Sorry to disagree Charles, because I honestly respect your position on so many issues, but “death panels” was an outstanding piece of satire that was designed to ridicule a real aspect of any nationalized health insurance scheme. which is the need to establish criteria for what patients will receive health care and to what level they will receive said care.

Satire of that sort isn’t always meant to be a direct analogous comparison, but one that conveys a specific point, and in this instance the point is that panels and boards will wield ever increasing control over our medical decisions. To deny this is the deny the reality that exists in every nation that has some sort of nationalized insurance or health care system.

Here’s the thing that bothers me the most about this whole issue of health insurance and that is this; if we were to use automobile insurance to maintain our cars the same way we expect insurance to be used to maintain our bodies, then we’d use our car insurance to pay for oil changes. And if we were to do that, how quickly would the cost of an oil change exceed $200?

re: #48 Charles

Here we go again — people seem to be assuming that I’m trying to promote national health insurance with posts like this.

I’m not.

I’m trying to promote being INFORMED about the issues.

Yes, there are exaggerations being promoted by both sides in this debate. But once again, and to my dismay, it’s the Republican side that is floating outright falsehoods like “death panels” and other complete crap.

If you want to make credible arguments based on reality, you need to be informed. Listening to Sarah Palin’s absurd distortions does NOT count.