children.

Not sure, but maybe the poster is referencing Palin as a Down's child parent perhaps?

158 Ayatrollah  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:39:13am

re: #103 wahabicorridor

linky

No chance this will spread to the US under Obama. Sarah's just lobbing grenades. Oh wait, this is in the US already.

159 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:39:14am

re: #140 Wendya

Canada and Britain both go that far. The only way everyone gets the absolute best coverage on the government dime is if there is an unlimited source of money. There are limits as to how much we can be taxed without tanking the economy and you just can't print up some cash if Grandma needs a pacemaker.

You can go private in Britain.

160 Wendya  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:39:16am

re: #138 iceweasel


Done with her. Completely done. It's disgusting that this woman will exploit her own child for personal gain like this, yet not bother to educate herself about the health insurance situation for all the many other families with children like Trig. There are two choices here, and they are not mutually exculsive: either she's willfully ignorant, or she's deceitful.

Neither recommend her to me polticially or personally. Disgusting.


Well, I'm glad you got that out of your system.

It was pretty unconscionable for her to use her disabled child as an example of how government healthcare would affect her personally. Doesn't she realize only the left is allowed to mention or exploit her kid?

161 FightingBack  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:39:31am

re: #148 nonic

If a Doc accepts Medicare; she cannot "balance bill" the patient (ie, cannot accept money from the patients for any reason except the gov't mandated payment.)
Since all folks over 65 have this insurance, it's not a viable choice to refuse to accept Medicare. Buy care for ready money? Not possible.

162 Randall Gross  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:39:52am

re: #148 nonic

If you want to understand how socialized medicine leads to death by denial of treatment, hang around a British paper for a while. At the Mail, there are usually 2 or 3 stories PER WEEK about a patient who died because he or she was refused treatment by the NHS.

I've heard many people (including a physician friend) say that the insurance companies "ration" care and have been for some time.

What they MEAN is that the insurance companies DON'T PAY for certain care. But that is not to say that the patient cannot get the care and pay for it on his own. Your insurance company likely will not pay for a nose job or breast implants. Does that mean the surgery is "rationed"? No. It means you have to pay for it on your own.

As I understand it (please correct me if I am misinformed), under Medicare, patients can ONLY get the treatment that Medicare authorizes. Doctors are not allowed by law to do any other treatment, and patients are not allowed by law to pay for any other treatment. THAT IS RATIONING.

Inevitably, the "public option" will be like Medicare. And eventually (apparently about 5 years) we'll all be in it. And as money gets shorter and shorter -- as it unquestionably will --- everyone will be subject to more and more ACTUAL rationing, when you cannot get some care at any price.

Question: In a system that will deny Granny $50K heart surgery because she's 80 years old -- I think most people think we will see this under ObamaCare, what will happen to the severely premature baby who needs $500,000 of care and will end up blind, mentally disabled, and crippled anyway? Got any quesses?

Wrong. Show me where it says that someone on Medicare can't elect to pay for a surgery out of pocket.

163 wahabicorridor  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:39:52am

re: #148 nonic

patients are not allowed by law to pay for any other treatment.

nonic, I think that is NOT true under Medicaid.

164 notreallyme  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:40:16am

re: #135 Desert Dog

Single Payer option is where this is heading, Cato. And, it may come as a shock to you, but many people think that adopting a single payer system is not rational at all. From what I have read, most Doctors do not want a "National Heath" along the lines of the UK or Canada. And, if we do get that, we will start importing even more Doctors because many practicing now will leave and less people will want to to become a doctor.

Good, then the Jewish ones will come here (Israel), where we have both a national health system (tax funded HMO's) a thriving private medical system, many private supplemental medical insurance options, a thriving medical research industry, and so on. For those that can't afford major expenses not covered there are also many private charities to help them.

Geoff.

165 Mich-again  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:40:18am

re: #148 nonic

If you want to understand how socialized medicine leads to death by denial of treatment, hang around a British paper for a while. At the Mail, there are usually 2 or 3 stories PER WEEK about a patient who died because he or she was refused treatment by the NHS.

I have quite a few work associates and friends who are Canadian and they all have stories of a family member or friend who had to come to the USA for medical treatment when they couldn't get services in Canada quick enough. Question is, where will they go when our system looks like theirs?

One means for cutting costs in a National Health Care plan is just to delay the operation and then voila! some of the patients will die before you "waste" any money on them.

166 debutaunt  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:40:29am

re: #27 NelsFree

Good Afternoon everyone,

Senator Ted Kennedy, 1 July, 1987:
Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... "
/Turnabout is fair play?

They do something stupid, we do something stupider.

167 Desert Dog  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:40:35am

re: #155 iceweasel

Dream on.

Hey, here's an idea- run Palin in 2012. :)

She's making you froth right now! See?

168 FightingBack  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:40:56am

re: #154 SanFranciscoZionist

Good Luck. I hope you have a Doctor friend/relative who will help you out when push comes to...

169 Wendya  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:41:25am

re: #152 Cato the Elder

Right. Because the "death panels" will have taken away all your friends, family members, and bankers.

Nice dodge.

170 directorblue  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:41:38am

I think Palin's referring to the "Federal Health Board", five individuals who will make all treatment decisions in actuarial format. This was defined in "Critical", Tom Daschle's book that is being used as the blueprint for ObamaCare.

171 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:41:48am

re: #148 nonic

The United Kingdom has excellent private healthcare. People who can afford it, use it.

172 Wendya  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:42:11am

re: #159 SanFranciscoZionist

You can go private in Britain.

And you can leave the country and come to America as well.

Who is going to take our place?

173 Randall Gross  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:42:28am

re: #170 directorblue

Can you show that to me in the draft of the House bill?

174 itellu3times  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:42:29am

She can see death panel from her front porch.

/ok so that was Tina Fey

175 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:42:38am

re: #171 SanFranciscoZionist

The United Kingdom has excellent private healthcare. People who can afford it, use it.

So, then we really will be in a system where the rich can get better health care than the rest of us?

176 wahabicorridor  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:43:19am

re: #161 FightingBack

If a Doc accepts Medicare; she cannot "balance bill" the patient (ie, cannot accept money from the patients for any reason except the gov't mandated payment.)
Since all folks over 65 have this insurance, it's not a viable choice to refuse to accept Medicare. Buy care for ready money? Not possible.

Um, I'm not following you. My husband is old enough for Medicare. But we also have private insurance. So what are you saying exactly?

177 FightingBack  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:43:39am

re: #162 Thanos

They can pay; but they need to find a doctor outside of the Medicare system. That' not a viable alternative for most doctors to maintain. To accept Medicare, you must not bill any covered patient directly; and virtually everyone over 65 is covered.

178 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:43:47am

re: #165 Mich-again

I have quite a few work associates and friends who are Canadian and they all have stories of a family member or friend who had to come to the USA for medical treatment when they couldn't get services in Canada quick enough. Question is, where will they go when our system looks like theirs?

One means for cutting costs in a National Health Care plan is just to delay the operation and then voila! some of the patients will die before you "waste" any money on them.

There are private physicians and hospitals in Canada. Why are they coming across the border? Is it because our prices are better?

179 Randall Gross  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:44:09am

re: #175 EmmmieG

So, then we really will be in a system where the rich can get better health care than the rest of us?

We already have that.

180 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:44:29am

re: #166 debutaunt

They do something stupid, we do something stupider.

They put one of their on the cover of the NY Post, we put one of ours on the cover of the National Enquirer.

181 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:45:09am

re: #178 SanFranciscoZionist

There are private physicians and hospitals in Canada. Why are they coming across the border? Is it because our prices are better?

I was under the impression that they don't. That's why that Canadian Mp came to the US to get her mastectomy quickly.

182 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:45:10am

re: #160 Wendya

Well, I'm glad you got that out of your system.

It was pretty unconscionable for her to use her disabled child as an example of how government healthcare would affect her personally. Doesn't she realize only the left is allowed to mention or exploit her kid?

It's pretty unconscionable for her to spread lies about how ObamaCare will kill Baby Jesus Trig! -- when there are families right now with Downs syndrome kids who are being denied coverage. If she actually gave a shit about this issue, don't you think she'd know that?

Liar, hypocrite, opportunist, and deceitful all apply here.

Yeah, out of my system now. Sadly, she's not out of the republican system yet. She's like some kind of 72 hour flu for you folks only the entire body politic has to keep dry heaving.

183 jvic  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:46:02am

re: #113 wahabicorridor

re: #86 Westward Ho

I was shocked when a poster compared Rahm to Dr. Mengele and went Nazi on the proposed health reform. Clearly he wasn't a lone hysteric.

They weren't talking about Rahm. They were talking about his brother Ezekeil. lemme go find some links.

Westward Ho, I was shocked too when a post mentioned both Rahm and Zeke. Charles deleted it.

A part of the (deleted) post remains in my response. In support of Charles' action, I will not link to my post, but a determined searcher can find it.

184 horse  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:46:09am

Obama's plan shifts resources from specialty medicine to primary care, and cuts Medicare by $500 billion. It also includes comparative effectiveness which will lead to denying treatments for patients who have fewer and less productive years to benefit. It is a one size fits all solution that will result in more people being misdiagnosed and denied treatment versus their health care service today.

It would be a horrible system, so there is no reason for Palin to over exaggerate in pointing it out.

185 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:46:20am

re: #175 EmmmieG

So, then we really will be in a system where the rich can get better health care than the rest of us?

We are in that system right now. No one seems too terribly upset, except for the people who bitch that Congress has a really good plan.

186 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:46:43am

re: #170 directorblue

I think Palin's referring to the "Federal Health Board", five individuals who will make all treatment decisions in actuarial format. This was defined in "Critical", Tom Daschle's book that is being used as the blueprint for ObamaCare.

Palin is making shit up.

187 Mich-again  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:46:45am

re: #152 Cato the Elder

Right. Because the "death panels" will have taken away all your friends, family members, and bankers.

Do you think ObamaCare will be substantially different than the UK system? Rationing and queues for medical procedures and hospital administrators making life and death medical decisions based on cost is part of the package.

188 FightingBack  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:47:01am

re: #176 wahabicorridor

The private insurance that you have covers other parts of Medical care; expands your coverage for certain rehab nursing home stays, other things. But if you needed the Heart Operation covered under the original M policy (and it is denied) you could only pay/ have it by finding a Heart Surgeon who does not accept any Medicare. Fat chance that he exists.

189 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:47:43am

re: #179 Thanos

We already have that.

Right now, my private health insurance covers most everything that is not cosmetic, experimental, or not really a health care treatment (candling, for example.) I'm okay with the fact that if I wanted silicone in my chest, I'd have to pay for it.

We're really not rich, and couldn't afford to pay privately if the system were switched to government.

190 Athens Runaway  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:47:53am

re: #137 Charles

You caught me. I crave the approval of those who bash Palin, and I slyly added those tags to please them in a sekrit way that only they will see. My scheme is revealed.

It couldn't be because they link to other articles about Sarah Palin. Nah.

Fine. I was just asking, because those didn't seem to have anything to do with the topic at hand.

191 Desert Dog  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:47:57am

re: #187 Mich-again

Do you think ObamaCare will be substantially different than the UK system? Rationing and queues for medical procedures and hospital administrators making life and death medical decisions based on cost is part of the package.

details, details...

192 nonic  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:48:14am

re: #161 FightingBack

If a Doc accepts Medicare; she cannot "balance bill" the patient (ie, cannot accept money from the patients for any reason except the gov't mandated payment.)
Since all folks over 65 have this insurance, it's not a viable choice to refuse to accept Medicare. Buy care for ready money? Not possible.

Do you know how the Medigap policies fit into this? I'll be going on Medicare next year, and I'm trying to figure out what it means, and whether I should deal with some issues now while I'm still on (very expensive) insurance, even though my co-pay will be 30%, which is likely to run me into thousands of dollars of medical debt.

193 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:50:24am

re: #185 SanFranciscoZionist

We are in that system right now. No one seems too terribly upset, except for the people who bitch that Congress has a really good plan.

What health care (other than cosmetic) could the rich get right now that the I can't get?

We aren't rich, just middle class people with job-provided health care.

194 nonic  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:50:57am

re: #182 iceweasel

there are families right now with Downs syndrome kids who are being denied coverage.

Please understand... being denied coverage is not the same as being denied treatment. One can try to find insurance that will cover or one can find the money to pay on one's own.

195 Desert Dog  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:51:21am

re: #192 nonic

Do you know how the Medigap policies fit into this? I'll be going on Medicare next year, and I'm trying to figure out what it means, and whether I should deal with some issues now while I'm still on (very expensive) insurance, even though my co-pay will be 30%, which is likely to run me into thousands of dollars of medical debt.

Get a supplemental plan (Part B). My parents have one through AARP right now, but they have had others as well. It fills in the gaps that the Part A coverage does not. Your private insurance will start going higher and higher.

196 Cato the Elder  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:51:29am

re: #164 notreallyme

Good, then the Jewish ones will come here (Israel), where we have both a national health system (tax funded HMO's) a thriving private medical system, many private supplemental medical insurance options, a thriving medical research industry, and so on. For those that can't afford major expenses not covered there are also many private charities to help them.

Geoff.

Sounds sort of like what Obama is proposing. A mix.

What a terrible, terrible idea!

197 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:51:39am

re: #181 EmmmieG

I was under the impression that they don't. That's why that Canadian Mp came to the US to get her mastectomy quickly.

Per Wiki. Canada has come closest to banning private practices, but they've been loosening up remarkably over the past several years.

About 30% of Canadians' health care is paid for through the private sector. This mostly goes towards services not covered or only partially covered by Medicare, such as prescription drugs, dentistry and optometry. Some 65% of Canadians have some form of supplementary private health insurance; many of them receive it through their employers.[15] There are also large private entities that can buy priority access to medical services in Canada, such as WCB in BC.

The Canadian system is for the most part publicly funded, yet most of the services are provided by private enterprises. Most doctors do not receive an annual salary, but receive a fee per visit or service.[1] According to Dr. Albert Schumacher, former president of the Canadian Medical Association, an estimated 75 percent of Canadian health care services are delivered privately, but funded publicly.

"Frontline practitioners whether they're GPs or specialists by and large are not salaried. They're small hardware stores. Same thing with labs and radiology clinics ...The situation we are seeing now are more services around not being funded publicly but people having to pay for them, or their insurance companies. We have sort of a passive privatization."[1]

The Canada Health Act of 1984 "does not directly bar private delivery or private insurance for publicly insured services," but provides financial disincentives for doing so. "Although there are laws prohibiting or curtailing private health care in some provinces, they can be changed," according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine.[16][17] In June 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) that Quebec's prohibition against private health insurance for medically necessary services laws violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, potentially opening the door to much more private sector participation in the health system. Justices Beverley McLachlin, Jack Major, Michel Bastarache and Marie Deschamps found for the majority. "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin.

The Quebec and federal governments asked the high court to suspend its ruling for 18 months. Less than two months after its initial ruling, the court agreed to suspend its decision for 12 months, retroactive to June 9, 2005. This means that, for the interim, there would be no change to the status quo.

198 Wendya  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:52:12am

re: #182 iceweasel

It's pretty unconscionable for her to spread lies about how ObamaCare will kill Baby Jesus Trig! -- when there are families right now with Downs syndrome kids who are being denied coverage. If she actually gave a shit about this issue, don't you think she'd know that?

Liar, hypocrite, opportunist, and deceitful all apply here.

Yeah, out of my system now. Sadly, she's not out of the republican system yet. She's like some kind of 72 hour flu for you folks only the entire body politic has to keep dry heaving.

I think she probably could have worded it better but it was absolutely appropriate for her to point out that under government health care using Comparative effectiveness determinations and QALYs, there is a good chance parents with disabled children will have their options limited by the government. It's dishonest to pretend that isn't a strong possibility. The same kind of dishonesty that leads Obama to keep claiming you can "keep your insurance" (but only if it's a qualified plan).

199 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:54:13am

re: #193 EmmmieG

What health care (other than cosmetic) could the rich get right now that the I can't get?

We aren't rich, just middle class people with job-provided health care.

Perhaps I'm using 'rich' too loosely. People with more money can access better care than people with less. People with more can weather serious health problems without going broke for longer.

200 FightingBack  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:54:31am

re: #192 nonic

It's complex. It'll take a lot of frustrating research on your part to weigh the difference in payments under the changed arrangements that you will face. But, as a Doc, I always say that it's best to have things taken care of when the care is available. No one can predict the future, or the change in your basic health, etc.
Best Wishes.

201 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:55:45am

re: #198 Wendya

I think she probably could have worded it better but it was absolutely appropriate for her to point out that under government health care using Comparative effectiveness determinations and QALYs,

Palin lied. I find it extraordinary that anyone here wants to defend her statement. She lied.

202 nonic  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:57:10am

re: #177 FightingBack

They can pay; but they need to find a doctor outside of the Medicare system. That' not a viable alternative for most doctors to maintain. To accept Medicare, you must not bill any covered patient directly; and virtually everyone over 65 is covered.

Apparently the government signs you up on Medicare automatically on the first of the month that you turn 65. I don't think you have a choice to opt out. And then, I would assume that if you are covered by Medicare, the insurance companies have rules about what kind of policy you are allowed to get from them.

203 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:57:20am

re: #194 nonic

Please understand... being denied coverage is not the same as being denied treatment. One can try to find insurance that will cover or one can find the money to pay on one's own.

Being denied coverage IS the same as being denied treatment if the money is not available.

I'm not sure that this health plan is a good idea, but I do know that if my mother gets laid off from work, my father will be uninsurable, and we DON'T HAVE the money to pay for the kind of care he's currently getting.

If we're really going to have this debate, can we stop pretending that people aren't going broker than broke trying to stay alive under our current system? Or that people aren't deeply deeply afraid of what will happen if they can't keep their current coverage?

204 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:57:26am

re: #194 nonic

Please understand... being denied coverage is not the same as being denied treatment. .

Tell it to the people who can't find coverage, and therefore are denied treatment.

That's roughly 40 million Americans. Clear your schedule.

205 Chekote  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:57:41am

Death panels are over the top. I actually dealt with socialized medicine in my country of origin. There are no death panels. They either delay or deny treatment. You still have the option of going to a private clinic. Up until now, I felt that we were winning the debate on healthcare. Now I feel that Obama has to be the luckiest politician ever. His opponents always manage to self-destruct.

206 satan sidekick  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:57:42am

re: #201 iceweasel

Please point out what she lied about.

FYI - I am not a fan of Palin and was quite put out when McCain chose her over Romney as his VP running mate.

207 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:58:14am

re: #197 SanFranciscoZionist

Okay, so like here, teeth and eyes are considered separate and usually covered separately.

If the Canadian MP had a realistic option to get her mastectomy up there, why did she come down here? What might be available is not the same as what is actually available.

They just passed universal health coverage in Oregon for kids. They admit that in Portland, you might not be able to find a doctor that will take the government plan. Theoretical is not the same as actual.

That's my fear about government care--that the reality (not the theory, but the reality) will be horrible and clogged with red tape and paperwork.

208 Ojoe  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:59:01am

I am sorry to see Palin's poor choice of words here because I think she actually would be a good leader.

209 Chekote  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:59:06am

re: #8 Charles

Many in the so called pro-life camp have been doing that for years with all there language about the Holocaust, eugenics and so forth. Nothing new here.

210 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:59:07am

re: #202 nonic

Apparently the government signs you up on Medicare automatically on the first of the month that you turn 65. I don't think you have a choice to opt out. And then, I would assume that if you are covered by Medicare, the insurance companies have rules about what kind of policy you are allowed to get from them.

My grandmother was on Kaiser until the day she died. My grandpa too. Medicare paid for stuff, but didn't seem to limit their options with their coverage.

211 Desert Dog  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:59:14am

re: #204 iceweasel

Tell it to the people who can't find coverage, and therefore are denied treatment.

That's roughly 40 million Americans. Clear your schedule.

40 million? Can't find coverage? Denied coverage? Who's resorting to hyperbole now?

212 notreallyme  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:59:39am

re: #150 Charles

Please point out where I criticized parents of Down's children.

The posting this thread starts with:


If she’s talking about the provision for “end of life” counseling in the health care bill, it’s completely voluntary — nobody “has” to stand in front of any “death panel.” And this is a type of counseling offered by many insurance plans today.

The very words “death panel” are so over the top I can hardly believe she wrote them.

Can you say “fear mongering?”


She was not referring to end of life counseling, but to a rationing committee who effectively has the choice of life or death over someone requesting treatment from them.

Depending upon how you look at it, they can be the "life saving panel" who provides life saving treatment to those they approve, or as Palin sees it, a "death panel" who decides who does not get treatment and probably dies.

Her point is that due to the panel's rulings some people will die needlessly, and from the experience parents of down's children have had with the UK and Canadian systems, (but not the Israeli), it is a forgone conclusion that if down's child has to go before them to get life saving treatment, it will be refused and they will die.

As the parent of a down's child she is expressing a valid concern based upon the experience of others. Calling it "fear mongering" tries to make her concern seem unfounded, which it most certainly is not. That is criticism of Sarah Palin, parent of a down's child, all parents of down's children and possibly all parents of special needs children, who will be faced with the same panel with the same rules and results.

Geoff.

213 satan sidekick  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 11:59:54am

re: #205 Chekote

They either delay or deny treatment.

How is that any different than letting people die? A panel will make the decision to delay or deny treatment. I consider that a death panel.

214 wahabicorridor  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:00:48pm

re: #203 SanFranciscoZionist

If we're really going to have this debate, can we stop pretending that people aren't going broker than broke trying to stay alive under our current system? Or that people aren't deeply deeply afraid of what will happen if they can't keep their current coverage?

I doubt if there's a lizard around who isn't aware of some other lizard's struggle with this.
I don't think there is anyone who thinks there aren't LOTS of improvements that could be made.

But many of us think what is being proposed will simply make things much much worse.

215 albusteve  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:00:51pm

re: #211 Desert Dog

40 million? Can't find coverage? Denied coverage? Who's resorting to hyperbole now?

another LIE!...it's all LIES!

216 Chekote  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:01:00pm

re: #17 NukeAtomrod

Palin is, most likely, overstating the problem here, but the question remains: When there's no more money in the public heath care budget, who will the government choose to deny treatment to? By what criteria will they make the decision?

You are raising an important point in a reasonable way. Palin is talking death panels and the killing of Down Syndrome babies. It is over the top.

217 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:01:35pm

re: #207 EmmmieG

Okay, so like here, teeth and eyes are considered separate and usually covered separately.

If the Canadian MP had a realistic option to get her mastectomy up there, why did she come down here? What might be available is not the same as what is actually available.

They just passed universal health coverage in Oregon for kids. They admit that in Portland, you might not be able to find a doctor that will take the government plan. Theoretical is not the same as actual.

That's my fear about government care--that the reality (not the theory, but the reality) will be horrible and clogged with red tape and paperwork.

OK, that's reasonable.

Laying my cards on the table, I do not believe we will go to a universal government-only plan ever in the U.S., so much of the worry about this seems rather silly to me.

And I've lived in Britain, and honestly, more horror stories here than there in my immediate circle.

Canada, I agree, does seem to have some fairly big issues.

218 Chekote  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:02:50pm

re: #213 satan sidekick

The insurance companies currently make decisions about covering or not covering treatment. Has anyone ever suggested that they had death panels? Socialized medicine rations care. People still have the option of seeking private treatment. There is no order of killing people off.

219 Wendya  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:03:01pm

re: #201 iceweasel

Palin lied. I find it extraordinary that anyone here wants to defend her statement. She lied.


Under Obama care, life and death decisions are going to be made by number crunchers. Do you really deny that?

220 nonic  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:03:14pm

re: #196 Cato the Elder

Sounds sort of like what Obama is proposing. A mix.

But apparently, when Obama says "if you like your insurance, you can keep it," he is not telling you about the part that says if there is any change at all in your plan, the insurance company is not allowed to write a new policy, and your only choice will be to go to the exchange.

Also, if your employer decides it makes more economic sense to pay the percentage penalty for not offering insurance, that puts you out and, again, then you must go to the exchange.

I've read very reputable sources say that within about 5 years, nearly everyone will be on the "public option."

221 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:03:31pm

re: #214 wahabicorridor

I doubt if there's a lizard around who isn't aware of some other lizard's struggle with this.
I don't think there is anyone who thinks there aren't LOTS of improvements that could be made.

But many of us think what is being proposed will simply make things much much worse.

Thank you. I'm getting a little tense about this, because discussions of what's wrong right now tend to get brushed off with "Well, you can just find the money." or "Well, if the government controls it it will be worse." That's not taking people's problems and fears seriously. And we need to do that--fear is how we got into this mess.

222 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:03:46pm

re: #203 SanFranciscoZionist

But, if we were on the government plan, would your father get the treatment he is getting?

Being told you are covered for chemotherapy, but you can't schedule it for seven weeks is not a good thing.

They did a study on a US population and a Canadian population with comparable genetics. If you got cancer, you were more likely to die from it in Canada than in America. It was attributed to the wait time.

223 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:04:56pm

re: #220 nonic

But apparently, when Obama says "if you like your insurance, you can keep it," he is not telling you about the part that says if there is any change at all in your plan, the insurance company is not allowed to write a new policy, and your only choice will be to go to the exchange.

Also, if your employer decides it makes more economic sense to pay the percentage penalty for not offering insurance, that puts you out and, again, then you must go to the exchange.

I've read very reputable sources say that within about 5 years, nearly everyone will be on the "public option."

Do they have the whole thing up on the net yet? Can someone link me?

224 Desert Dog  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:05:31pm

re: #220 nonic

But apparently, when Obama says "if you like your insurance, you can keep it," he is not telling you about the part that says if there is any change at all in your plan, the insurance company is not allowed to write a new policy, and your only choice will be to go to the exchange.

Also, if your employer decides it makes more economic sense to pay the percentage penalty for not offering insurance, that puts you out and, again, then you must go to the exchange.

I've read very reputable sources say that within about 5 years, nearly everyone will be on the "public option."

Yes, it is disingenuous of Obama to claim "if you like your insurance, you can keep it", and he knows it. Technically, he is correct. But, here in the real world, his plan is designed to chip away at and eventually replace just about everyone's coverage with the government plan.

225 notreallyme  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:05:33pm

re: #196 Cato the Elder

Sounds sort of like what Obama is proposing. A mix.

What a terrible, terrible idea!

Actually, it works quite well. Everyone gets good coverage, and doctors are free to see patients privately. Supplemental insurance is cheap because everyone already has basic insurance. There is no problem with people working low paying or part time jobs, they already have health insurance.

Geoff.

226 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:06:13pm

re: #221 SanFranciscoZionist

Thank you. I'm getting a little tense about this, because discussions of what's wrong right now tend to get brushed off with "Well, you can just find the money." or "Well, if the government controls it it will be worse." That's not taking people's problems and fears seriously. And we need to do that--fear is how we got into this mess.

Okay, here's one real-world solution I would like to see:

When you go on COBRA, you can only get the insurance you were on before, which for a family is about $1,000 a month. How many people can go on that when they are laid off?

What if insurance companies could also offer,as part of COBRA, major-medical (I call it hit by a bus insurance) to those families? It would be a lot cheaper, and they wouldn't worry that a car accident or sudden illness would destroy the family?

227 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:06:29pm

re: #219 Wendya

Under Obama care, life and death decisions are going to be made by number crunchers. Do you really deny that?

Yes, Wendya, I do. This is a lie being spread by other fearmongerers. The same people convincing medicare recipents to stand up at town halls and scream hysterically about their opposition to government being involved in medicine.
Liars, fools, or both. In most cases simply scared people who have been lied to.

228 wahabicorridor  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:06:41pm

re: #218 Chekote

Has anyone ever suggested that they had death panels?

The family of a 17-year-old leukemia patient blamed Cigna Corp. on Friday for her death, saying the health insurance giant's initial refusal to pay for a liver transplant contributed to her death.
"They took my daughter away from me," said Nataline Sarkisyan's father, Krikor, with tears in his eyes at a news conference at his lawyer's office.

The Philadelphia-based insurer had initially refused to pay for the procedure, saying it was experimental. The company reversed the decision Thursday as about 150 nurses and community members rallied outside of its office in Glendale in suburban Los Angeles. Nataline died just hours later.

229 Wendya  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:07:02pm

re: #218 Chekote

The insurance companies currently make decisions about covering or not covering treatment. Has anyone ever suggested that they had death panels? Socialized medicine rations care. People still have the option of seeking private treatment. There is no order of killing people off.

I see a difference between a private company, who you voluntarily contracted with denying a claim and a government system that forces you to pay denying treatment. Are you going to sue the government?

230 nonic  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:07:04pm

re: #204 iceweasel

Tell it to the people who can't find coverage, and therefore are denied treatment.

That's roughly 40 million Americans. Clear your schedule.

I realize I may be talking about almost economic impossibility for some people -- but the fact remains, that if they can find the money, they can get the treatment.

NOT TO MENTION, that charities will step forward, and that hospitals and doctors treat many, many people who never pay.

231 ladycatnip  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:07:22pm

#212 notreallyme

As the parent of a down's child she is expressing a valid concern based upon the experience of others. Calling it "fear mongering" tries to make her concern seem unfounded, which it most certainly is not. That is criticism of Sarah Palin, parent of a down's child, all parents of down's children and possibly all parents of special needs children, who will be faced with the same panel with the same rules and results.

Completely agree with you. Those panels will not be kindly disposed to supporting a special needs child, as $$$ is always be the bottom line in socialized medicine. Ironic, that these leftists accuse insurance companies of that same bottom line, but then want to impose their bottom line on the entire nation - of course, while they themselves will have access to a much better version of health care for all the elitists - as in not rationed.

232 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:07:53pm

re: #222 EmmmieG

But, if we were on the government plan, would your father get the treatment he is getting?

Being told you are covered for chemotherapy, but you can't schedule it for seven weeks is not a good thing.

They did a study on a US population and a Canadian population with comparable genetics. If you got cancer, you were more likely to die from it in Canada than in America. It was attributed to the wait time.

I wonder what the wait is like at County General?

233 Chekote  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:07:56pm

What happens in countries with socialized medicine is that the middle class ends up paying twice for their healthcare. Higher taxes to fund the public system and they usually end up purchasing private insurance so that they can go to private clinics. What Americans are upset about is the high costs and Obama's plan does NOTHING to address this. That should be the focus of the debate. Not conjuring up images of death panels.

234 FightingBack  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:08:04pm

Medicare has worked pretty well for the patients; that's why elderly folks mistakenly say, "Keep the Gov't away from my Medicare." But Medicare is bankrupt. And it is impossible to sustain the same level of coverage, considering population shifts, the Boomers, etc.

Cutting costs should include Tort Reform (the hidden cost of defensive medicine) and reducing free care for small problems: keep "insurance" for catastrophic usage only.

235 satan sidekick  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:08:04pm

re: #218 Chekote

Insurance companies cover whatever was stated in your coverage and do not make judgments on whether or not you are a "participating or non-participating citizen"

Don't you see the difference?

236 FamHistoryGuy  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:08:10pm

re: #41 Cato the Elder

You seem to letting your hate for her run out of control.

237 Wendya  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:08:11pm

re: #220 nonic

But apparently, when Obama says "if you like your insurance, you can keep it," he is not telling you about the part that says if there is any change at all in your plan, the insurance company is not allowed to write a new policy, and your only choice will be to go to the exchange.

Also, if your employer decides it makes more economic sense to pay the percentage penalty for not offering insurance, that puts you out and, again, then you must go to the exchange.

I've read very reputable sources say that within about 5 years, nearly everyone will be on the "public option."

Obama is also conveniently forgetting to mention if your plan doesn't meet the government's "qualifying standards", you will be fined each year as if you had no insurance.

238 satan sidekick  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:09:14pm

re: #223 SanFranciscoZionist

Go to [Link: www.house.gov...] and search for HR3200 - that's the Health Care Bill.

239 ladycatnip  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:09:29pm

#220 nonic

Also, if your employer decides it makes more economic sense to pay the percentage penalty for not offering insurance, that puts you out and, again, then you must go to the exchange.

I've read very reputable sources say that within about 5 years, nearly everyone will be on the "public option."

As the Won is always saying, "You get to keep your health care if you like it." What he's not saying is whether or not your employer will want to keep it. Given the choice of cheap government insurance or costly private insurance, I can pretty much bet most employers would eventually opt into the gov plan. So, all this choice? Not much.

240 Rich H  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:09:36pm

re: #96 SanFranciscoZionist

What kind of medicine does not ration care? Right now we do it according to coverage, and how much you can pay for.

I don't know. I was flat-out denied coverage a few years ago, due to a pre-existing big butt, so I'm a tad skeptical of capitalist medicine too. (Covered now, thank. Being employed trumps being fat.)

48 cents of every health care dollar in the US is spent by the government. That can hardly be characterized as capitalist medicine.

Capitalism uses prices to cause people to ration themselves. High prices encourage people to increase supply.

Centrally directed rationing, in contrast, decreases the supply by suppressing prices. This results in shortages. Less to go around for everybody (except the elites). Remember the gas lines in the '70's?

241 debutaunt  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:09:38pm

re: #204 iceweasel

Tell it to the people who can't find coverage, and therefore are denied treatment.

That's roughly 40 million Americans. Clear your schedule.

Is there a link showing the breakdown of the 40 million Americans?

242 Randall Gross  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:09:42pm

re: #189 EmmmieG

Right now, my private health insurance covers most everything that is not cosmetic, experimental, or not really a health care treatment (candling, for example.) I'm okay with the fact that if I wanted silicone in my chest, I'd have to pay for it.

We're really not rich, and couldn't afford to pay privately if the system were switched to government.

Right, but do you doubt that rich people can get better care than what's allotted in your plan?

243 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:09:45pm

re: #238 satan sidekick

Go to [Link:

244 Cato the Elder  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:10:34pm

re: #225 notreallyme

Actually, it works quite well. Everyone gets good coverage, and doctors are free to see patients privately. Supplemental insurance is cheap because everyone already has basic insurance. There is no problem with people working low paying or part time jobs, they already have health insurance.

Geoff.

I was agreeing with you, in a backhanded way. That's what I think the big compromise here is (or should be) trying to accomplish - a mixed system. I think copying Israel's system here in America would be a great idea. But the idea of "everybody having basic insurance" seems to upset a lot of folks.

And Lord help us if we tried to adopt anything Israeli - the wingnuts, Birchers, crypto-Nazis and all the rest would really come out of the woodwork.

245 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:10:58pm

re: #240 Rich H

48 cents of every health care dollar in the US is spent by the government. That can hardly be characterized as capitalist medicine.

Capitalism uses prices to cause people to ration themselves. High prices encourage people to increase supply.

Centrally directed rationing, in contrast, decreases the supply by suppressing prices. This results in shortages. Less to go around for everybody (except the elites). Remember the gas lines in the '70's?

So we have a mixed system. And we're tinkering with it. And the end is nigh. GOT IT.

And who are the 'elites' in this case? Teddy Kennedy? He's richer than God, and under any system will have nice coverage.

246 Chekote  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:11:23pm

re: #229 Wendya


You are going off course. I don't support Obama's plan. However, the discussion here is about using effective tactics and language to defeat his plan. I don't believe that using language like "death panels" or suggesting that Trig will have to stand in front of a death panel is effective. Quite the contrary. I think it will allow the Dems to regain their footing. To me death panels are about as effective as Pelosi calling the townhall protesters racists.

247 satan sidekick  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:11:24pm

re: #243 SanFranciscoZionist

Did your reply get cut off?

248 wahabicorridor  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:11:56pm

re: #233 Chekote

What Americans are upset about is the high costs and Obama's plan does NOTHING to address this. That should be the focus of the debate. Not conjuring up images of death panels.

Oh, I can focus on more than one thing at a time, thanks just the same.

249 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:11:58pm

re: #247 satan sidekick

Did your reply get cut off?

Think so. I was just thanking for the link.

250 FightingBack  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:11:58pm

re: #226 EmmmieG

I wish. Like your home's Fire policy. Doesn't pay to fix the dishwasher. But in my State, selling such coverage is illegal. It's the Full Well Coverage, or nothing. No catastrophic policies permitted.

251 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:12:13pm

re: #237 Wendya

Obama is also conveniently forgetting to mention if your plan doesn't meet the government's "qualifying standards", you will be fined each year as if you had no insurance.

That is also untrue. [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

252 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:12:47pm

Husband wants computer. Bye for now.

253 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:13:41pm

re: #250 FightingBack

I wish. Like your home's Fire policy. Doesn't pay to fix the dishwasher. But in my State, selling such coverage is illegal. It's the Full Well Coverage, or nothing. No catastrophic policies permitted.

15 years ago, when we were faced with being uncovered, we were going to pay for catastrophic for my husband, and more coverage for my baby daughter and I. (The reason I was going to have the better coverage was the maternity coverage.)

Luckily, he got a new job before then.

254 satan sidekick  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:13:49pm

re: #249 SanFranciscoZionist

You're welcome. It very hard to read because it's repetitive and in legalese but everyone should at least scan through it.

255 Racer X  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:15:08pm

I try to like Sarah, I really do. She keeps talking and it gets harder.

With that said, ALL politicians LIE!

Obama Lied
Bush Lied
Clinton Lied
Biden - heck when is he NOT lying?

The trick is not fooling yourself into thinking everything they spout is truth, and recognizing and ADMITTING when they lie.

256 nonic  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:16:02pm

re: #162 Thanos

Wrong. Show me where it says that someone on Medicare can't elect to pay for a surgery out of pocket.

That's what I'm trying to find out. Do you have personal experience?

I think it's a matter of finding a doctor who is not in the Medicare system. See #161. And that would probably be pretty difficult. Anyway, surgery is usually done by a surgeon, and then you'd have to have another doctor (not with Medicare?) who can do follow up. And what about the anesthesiologist?

257 SixDegrees  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:16:02pm

For what it's worth, private insurance coverage denies claims and treatments all the time. A coworker who is fully covered by our company's plan has an autistic son, and a lot of the treatments he'd like to apply aren't covered by insurance, even though our plan is excellent.

Also, most major surgical procedures are now denied to elderly patients simply because they're not fit enough to survive. At 86, my grandmother was stricken with congestive heart failure, and - for the first time - found out that the arteries to her heart were massively blocked with plaque. A quadruple bypass would have been necessary to address the issue, but there wasn't a doctor around who would perform the operation because the prognosis for her survival was so poor. She died about six months later, during which time she was reasonably happy and comfortable, unlike what she would have faced following a major surgery like this, had she survived it in the first place.

So concerns about denial of coverage due to age or health or other prognosis isn't unique to government plans. Such decisions are made on a daily basis right now under conventional plans, which have, somewhere, a board that sits around deciding which procedures to cover and which not to cover under what circumstances. While this may be a valid concern, criticisms need to be directed against private insurance companies as well, who are every bit as culpable in such matters.

258 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:16:24pm

re: #255 Racer X

I try to like Sarah, I really do. She keeps talking and it gets harder.

With that said, ALL politicians LIE!

Obama Lied
Bush Lied
Clinton Lied
Biden - heck when is he NOT lying?

The trick is not fooling yourself into thinking everything they spout is truth, and recognizing and ADMITTING when they lie.

Is it lying if you are so stupid you think its true? Just pondering.

259 Desert Dog  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:17:04pm

re: #244 Cato the Elder

I was agreeing with you, in a backhanded way. That's what I think the big compromise here is (or should be) trying to accomplish - a mixed system. I think copying Israel's system here in America would be a great idea. But the idea of "everybody having basic insurance" seems to upset a lot of folks.

And Lord help us if we tried to adopt anything Israeli - the wingnuts, Birchers, crypto-Nazis and all the rest would really come out of the woodwork.

We already have a mixed system that works pretty good. We need to come up with a method for containing the costs without reducing the coverage. That is possible with a mixture of private and government systems. Let's just fix what we have now.

260 Chekote  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:18:37pm
We already have a mixed system that works pretty good. We need to come up with a method for containing the costs without reducing the coverage. That is possible with a mixture of private and government systems. Let's just fix what we have now.

BINGO!!!

261 notreallyme  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:18:49pm

re: #196 Cato the Elder

Sounds sort of like what Obama is proposing. A mix.

What a terrible, terrible idea!


Actually, it works quite well. Everyone gets good coverage, and doctors are free to see patients privately. Supplemental insurance is cheap because everyone already has basic insurance. There is no problem with people working low paying or part time jobs, they already have health insurance.

Geoff.

262 wahabicorridor  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:19:05pm

re: #257 SixDegrees

Nice post. I would just like to note the following:

NO DOCTOR THOUGHT SHE WOULD SURVIVE.

That prognosis was made by physicians. It was not a cost/benefit analysis by the green eye-shade crowd.

263 SixDegrees  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:19:07pm

re: #219 Wendya

Under Obama care, life and death decisions are going to be made by number crunchers. Do you really deny that?

That's who they're made by now under private coverage. Number crunching is the heart and soul of the insurance industry. Their rates, who they cover and what ailments and treatments they will pay for are all determined by actuarial tables and statistical analysis.

A better question is: why does the government need to take on this role when the private sector already handles it efficiently, and provides coverage for roughly 90% of the entire population?

264 nonic  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:19:09pm

re: #195 Desert Dog

Get a supplemental plan (Part B). My parents have one through AARP right now, but they have had others as well. It fills in the gaps that the Part A coverage does not. Your private insurance will start going higher and higher.

I know I need to get Medigap insurance. But I won't buy anything from AARP. Look them up, even on Wikipedia. The org was founded by an insurance salesman as a means of getting the oldies to buy policies. That's where they make all their money. The "senior advocacy" is only a front -- which is why they are supporting ObamaCare.

265 Wendya  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:19:16pm

re: #246 Chekote

You are going off course.

That doesn't address what I actually said.

266 Racer X  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:19:28pm

re: #258 EmmmieG

Is it lying if you are so stupid you think its true? Just pondering.

LOL!

Precisely why politicians should never be idolized by the masses.

Are you listening Obamabots?

267 FightingBack  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:19:59pm

re: #257 SixDegrees

While this may be a valid concern, criticisms need to be directed against private insurance companies as well, who are every bit as culpable in such matters.

They are already regulated by our friends in the Gov't. Not too effectively, IMHO.

268 Desert Dog  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:20:21pm

re: #264 nonic

I know I need to get Medigap insurance. But I won't buy anything from AARP. Look them up, even on Wikipedia. The org was founded by an insurance salesman as a means of getting the oldies to buy policies. That's where they make all their money. The "senior advocacy" is only a front -- which is why they are supporting ObamaCare.

I know AARP is a crazy bunch of lefties, but they came in cheapest...and, my father is a champion penny pincher

269 Duane  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:20:49pm

I think she is talking about the "quality adjusted life year" aspect. Do YOU trust the government to decide how much your life is worth? I sure don't.

270 Wendya  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:22:12pm

re: #263 SixDegrees

That's who they're made by now under private coverage. Number crunching is the heart and soul of the insurance industry. Their rates, who they cover and what ailments and treatments they will pay for are all determined by actuarial tables and statistical analysis.


I understand that. My point was with private insurance, you voluntarily enter into the contract. Under Obama care, you are mandated and it's the government, not a private company setting limits.

271 wahabicorridor  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:23:59pm

re: #257 SixDegrees

but there wasn't a doctor around who would perform the operation because the prognosis for her survival was so poor.

I should also note that the same decision was made regarding my mother when her cancer was discovered. She was 88 and there was no way she would have survived any treatment. All care was palliative - and THAT btw, was excellent. She never saw oxycontin until about 7 hrs before she died. And she was kept comfortable enough to die in her own damn bed.

272 ladycatnip  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:25:19pm

#204 iceweasel

Tell it to the people who can't find coverage, and therefore are denied treatment.

That's roughly 40 million Americans. Clear your schedule.

You wouldn't have an alter ego named trendsurfer here at LGF, would you?

NOBODY is denied treatment here in the U.S. We have county hospitals that take those without insurance OR finances to pay; we have free county health clinics. As I stated on a different thread, some doctor's don't take Blue Shield or Medicare, others do. But to say treatment is denied is a flat-out lie.

273 nonic  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:26:18pm

re: #200 FightingBack

It's complex. It'll take a lot of frustrating research on your part to weigh the difference in payments under the changed arrangements that you will face. But, as a Doc, I always say that it's best to have things taken care of when the care is available. No one can predict the future, or the change in your basic health, etc.
Best Wishes.

Thanks very much.
Hope you see this.

274 alexknyc  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:26:18pm

re: #175 EmmmieG

So, then we really will be in a system where the rich can get better health care than the rest of us?

They already do.

275 satan sidekick  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:28:48pm

re: #272 ladycatnip

You can get coverage if you really want it. assuranthealth.com has plans for everyone. They won't cover pre-existing conditions for the first 6 months however. What I think would be the best option is anyone who has been denied coverage and the poor should be able to buy into Medicaid and the premium should be based on a sliding scale.

As for those who make over 50K per year and don't have health insurance, they should be able to buy at least catastrophic coverage on their own.

As far as illegal immigrants - not my problem.

276 wahabicorridor  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:29:28pm

re: #272 ladycatnip

As I stated on a different thread, some doctor's don't take Blue Shield or Medicare, others do.

And that's ANOTHER thing that pisses me off. When I was employed in the corporate world, my employer's insurance company was dropped by my doc.

Why? Because they never paid their bills.

Over the years, and talking to health care providers, I've begun to suspect that behavior like that is deliberate. Don't pay the bills, lose the docs and thereby effectively lose any liability for patient claims.

277 wrenchwench  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:30:12pm

re: #257 SixDegrees

Even individuals make such decisions. I know a woman whose husband is in his early sixties and was recently diagnosed with cancer. He has decided to seek no treatment for it. It has metastasized, and otherwise all I know is he had surgery to remove a mass from his neck, and he never even went to an oncologist. He's a nurse, so supposedly he knows what the treatment would cosist of, and he doesn't want it. He didn't even like the recovery from his surgery.

278 unrealizedviewpoint  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:30:25pm

Nancy and the Astroturfers

279 ladycatnip  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:31:14pm

#175 EmmmieG

So, then we really will be in a system where the rich can get better health care than the rest of us?

Under this health care scam, Capital Hill, federal employees and union employees will be EXEMPT from having this rationed-care. They will have the creme de la creme of health care that they enjoy now.

When representatives in these TH meetings are asked whether they'll be using this same health care, they never answer that question.

280 wahabicorridor  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:33:13pm

re: #279 ladycatnip

They will have the creme de la creme of health care that they enjoy now.

Until all the private insurers go out of business, anyway.

281 dwells38  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:33:58pm

re: #69 Cato the Elder

Yet 89% rate their care overall as good or better and appear to be satisfied. What they rate low is other people's care which seems to imply the media and people like you are likely affecting their perception by characterising the current system as flawed.

They need to make a better argument for making dramatic changes. And as is now obvious Obama's ideas and instincts have him constantly walking into serious unforseen consequences and/or resulting in the need to make 180% turns on his positions. Such as denying he wants single payer after having stated flatly that he wants a single payer system (he just needs to get in power first).

282 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:34:55pm

re: #277 wrenchwench

Even individuals make such decisions. I know a woman whose husband is in his early sixties and was recently diagnosed with cancer. He has decided to seek no treatment for it. It has metastasized, and otherwise all I know is he had surgery to remove a mass from his neck, and he never even went to an oncologist. He's a nurse, so supposedly he knows what the treatment would cosist of, and he doesn't want it. He didn't even like the recovery from his surgery.


A few years ago my grandmother contract a virus that did major damage to her heart. Medications kept her alive for seven years, then the medications finally managed to destroy her kidneys.

The doctor laid out her choices: Go into the ICU and live for a month. Go into a hospice and live for two weeks. Go home and live for a week.

She went to my mother's home, and my mother fixed up the dining room with a hospital bed and beautiful things and lots of pictures of the family. My aunts and uncles and cousins all came down to spend the week with grandma.

I have more appreciation than you can imagine for Grandma's brave decision. It was only brave and beautiful, though, because she made it, and would not have been the same thing at all if it had been made for her.

283 alexknyc  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:35:39pm

re: #220 nonic

Also, if your employer decides it makes more economic sense to pay the percentage penalty for not offering insurance, that puts you out and, again, then you must go to the exchange.

Here is the crux of the issue for me. If there's a government-run program, what incentive does my employer have to continue to pay for my coverage? If the fine involved is less than the cost of the insurance, what employer will continue to cover the insurance?

284 ladycatnip  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:36:58pm

#275 satan sidekick

You can get coverage if you really want it. assuranthealth.com has plans for everyone. They won't cover pre-existing conditions for the first 6 months however. What I think would be the best option is anyone who has been denied coverage and the poor should be able to buy into Medicaid and the premium should be based on a sliding scale.

As for those who make over 50K per year and don't have health insurance, they should be able to buy at least catastrophic coverage on their own.

As far as illegal immigrants - not my problem.

The 40 million is inflated by including the following - those in between jobs w/o insurance temporarily, those on Cobra, and those who opt not to have insurance, non-citizens who are here illegally - all these inflate the numbers.
Either way, there is still medical care available for those in need through county clinics and hospitals.

285 SixDegrees  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:37:14pm

re: #277 wrenchwench

Even individuals make such decisions. I know a woman whose husband is in his early sixties and was recently diagnosed with cancer. He has decided to seek no treatment for it. It has metastasized, and otherwise all I know is he had surgery to remove a mass from his neck, and he never even went to an oncologist. He's a nurse, so supposedly he knows what the treatment would cosist of, and he doesn't want it. He didn't even like the recovery from his surgery.

Grandma made the decision not to press the issue; she probably could have raised hell and scared up some doctor, somewhere to do the surgery if she really wanted it. But she didn't. She had a couple more heart attacks over the next six months, spent the time getting her already orderly affairs into shape, signed a DNR order and said goodbye to everyone.

286 wahabicorridor  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:38:33pm

re: #283 alexknyc

Here is the crux of the issue for me. If there's a government-run program, what incentive does my employer have to continue to pay for my coverage? If the fine involved is less than the cost of the insurance, what employer will continue to cover the insurance?

There is only one way the employer continues to provide insurance.
Competition for talent in a business that absolutely requires the best employees they can find.

287 wrenchwench  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:41:22pm

re: #282 EmmmieG

re: #285 SixDegrees

I also had a customer tell me recently about her 102 year old grandmother who just got a new knee. That's the one I hope to emulate!

288 notreallyme  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:44:17pm

re: #286 wahabicorridor

There is only one way the employer continues to provide insurance.
Competition for talent in a business that absolutely requires the best employees they can find.

The incentive for that is that a hi-tech startup usually has it's brains in a handful of older people, and a lot of young "worker bees" who do things to keep the investors thinking progress is being made. The worker bees need no health insurance because they think they can work 16 hour days and can live forever, the real brains behind the operation know better and need it.

It's part of the reality that the people make the start-up and create the new technology, versus the perception that the money and existing technology do.

Geoff.

289 alexknyc  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:45:11pm

re: #286 wahabicorridor

There is only one way the employer continues to provide insurance.
Competition for talent in a business that absolutely requires the best employees they can find.

I'm a high school teacher so that leaves me out in the cold.

290 wahabicorridor  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:49:22pm

re: #289 alexknyc

I'm a high school teacher so that leaves me out in the cold.

Not necessarily. You belong to the NEA? I believe unions are exempt from thewhole nine yards, (the rationale being that they self-fund).

291 debutaunt  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:52:41pm

re: #268 Desert Dog

I know AARP is a crazy bunch of lefties, but they came in cheapest...and, my father is a champion penny pincher

Yeah, but AARP is using the dues to oppress me.

292 group28  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:55:24pm

Washington Post's Charles Lane on Section 1233, Advance Care Planning Consultation
[Link: volokh.com...]

"Columnist Charles Lane - full disclosure, an old friend and a journalist who I have admired going all the way back to his Central America days in the 1980s - has a striking piece in today's Washington Post, 'Undue Influence: the House Bill Skews End-of-Life Counsel.'"

293 nonic  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 12:56:19pm

re: #203 SanFranciscoZionist

Being denied coverage IS the same as being denied treatment if the money is not available.

I'm not sure that this health plan is a good idea, but I do know that if my mother gets laid off from work, my father will be uninsurable, and we DON'T HAVE the money to pay for the kind of care he's currently getting.

If we're really going to have this debate, can we stop pretending that people aren't going broker than broke trying to stay alive under our current system? Or that people aren't deeply deeply afraid of what will happen if they can't keep their current coverage?

Do you consider whether your father would be ALLOWED the treatment he needs under a stringent public plan?

I DO NOT argue that people are going broker than broke. I currently pay about $20K a year for insurance -- which means I cannot afford to GO TO the doctor, since my co-pay would be 30%. I pay for this insurance only so that there will be something in case I have a heart attack or stroke and my family calls the ambulance.

I'm going on Medicare in 7 months, so I'm pretty much screwed whatever happens with ObamaCare. Already, without ObamaCare, there is scheduled a 20% cut in payments to physicians for next year. And, already, even at the current payment rates, I have read that up to a third of new Medicare enrollees cannot find a doctor who will take them -- it pays so little, they lose money on patients and don't want more.

I think MOST of us are in a very scary situation over healthcare. And being RUSHED by Obama and the dems into a whole new system that we don't understand is not helping make anyone feel secure. Well, except for the usual dodo's who trust in everything they HOPE for and don't think CHANGE can possibly be for the worse.

294 group28  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 1:00:14pm

Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions
[Link: www.ncpa.org...]

Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classifi ed into four categories: treating people equally, favouring
the worst-off , maximising total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined
into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.

295 Ayeless in Ghazi  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 1:00:48pm

Every time Palin makes a statement, she seems to get sillier. For those who dream that she's going to suddenly improve and turn into a super smart, super sharp politician - forget it, it ain't gonna happen.

296 Mauser  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 1:03:55pm

I had a pretty dangerous idea the other day that if it gets out, could cause Liberals to oppose the National Healthcare Plan. The danger is, this same idea could cause Conservatives to support it.

Let's say the plan gets passed, and everyone is eventually forced onto the national plan. Then there's a turnover in Congress, and Republicans decide to pass a bill that says, Oh, I dunno, that no NHP funds shall be spent on Abortion. They can effectively ban abortion without having to TOUCH Roe v. Wade. And to make it extra nasty, they could add a provision that says that any doctor who provides an abortion shall be ineligible to receive NHP funds for life, effectively making providing an abortion a career-ending move.

That thought alone should give liberals pause about giving the Government control over the entire medical system. But then, they never think about the unintended consequences.

297 Roger  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 1:06:37pm

For years, my folks with low income, had to pay double for the most basic of educations for me and my siblings; public school money and also for small rural church school donations. Public schools in my area were filled with kids taught to hate kids from my ethnicity. To protect their children from constant ridicule, they did what they had to do. Many people like them did and are doing the same and only succeed by hard work, perseverance and not spending money on things like beer so they can pay off the extra burden of government instead and raise their children with what is left. President Obama is now trying to get the same thing going on health care. Force productive people to pay double. He definitely isn't putting together a "life" panel. To have good health care a civilization needs to grow it; nurture it. Needs to let people know it is worth studying for decades and advancing medical knowledge, practice and techniques beyond the dull unimaginative bureaucrat's stunted comprehensions. For example, it is the only way a team of doctors at Hershey Medical accomplish reattaching a boy's arm successfully even though the boy did not have a farthing to pay them. Let the wealthy get the "bestest" [sometimes a bit too risky for me] care. I'm glad for them. Then let health care continue following one of its complimentary industries, the semiconductor industry. Faster and cheaper and more and more fantastic advances. p.s. many moons later and I have 4 advanced degrees so my folk's sacrifices in the tough years did good. p.s.s. Tom Daschle can kiss my grits. What a dullard. [Link: www.amazon.com...]

298 Roger  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 1:07:41pm

Where'd my paragraphs go?

299 Roger  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 1:09:38pm

If the gov'ment wants to assist with health care they can fix the roads bwetween people and medical centers.

300 nonic  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 1:14:53pm

re: #223 SanFranciscoZionist

Do they have the whole thing up on the net yet? Can someone link me?

Probably someone got to this before me, but in case not:
[Link: edlabor.house.gov...]

301 [deleted]  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 1:16:49pm
302 Roger  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 1:19:05pm

President Bush sends 48 billion for AIDS in Africa. President Obama has to one up him and sends 63 billion. No oversight, we don't know where the money went or is going. But we do know what comes back; [Link: www.newvision.co.ug...] That's a lot of dough that could be better used toward finding cures. Then go to Africa and around the world armed with a chance for success.

303 funky chicken  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 1:20:47pm

re: #13 Charles

Do people really think the conservative cause is helped when Sarah Palin throws around words like, "Obama's death panel?"

The fact of the matter is that we spend way, way too much money on end-of-life, futile medical interventions, and often on the frail elderly. Just visit an ICU and marvel at the folks who are "alive" only because of the tubes and machines that are piercing so many parts of their bodies.

Personally, I'd rather go to Dignitas...but I wouldn't force anybody to make the same decision. I'm just not a fan of keeping comatose end-stage Alzheimer's patients "alive" in ICUs, and having family members force hospitals/doctors to "do everything"...because it's free via Medicare.

304 funky chicken  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 1:21:46pm

re: #302 Roger

That's one of the things Bush did that was just stupid and completely irresponsible.

305 alexknyc  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 1:28:09pm

re: #290 wahabicorridor

Not necessarily. You belong to the NEA? I believe unions are exempt from thewhole nine yards, (the rationale being that they self-fund).

No, I work for a small, private school.

I'm screwed.

306 EaterOfFood  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 1:33:05pm

re: #140 Wendya

Canada and Britain both go that far. The only way everyone gets the absolute best coverage on the government dime is if there is an unlimited source of money. There are limits as to how much we can be taxed without tanking the economy and you just can't print up some cash if Grandma needs a pacemaker.

Socialism is based upon the premise that Santa Claus is real and works for the government.

307 Gkyluig  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 1:33:57pm

Read the bill, Charles. Section 1177 grants the govt program "EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF SPECIAL NEEDS PLANS TO RESTRICT ENROLLMENT".

308 Charles Johnson  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 1:34:51pm

re: #307 Gkyluig

Read the bill, Charles. Section 1177 grants the govt program "EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF SPECIAL NEEDS PLANS TO RESTRICT ENROLLMENT".

It's a DEATH PANEL!

/panic

309 nonic  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 1:37:42pm

re: #250 FightingBack

I wish. Like your home's Fire policy. Doesn't pay to fix the dishwasher. But in my State, selling such coverage is illegal. It's the Full Well Coverage, or nothing. No catastrophic policies permitted.

Connecticut? I think I read that the standard policy there must include even hair transplants. Where I read that, the point was being made that this lobby and that lobby will push to have their business added as a requirement, thereby pushing up the cost of the insurance for everybody.

310 nonic  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 1:51:10pm

re: #279 ladycatnip

#175 EmmmieG


Under this health care scam, Capital Hill, federal employees and union employees will be EXEMPT from having this rationed-care. They will have the creme de la creme of health care that they enjoy now.

Do you think that a lot more industries might become unionized?

Hmm. Maybe that's the plan.

When representatives in these TH meetings are asked whether they'll be using this same health care, they never answer that question.

311 nonic  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 1:55:09pm

re: #284 ladycatnip

Also, people who qualify for Medicaid but haven't applied, so are not signed up. And illegal aliens, did you mention them?

312 SixDegrees  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 1:58:28pm

re: #307 Gkyluig

Read the bill, Charles. Section 1177 grants the govt program "EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF SPECIAL NEEDS PLANS TO RESTRICT ENROLLMENT".

Uh - you really ought to read the bill yourself, instead of simply cherry picking the title. This section contains language to allow grandfathering of existing Medicare and Medicaid programs that have been modified by States. The fact that the two words "SPECIAL NEEDS" occur next to each other has nothing to do with what you're implying.

This sort of garbage isn't helpful.

313 nonic  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 2:05:09pm

re: #296 Mauser

Diabolical. And brilliant.

314 satan sidekick  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 2:07:54pm

re: #313 nonic

I agree. As usual the libs are so anxious to enact their idea of utopia they aren't thinking in terms of the Republicans being in charge at some point (the sooner, the better, if you ask me)

315 nonic  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 2:12:43pm

re: #314 satan sidekick

LOL. You know, they say God works in mysterious ways. So, who knows?

316 pat  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 2:16:30pm

Missed the action, but she is talking about the board that determines the qualitative value of medical care. It will indeed be a death panel for some. It is in Britain where cancer treatment is unavailable under the NHS after the age of 75.

317 victor_yugo  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 2:22:10pm

We already have judges willing to order someone put to death, on the say-so of one person, with no objective corroboration whatsoever. No testimony from the condemned available. Not even a Living Will or a DNR order.

Who needs a Death Panel when the judiciary already has enough people who think they're just playing "Lifeboat"?

318 Danny  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 2:25:55pm

Can't believe spacejesus didn't show up on this one.

319 livfreeordie  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 2:38:25pm

I do think that Palin's choice of words was like throwing red meat into a cage to lure lions when the lions were already in the cage. Not a Country Club Republican or a smooth conservative approach. On the other hand check out Princeton University's (in)famous philosopher Peter Singer :
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
From the link:
Singer argues that newborns similarly lack the essential characteristics of personhood — "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[28] — and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."[29]

The kill "Down's syndrome babies" notion is out there. Certainly abortions are done based on such a diagnosis...Palin perhaps not wrong...The fact she is reading some Thomas Sowell is good...imho...

320 Mauser  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 2:54:41pm

re: #319 livfreeordie

Well, there WERE those on the left who told Palin she should have aborted Trig when she found out he'd have Downs Syndrome...

321 JRHelgeson  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 2:58:24pm

Read page 30:
SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The COMMITTEE determines what is covered, and why based upon the value to society.
There is no way to save money in they system outside of rationing... and tort reform. You can guess which one the administration will not even consider.

322 Icculus  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 3:01:43pm

If Obama really thinks that offering pain pills to elderly women instead of paying for a pacemaker makes sound fiscal sense in a health plan (which he said out loud, and in public), then I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that (given the much lower life expectancies of down syndrome children) maybe spending lots of capital treating obvious lost causes is a good way to save money. I mean, it's not like Trig might someday come up with a cure for cancer, and he'll be dead by 30-something at the most anyway, right? What, we're spending tax dollars on a bone marrow transplant? Get real!

You're losing me, Charles. This thing needs shooting down, and Sarah's not too far off base with this analysis, if you've read the bill (or the book, "Great Moderates in American History")

323 wahabicorridor  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 3:05:37pm

re: #322 Icculus

And if you've read Tom Daschle's book, you have a good idea of what Obama thinks is a good idea.

(one of the few books I actually wanted to burn - gave it to the library)

324 avspatti  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 3:13:39pm

re: #234 FightingBack


Cutting costs should include Tort Reform (the hidden cost of defensive medicine) and reducing free care for small problems: keep "insurance" for catastrophic usage only.

Thank you for mentioning tort reform! I don't suppose that is anywhere in what is being considered in DC, or is it? Catastrophic insurance might work if there is tort reform.

325 avspatti  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 3:15:30pm

re: #322 Icculus

I have read that many, many abortions are done on Down Syndrome babies. Anyone know it that is true or have a link?

Thanks.

326 retief_99  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 3:16:26pm

re: #10 Charles

Anyone who doesn't believe that the administration doesn't want government run health care is a fool. If it is established I guarantee there will be panels of medical experts who will decide for the doctor and the patient what is a cost effective treatment regimen. If you are a person with a non treatable condition such as Downs Syndrome, and suddenly you need some medical procedure, what are the chances the panel will vote that it is cost effective to treat you. Remeber their goal is to reduce costs. It happens all the time in England and Canada. I also believe that the possibility of you paying for the treatment yourself will also be restricted because you will be wasting valuble medical resources. Download the bill from Thomas.gov and read it..

327 Icculus  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 3:20:35pm

re: #325 avspatti

I don't have a link handy, but I remember it being a big deal that Sarah Palin didn't have an abortion when she had the pre-natal diagnosis. Some left wing commentators even discussed openly whether this was irresponsible.

328 Icculus  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 3:28:21pm

Here's some links I found pretty easily:

[Link: ruleofreason.blogspot.com...]

[Link: open.salon.com...]

Disgusting

329 ocdude  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 3:28:49pm

Just three things-

1.Slippery Slope.

2. It's one thing for a private insurance company to offer counseling which you can opt out of, up to and including a different insurance company, and putting the option in the hands of the government. Where would the power lie if you were unable to make a voluntary choice? Your family and loved ones that would have your interests at heart or the government?

3.Remember Terri Sciavo

330 GGMac  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 3:39:12pm

re: #8 Charles

She's pretty blatantly hinting at euthanasia.

Euthanasia regarding humans implies a choice willingly made for a peaceful end of life. I think it may be that what Palin is getting at (albeit alarmingly) is what would be the insurer's, ie, the gub-mint's "denial of care" in those cases where care has been deemed 'cost-inefficient'.

For anyone with a child whose 'condition' can't be cured or improved; for someone with elderly parents (and that's most of us - or is ourselves) that prospect of that as even a possibility is chilling.

There will be 'rationing' of care (as there is in other nations on socialized medicine), and the dollar will be the bottom line.

331 directorblue  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 3:46:03pm

re: #173 Thanos

Can you show that to me in the draft of the House bill?


Part of it was already implemented in the "Stimulus" package, which sends $1B+ to "outcome research" to be used in planning treatment protocols for government-run health care systems.

The $787 billion economic stimulus package, signed into law on Tuesday by President Barack Obama, will provide researchers with $1.1 billion to compare the effectiveness of different medical treatments, according to The New York Times.


This outcome management research will be fed to the Federal Health Board, a group of five individuals who will rule on all treatment protocols.

Also, there are at least five different versions of the bill that have been considered by various committees. Their markups have not been made public. However, HR 3300 has some interesting characteristics, including the creations of many different new organizations, boards and regulatory bodies.

Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Government will RESTRICT enrollment of special needs people!

PG 624 “Quality” measures shall be designed to assess outcomes and functional status of patients.

PG 624 “Quality” measures shall be designed to profile you including race, age, gender, place of residence, etc.

Pg 628 Sec 1443 Government will give “Multi-Stake Holders” Pre-Rule Making input into Selection of “Quality” Measures.

Pg 630 9-24/631 1-9 Those multi-stake holder groups include unions and groups like ACORN deciding health care quality.

Pg 632 Lines 14-25 The Government may implement any “Quality measure” of health care services as they see fit.

PG 633 14-25/ 634 1-9 The Secretary may issue non-endorsed “Quality Measures” for Physician Services and Dialysis Services.

PG 801 Sec 1751 The government will decide which health care conditions will be paid.

The major features in that version of the bill are described here.

332 GGMac  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 3:52:48pm

re: #327 Icculus

I don't have a link handy, but I remember it being a big deal that Sarah Palin didn't have an abortion when she had the pre-natal diagnosis. Some left wing commentators even discussed openly whether this was irresponsible.

There was also - on a lefty site - a picture post-card with a photo of Sarah Palin's baby son and a coat hanger. The caption was "Better luck next time"

There are no words to describe such vile thinking and behavior. Such people must eat maggots for breakfast, and if they had brains they'd play with them.

333 NoWhereAlaska  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 3:55:11pm

Interesting discussion.
My daughter was considering having a genetic test early in her pregnancy to determine if it was a Down’s child. She was afraid that if she knew, she wouldn’t know what to do. She heard enough of the ‘abortion as murder’ rhetoric that she was confused. I counseled her to have the test and if it came back positive, to abort. Over the years I have worked with many Down’s individuals, and would be aghast at a suggestion to euthanize anyone. But frankly, I would not want to bring another one into the world.
Using myself as a 'yardstick,' Palin's comments are less extreme than it appears on first blush.

334 GGMac  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 4:00:31pm

re: #328 Icculus

Very nice avatar. Where we live, there used to be a hot-air balloon with the Eye of Horus as its' theme. It was a beautiful sight to see - colors were a dull gold, with rust, green, and the 'eyes' in ddep, deep black. Stunning.

335 Roger  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 4:04:26pm

re: #323 wahabicorridor

And if you've read Tom Daschle's book, you have a good idea of what Obama thinks is a good idea.

(one of the few books I actually wanted to burn - gave it to the library)

lol! Didn't it bug yer conscience just a little?

336 Arbalest  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 4:06:38pm

I waded through my downloaded .pdf copy of HR3200. The document is 1017 pages long, and does not appear to contain any repeated sections. Thus, it looks like someone had a reasonably clear goal and plan in mind when writing HR3200.

I note a number of alarming items:

1. There are several instances of the form ~“Title nnn of the Social Secirity Act, Section bbb is amended as follows, after the semicolon following . . .” What are they really saying? It takes a lot of effort to find out. Most people won't, and will therefore be vulnerable.

2. Section 123 really does establish a committee, Read sub-paragraph b “Duties" “1 Recommendations on Benefit Standards” (p32)

3. Section 1192 “Development of new Quality Measures” sub-paragraph c “Development of Quality Measures”, “1. Patient-centered and Population-based Measures”, “A to assess outcomes and functional status of patients” (p623 line5)

Make sure to also read items C, D and F.

4. Section 1713 “Optional Coverage of Nurse Home visitation Services” (~p768)

5. Section 1714 “State Eligibility Option for Family Planning Services” (~p770)

5. “TITLE XXXI Prevention and Wellness”
Subtitle A “Prevention and Wellness Trust”
Subtitle B “National Prevention and Wellness Strategy”, sub-paragraph b. “Contents”
Subtitle B “Prevention Task Forces”

All of these sections are sufficiently vaguely-worded to easily allow system negligence. Worse, it’s not difficult to see apparently reasonable interpretations of quality, prevention, etc., requiring / creating rationing and thus creating / allowing the “death panel” Palin fears to easily come true, and with little difficulty and no recourse.

Given Obama’s previous history ($150million from Annenberg . . . C&T . . . GM/Chrysler . . . Honduras . . will we really be able to keep our existing health insurance? . . . most recently: hiring the co-author of a book with Paul Erlich, the specialist in proven-wrong doomsday scenarios and butterflies), did / does Obama intend rationing or did he simply not think far enough into the future?

One question not asked enough: why the big fuss over health care? The economy is the problem (sub-prime mortgages, Bawney Fwank, Maxine Waters, . . . remember?). Health care will not fix it, and everyone knows this. Employment, pushing employers to provide health insurance, and TORT REFORM will handle the economy and health care.

Why is Obama using health care as a dodge to avoid fixing the ecomony?

337 Icculus  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 4:18:23pm

re: #323 wahabicorridor

Libraries...One example of something the government does fairly well. Other than the military, it's hard to come up with many more examples.re: #334 GGMac

Thanx! Always been a favorite of mine...Reminds me of $1.00 bills

338 Roger  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 4:18:44pm

re: #319 livfreeordie

I've mentioned it before; while playing with some neighbor kids in a trailer park there was one little fellow with Down's I met. When other kids would start a squabble [over safe or out] he'd come over and ask for hugs from everyone; he didn't like upsetting moments and he'd seek reassurance. This had an amazing effect on an otherwise rough and tough bunch of kids. He also through a hug could read your body language and tell if you were genuine and his friend. I consider him intelligent , priceless and a valuable fellow citizen.

339 Capitalistincharge  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 4:28:32pm

Just got in from work. In reading this thread, all I get is seething anger from Iceweasel. Ice..your over the top anger is very defining.

340 Eclectic Infidel  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 5:11:35pm

re: #45 SanFranciscoZionist

What the hell IS it with this woman?

Ok, calming down.

I've been asking that since day one. I remember lizards practically swooning over the idea of Palin being VP of the country. Criticism of her was met with insult. I wonder how many lizards still think she's the bees knees now.

341 NoWhereAlaska  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 5:12:46pm

This thread aroused the passions of one reader, named Barry! [Link: dailypundit.com...]

342 Roger  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 5:23:02pm

re: #230 nonic

I realize I may be talking about almost economic impossibility for some people -- but the fact remains, that if they can find the money, they can get the treatment.

NOT TO MENTION, that charities will step forward, and that hospitals and doctors treat many, many people who never pay.

Yes. A good example is the Deborah Hospital and foundation.
[Link: www.deborah.org...]
[Link: www.deborahfoundation.org...]
Absolutely amazing what they accomplish.

343 [deleted]  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 5:37:13pm
344 Banner  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 5:39:23pm

I agree with Sarah, sorry. I have friends from England and Canada who have moved to this country. In their home countries all medical care is rationed. And there is a panel that decides on whether or not you are worth giving medical care to, and just how much.

Needless to say, older people don't get so much, if any. Same for people with serious problems who will never be 'right'. Sure it may not be in the cards this time around. But eventually it will be. Because in a government single payer system, there is only so much to go around. Every single country in the world with socialzed medicine rations its care. If you think our system will end up any different, then you are not being honest with yourself.

345 Maui Girl  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 5:43:31pm

Death panel as in, life endangerment due to the refusal of certain treatments based on "need" and some bureaucrat's definition of "necessary".

Palin isn't stupid. She's using exaggeration like everybody else.

And as far as the "mobs", geez, there are Repubs and Dems and Independents alike at these town hall meetings. Mob creation is being well organized by outfits like SEIU. No surprise there. And why the hell not. We're mad and we shouldn't have to take it anymore. Granted we could all sit down, unclench our fists and discuss this like the average diplomat but that doesn't always work. NK comes to mind. So does Iran and Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat and I could go on and on.

Just my 2 cents.

346 retief_99  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 5:53:20pm

Much of the anger at the town hall meetings comes from the issue that the vast majority of people are satisfied with their health care. They are trying to tell the government they don't want it changed. The government keeps telling them the change is coming whether they want it or not. The administration has lost sight of the fact that they are elected to represent their constituents, not to lead them, or decide what is best for them. Really, the 80% or so that have health coverage they are satisfied with can't all be Republicans and the dissatisfaction will become apparent at the next election.

347 Maui Girl  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 5:54:54pm

re: #333 NoWhereAlaska

Wow. Lucky for your daughter she didn't Downs syndrome.

348 JohnH  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 6:18:02pm

re: #332 GGMac

And it's these people who want to make the healthcare decisions for you and me.

No. Thanks.

349 victor_yugo  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 6:49:09pm

re: #340 eclectic infidel

I wonder how many lizards still think she's the bees knees now.

I do. Compare her words with mine above (#317).

Whatever happened to "first, do no harm"? Why are we so willing to desert one of the first-fruits of Western civilization? Hippocrates was born about 20 years after the Battle of Thermopylae. Did King Leonidas die so that we could hand over our personal well-being to unthinking bureaucrats?

350 hoyosmokin  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 7:23:38pm

I want everyone in the insurance pool...more liver donors, will I have to sign something in regards to how much gin I consume and what approved government bottle store I frequent ?

351 Fred72  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 9:06:47pm

re: #346 retief_99

Much of the anger at the town hall meetings comes from the issue that the vast majority of people are satisfied with their health care. They are trying to tell the government they don't want it changed. The government keeps telling them the change is coming whether they want it or not.

Do you have a citation for that? I know that most of my friends are satisfied with our health care, but we're lucky enough to be well off. I have Kaiser, and I think that it's pretty good.

My understanding if that a government-sponsored health plan comes into effect, I can still keep the health plan (again, Kaiser) that I like -- do you understand differently?

Taking your 80% statement at face value, I think that the fundamental problem that fiscal conservatives have with the Obama health care plan is not that it will force us to change our health plan (my understanding is that it will not) but that the 80% of us will fund the health care of the other 20% of us.

352 Icculus  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 9:15:24pm

re: #351 Fred72

Check out page 16 of the bill...That's right, they didn't take too long to get to the juicy bits:

[Link: www.ibdeditorials.com...]

353 [deleted]  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 9:56:08pm
354 Charles Johnson  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 9:57:32pm

Bye now! Your dramatic flounce-off comment has been deleted.

355 solomonpanting  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 9:58:42pm

As usual, that didn't take long.

356 LesLein  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:41:44pm

re: #292 group28

According to Lane, end of life counseling isn't "completely voluntary":

"Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite "purely voluntary," as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, "purely voluntary" means "not unless the patient requests one." Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist. "

"Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit "formulation" of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would "place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign," I don't think he's being realistic."

"What's more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation. The doctor "shall" discuss "advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to"; "an explanation of . . . living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses" (even though these are legal, not medical, instruments); and "a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families." The doctor "shall" explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint). "

"Admittedly, this script is vague and possibly unenforceable. What are "key questions"? Who belongs on "a list" of helpful "resources"? The Roman Catholic Church? Jack Kevorkian?"

Obama's panel is just the nose of the camel.

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

357 Charles Johnson  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:43:00pm

OMG! It's a DEATH PANEL! Obama's gonna kill us all!

/panic

358 retief_99  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:53:49pm

re: #351 Fred72

I don't know what "well off" means in dollar figures. To me well off means you can afford what you need and have something left over for what you would like. Most working people that have health insurance are people who work at hourly wage jobs and make the necessary choices in their financial priorities so that they can pay for medical insurance. That usually means that the company pays a portion of the cost and the employee pays the rest. The closest I have ever come to free health care was during my stint in the US Marines, the working condidtions were not the best. If we accept the figures for uninsured, 47 million is the current figure I believe, and I think there are somewhere near 320 million Americans, that would meant the uninsured represents about 15% of the population. The last poll I read, sometime last week, showed about 80% of insured Americans think their coverage is "pretty good". That represents a very significant portion of the population, who, if angry about someone changing their health care, will have a impact on the next election or two. I personally have health care insurance that I pay about 60% percent of the premium and I don't want anyone tampering with it or the health care system in America.

359 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Aug 8, 2009 10:59:37pm

re: #349 victor_yugo

I do. Compare her words with mine above (#317).

Whatever happened to "first, do no harm"? Why are we so willing to desert one of the first-fruits of Western civilization? Hippocrates was born about 20 years after the Battle of Thermopylae. Did King Leonidas die so that we could hand over our personal well-being to unthinking bureaucrats?

Do you know much about the attitudes of the Spartans toward the state, or infanticide?

Just sayin'.

360 DoesNotMatter  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 12:32:37am

Hitler's eugenic program sounded also a lot more tame than it turned out to be.

As tame as a eugenic program can sound, anyway.

361 idioma  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 1:02:31am

re: #103 wahabicorridor

linky

What's the argument here exactly? Assisted suicide for terminally ill patients is something for us to worry about? I live in Oregon and am glad to know that if I or my partner should ever face something like this, the law is on our side to chose how and when we go. Choosing between a drawn out painfully slow death, or a peaceful arrangement shouldn't be anyone's else's business.

'He took five times the amount of barbiturates that should kill somebody and he still didn't die,' his older brother Steve told the Daily Mail this week.

'If anything, he should have been brain-dead. But he told us that, while unconscious, he had found himself before God and been told: "Not this way, David." God chose David as his spokesman, absolutely.'

He adds: 'It definitely made it very clear to me that we are not supposed to determine our own deaths.'

So let me get this straight, I'm supposed to forget everything that doctors and lawyers have to say about this issue because someone that was heavily dosed with barbiturates slipped into a coma and came out the other end claiming he talked to god?

Seriously?

I know lots of people that claimed they talked to god while they were on drugs, I don't take their claims seriously either. As for the expense of medicine to "prolong life", need I remind you that insurance companies can be just as heartless, and can refuse to pay for such drugs?

over 50% of Americans want health care reform. Probably because our current system has alarming flaws which concern us. The debate should not be a binary "Yes or No", it should be a well thought out "how". Fear mongering, flash-mobs, chanting, and bullying will not help anyone.

362 idioma  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 1:04:21am

re: #361 idioma

"...Choosing between a drawn out painfully slow death, or a peaceful arrangement shouldn't be anyone's anyone else's business."

PIMF

363 idioma  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 1:16:53am

re: #43 LC LaWedgie

Well, he did win the election, so...

YES

364 idioma  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 1:23:58am

re: #345 Maui Girl

Death panel as in, life endangerment due to the refusal of certain treatments based on "need" and some bureaucrat's definition of "necessary".

Palin isn't stupid. She's using exaggeration like everybody else.

And as far as the "mobs", geez, there are Repubs and Dems and Independents alike at these town hall meetings. Mob creation is being well organized by outfits like SEIU. No surprise there. And why the hell not. We're mad and we shouldn't have to take it anymore. Granted we could all sit down, unclench our fists and discuss this like the average diplomat but that doesn't always work. NK comes to mind. So does Iran and Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat and I could go on and on.

Just my 2 cents.

So you think that acting like a child, throwing a fit in public and yelling over policy makers with insults and chants is the best way to be "heard"?

Yell loudly and your voice will be heard, but it doesn't mean that you will be understood.

Anyone can yell, forming articulate thoughts in public debate requires more than strong vocal cords.

365 idioma  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 1:46:38am

re: #314 satan sidekick

I agree. As usual the libs are so anxious to enact their idea of utopia they aren't thinking in terms of the Republicans being in charge at some point (the sooner, the better, if you ask me)

Yeah, they did wonders for this country's last eight years: two wars, anemic funding for science and education, evangelicals gone wild, abstinence for birth control (FAIL), the patriot act, wiretaps, pandering to the Saudis, oil prices, Katrina, a nuclear-armed North Korea, and a tanked economy despite heavy tax cuts. Yeah, I can't wait for the Republicans to be in charge again, it's a wonder they ever lost the election in the first place.

Palin 2012!!!

///

This is not about utopia, it's about making good on campaign promises. If Obama wasn't pushing for health care reform, you'd still be angry and accuse him of being a liar.

366 idioma  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 2:12:36am

re: #131 albusteve

because people want her to matter...they need her for one reason or another...take Cato for example...imagine how shallow and insignificant his life would be without her to bash around

If the GOP wants to ever take majority again, it cannot do it with alarmist hockey moms speaking for them. Joe-six-pack appeal was tested in 2008, it failed. Now she is an embarrassment. The GOP needs more than a MILF-makeover, it needs cool and level-headed members to speak coherently about the issues and form solid positions geared toward moderates.

Ask someone to name a conservative public voice and what are their answers? Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Sarah Palin, and the various cast members of Fox "News".

These "voices" have not helped the GOP win elections, instead, they fueled sensationalism to the point of ruin. Bigots, Creationists, Birthers, and Alarmists might seem like a good base, because in appearance, they are so loud one might mistake them for being a majority, but they are not.

Even if they were, I would not join a party that represents them, because when I want my representative's attention, I don't want some angry childish punk screaming over me when I speak at a town hall.

367 idioma  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 2:41:29am

re: #208 Ojoe

I am sorry to see Palin's poor choice of words here because I think she actually would be a good leader.

Based on what evidence? She is a stunning example of ignorance on almost any given issue. Remember the interviews in 2008?

"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
-Sarah Palin

Or how about when she said: "I think on a national level your Department of Law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out." Brilliant! She's referring to a department that does not exist while attempting to explain why as president she wouldn't be subjected to the same ethics investigations that compelled her to resign as governor of Alaska.

Remember her interview with Katie Couric? The only thing she seemed to know about the Supreme Court was Roe vs. Wade.

Youtube Video

"I told the Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that Bridge to Nowhere."

Sarah Palin, as quoted by former City Council Member Nick Carney, after he raised objections about the $50,000 she spent renovating the mayor's office without approval of the city council: "I'm the mayor, I can do whatever I want until the courts tell me I can't."

Great leader indeed! /

368 idioma  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 2:59:08am

re: #296 Mauser

I had a pretty dangerous idea the other day that if it gets out, could cause Liberals to oppose the National Healthcare Plan. The danger is, this same idea could cause Conservatives to support it.

Let's say the plan gets passed, and everyone is eventually forced onto the national plan. Then there's a turnover in Congress, and Republicans decide to pass a bill that says, Oh, I dunno, that no NHP funds shall be spent on Abortion. They can effectively ban abortion without having to TOUCH Roe v. Wade. And to make it extra nasty, they could add a provision that says that any doctor who provides an abortion shall be ineligible to receive NHP funds for life, effectively making providing an abortion a career-ending move.

That thought alone should give liberals pause about giving the Government control over the entire medical system. But then, they never think about the unintended consequences.

You are forgetting the Supreme Court as a factor here. Unconstitutional laws get slammed down, and are very short-lived in most cases.

Your logic could be applied to gun control too. Why haven't the Democrats ever used their majority to pass a 100,000,000% tax bill on bullet sales? That would effectively make ban guns wouldn't it? They haven't done this because the Supreme Court would recognize the bill's infringement and strike it down. Same thing for Health Care and Abortion coverage.

369 idioma  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 3:05:26am

re: #315 nonic

LOL. You know, they say God works in mysterious ways. So, who knows?

I don't want "god" to make my medical decisions either. The Bible offers pretty bad advise for anyone that wants to live healthy. Science has done much more for the advancement of medicine.

370 idioma  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 3:06:36am

re: #320 Mauser

Well, there WERE those on the left who told Palin she should have aborted Trig when she found out he'd have Downs Syndrome...

Links please.

371 dsun  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 4:53:51am

she went completely over the top with that comparison, but then again it's probably media calculated to generate a buzz because nowdays reasonnable people are no longer listened to, it's about the one who shout louder or use the most extravagant argument to generate media attention.

whether or not that is a good thing is hard to say, one has to play by the rule of the game, tho death panel is clearly over the top.

372 kywrite  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 7:41:24am

re: #325 avspatti

I have read that many, many abortions are done on Down Syndrome babies. Anyone know it that is true or have a link?

Thanks.

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% - 90% of Down babies are aborted, usually in the second but sometimes in the third trimester.

[Link: www.lifesitenews.com...]

(Yes, it's a religious-oriented fairly virulent pro-life site, but the article is pretty well documented.)

373 danshelb  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 8:34:13am

re: #371 dsun

I don't think this is too over the top. The gov't controlling (or "administrating") health care could easily, and perhaps properly, be viewed as the first step on the slippery slope of them determining care "options" for everyone.

Granted, this doesn't mean she isn't whoring her kid out there to fan the flames, but frankly, they are flames that need to be fanned. If this fiasco goes through, we'll be in bad shape in a generation or two.

374 Toastrider  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 8:47:00am

So for the record:

Charles, are you stating you do not believe what is happening in Britain with their NHS -- right here and now, according to their own news reports -- that it could not happen here?

I don't like how this 'healthcare' is turning out. Not one damned bit.

375 Yashmak  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 9:11:16am

This is the same sort of crap that lost me on her a while back. She takes it too far, into the realm of hysterical pundits like Beck.

You cannot effectively counter efforts to pass legislation like Obama-care if you lose your credibility with such sky-is-falling comments.

The Modern Whig party is looking better and better. Thank you to whoever it was that posted that link a few days back.

376 Banner  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 9:11:43am

re: #13 Charles

Do people really think the conservative cause is helped when Sarah Palin throws around words like, "Obama's death panel?"

Yes, I do. I realize you're not a conservative Charles, but I've been one (Not a republican, but a conservative, when I lived in NY I was not only in the Conservative party there, but volunteered for it as well) for all of my adult life. Is it over the top what she said? No, it's not even that, she is simply 'calling a spade a freaking shovel'. It is a death panel, in that its actions will decide who lives and who dies. Of course the 'intelligensia' and the celebreties and the powerful from both parties will always get what they need, but 50 year old guys like me that depend on 300 dollars a month of medicines to be able to breath, well eventually they'll say I'm not worth the money anymore, then within a year I'll be dead.

England does this already, so does the Neatherlands, so I suspect does Canada and the rest. I don't want to be part of a system that eventually decides I'll too old to waste money on.

377 Yashmak  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 9:14:20am
she went completely over the top with that comparison, but then again it's probably media calculated to generate a buzz because nowdays reasonnable people are no longer listened to, it's about the one who shout louder or use the most extravagant argument to generate media attention.

- dsun

It's almost as if both major parties are actively trying to alienate the bulk of the citizens of this country.

378 Yashmak  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 9:17:54am

re: #376 Banner

Is it over the top what she said? No, it's not even that, she is simply 'calling a spade a freaking shovel'. It is a death panel, in that its actions will decide who lives and who dies.

Except that's just not the case. It's voluntary. Our fear should be caused by the REAL problems with this legislation, the massive budgetary concerns, likely increase of health costs in general under a govt. plan, etc. etc. There's no need to incite hysteria over something that doesn't deserve any.

379 Icculus  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 9:19:10am

re: #370 idioma

Here's some links I found pretty easily:

[Link: ruleofreason.blogspot.com...]

[Link: open.salon.com...]

Disgusting

380 Icculus  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 9:22:29am

re: #370 idioma

Well, I guess that copy & paste my previous post doesn't quite work...So just see my links at comment 328.

You should get to work on that, Charles 8^)

381 Banner  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 9:27:30am

re: #378 Yashmak

Except that's just not the case. It's voluntary. Our fear should be caused by the REAL problems with this legislation, the massive budgetary concerns, likely increase of health costs in general under a govt. plan, etc. etc. There's no need to incite hysteria over something that doesn't deserve any.

Ah yes, 'voluntary' just like the income tax system, or the Social Security system, or the selective service system. Maybe it is voluntary for now (at 1000 pages, it's kind of hard to read and understand the bill with all of it's references to other bills), but if you think it will -remain- voluntary you are fooling yourself, and you are not a very good student of American history.

382 RexMundi  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 10:55:28am

Sarah Palin is a kook. People who down-ding my comments on Palin are people that just cannot accept this.

383 Yashmak  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 11:18:40am

re: #381 Banner

Ah yes, 'voluntary' just like the income tax system, or the Social Security system, or the selective service system. Maybe it is voluntary for now (at 1000 pages, it's kind of hard to read and understand the bill with all of it's references to other bills), but if you think it will -remain- voluntary you are fooling yourself, and you are not a very good student of American history.

Of course, because it would make sooo much sense for Obama to try to put into this legislation something that would alienate the huge portion of the population it would affect.

/sarc

384 jet2nc  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 1:09:36pm

I took flying lessons in Rochester MN over the summer several years ago. Many times, walking the tarmac to my training aircraft, I noticed the aircraft registrations, the letters and numbers on the rear fuselage, used to identify the plane, including what country they are registered. There were small turbo props to large Airbus and Boeing jets parked. I commented to my flight instructor about why were there so many foreign registered aircraft at such a small airport in the middle of southern MN. He responded that those foreign registered aircraft were used for transporting patients to and from the Mayo Clinic. I am sure that the same is true now, and at other airports near major US top rated medical centers.

If our healthcare is so bad in the US, why are so many patients flying from all over the world to US hospitals for treatment here?

The two groups that are not afraid of the US National Health Plan are:

Those whom it does not apply to, such as Congress, the President, and those rich enough to fly to wherever they want to have the best medical care and can pay for it.

The second group includes those that have not read the bill and the amendments nor did research to understand, including the legalese in plain English, what it really means to them and their loved ones. Plus those that believe the government should run their lives and make the health choices they do not seem to be able to do.

385 subliminator  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 7:53:46pm

Bravo, jet2nc. I will likely get banned for the following. Wish I could have gotten to know you better.

My Mom passed in 2007 after a 21-year bout with Alzheimers. No, 21 is no a misprint. One could say she was something special (I confess my bias). But she also benefited from some heroic and loving care for those 21 years. And from the hospice nurses. Would that have been approved under ObamaCare? Or would it have been a round of morphine patches for all in 1989? My money is on the latter.

So to all that love to bash Palin, or deride those that have actually been to a twon meeting without a SEIU contingent, or who blame Hannity or Beck for inciting violence against American citizens when such calls are only coming from the White House...your "if it's not my problem, it's not a problem" attitude amazes me. Here's the White House snitch site. And go reread this Iowahawk article pay attention to the last line: just because you support ObamaCare (by marginalizing those who didn't) doesn't mean they will give you care when you need it.

386 Yashmak  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 9:43:43pm

re: #385 subliminator

just because you support ObamaCare (by marginalizing those who didn't) doesn't mean they will give you care when you need it.

You're operating under the completely mistaken assumption that those of us who are critical of Palin's hysterical comments on the matter are actually in favor of Obama's healthcare plans. There may be a couple of folks here who are, but I pretty much guarantee you that it's not the case for most of us. You come up with something in the bill that's bad, present it, and I'll support your position all the way. Start shouting unsupported hysteria, and I'll criticize it every time. You see, I happen to be as opposed to misinformation on either side of the equation.

387 Yashmak  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 9:44:15pm

Crap, messed up the blockquote thing again.

388 victor_yugo  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 9:49:03pm

re: #359 SanFranciscoZionist

Do you know much about the attitudes of the Spartans toward the state, or infanticide?

Yes, I do. It isn't inappropriate that you bring that up.

Hippocrates' philosophy of medicine was not subservient to the State, and the Hippocratic Oath sworn by his philosophical heirs specifically disavows the social status of patients as a consideration of their care. Rich, poor, slave, free, mattered not. He also held life sacred, forbidding abortions under any circumstances.

King Leonidas' refusal to bow to Persia, made possible Hippocrates' refusal to bow to aristocracy.

389 victor_yugo  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 9:52:00pm

re: #387 Yashmak

Crap, messed up the blockquote thing again.

When you're editing quoted text, make sure you don't touch the <blockquote> and </blockquote> tags.

If you take those out, the text you want to quote will appear as your own.

390 victor_yugo  Sun, Aug 9, 2009 9:54:07pm

@idioma:

Your block of comments from 361 to 370 may be a new LGF record for the most consecutive comments by one person.

391 JohnH  Mon, Aug 10, 2009 4:15:07am

Go read what Ezekiel Emmanuel, advisor to the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in Lancet in January 2009, then tell me again that Sarah Palin is wrong:

Scribd Document
392 subliminator  Mon, Aug 10, 2009 5:30:36am

Good link, JohnH, and thanks. I'm going to keep that one for reference as well.

393 medaura18586  Mon, Aug 10, 2009 7:10:53am

Palin exploits her children to her own political ends. She always has, no matter how indignant she acts whenever they are dragged down into the mud.

394 LibraryGryffon  Mon, Aug 10, 2009 9:08:08am

I haven't read all the comments, so someone else may have already brought this up.

I've read as much as I could stomach of the article Emanuel coauthored in the Lancet ( 373(9661):424-31 Department of Ethics section), and it is pretty clearly advocating that resources be allocated (nice word for rationed) according to the "Complete Lives System".

That system seems to basically says that between the ages of around 15 and 40 (i.e. to the cynical among us, the taxpaying years) expensive care is worth it to society, because those people have a chance to live a "complete life".

Over 40, one has alread lived a "complete life" and below 15, the very sick, very young, have little chance for one, so we shouldn't spend the money on them. So I see the term "death panel" as rhetorical hyperbole, but actually rather accurate, because any panel of bureaucrats using this method to decide who gets life-saving care, is also deciding who dies.

395 victor_yugo  Mon, Aug 10, 2009 12:50:21pm

re: #393 medaura18586

Palin exploits her children to her own political ends. She always has, no matter how indignant she acts whenever they are dragged down into the mud.

The baby's name is Trig Palin, not "Trig Obama" or "Trig MSM". She's a wife and mother before she's subject to your ideas about what kind of a good mother she isn't.

You've heard her comments, only because she's already a public figure. I can point to three families with severely disabled children, who are absolutely opposed to 0bamaHealthControl, but their attempts to fight it will be totally ignored by the MSM. There's no scandal where only "nobodies" are fighting the good fight.

396 group28  Mon, Aug 10, 2009 3:48:47pm

Is there a relationship between defects in our medical ethics and the reason the United States has repeatedly failed to enact universal health coverage?

Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet
by Ezekiel J. Emanuel
[Link: www.ncpa.org...]

397 Will_dieteri  Wed, Aug 12, 2009 8:55:08am

The people who say this was a reference to the end of life counseling need to stop talking their talking points from the white house and read the quote in context.

Palin was clearly talking about rationing and Obama's counter team came up with making to dealing with the counseling.

+1 to them for diverting the talk and getting people off the real item she was discussing.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 64 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 165 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1