Gay Patriot Header Image

Sarah Palin Was Right. . .

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:18 am - December 27, 2010.
Filed under: Obama Health Care Tax/Regulation

 . . . . about Obamacare’s “death panels”?!?!?

From the Administration’s paper of record:

When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

So, we’re going to have unelected bureaucrats instituting a policy that even an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress rejected (under much duress from the president and its leaders to pass) before being rejected themselves, in part, for passing Obamacare.  

Ed Morrissey unpacks it for us:

There is, however, something at least vaguely disturbing about a government incentivizing doctors to do so as part of an expansive regulatory program that has, as one of its primary goals, cost reduction.  The process used by Obama and Kathleen Sebelius to get this into ObamaCare is more disturbing, and in a very specific way.  Congress made it clear that it didn’t want this incentive as part of the new law.  However, thanks to the miles and miles of ambiguity in the final version of ObamaCare, with its repetitive the Secretary shall determine language, Congress has more or less passed a blank check for regulatory growth to Obama and Sebelius.

Read the whole thing because CPAC’s blogger of the year puts this issue in context and understands why discussions of contingency planning may be necessary.

Share

228 Comments

  1. The death panels thing is one of the stupidest memes in the history of the conservative movement, and that’s saying something. Nobody is getting sentenced to death, the government isn’t forcing anyone to pull the plug because they’re trying to save money. It’s all lies, peddled by people who make money off of innuendo and suggestion who don’t have the courage or integrity to make any real political contributions, gobbled up by people who apparently love to be exploited.

    I mean how stupid do you have to be to think that a politician would seriously suggest a policy that would literally have government officials running around turning off people’s life support? You simply cannot be capable of grown-up thinking if you believe that a politician would propose such a thing. As is par for the course, conservatives end up taking a serious issue like healthcare reform and turning it into a sideshow to scare idiots.

    Comment by Levi — December 27, 2010 @ 1:32 am - December 27, 2010

  2. I mean how stupid do you have to be to think that a politician would seriously suggest a policy that would literally have government officials running around turning off people’s life support? You simply cannot be capable of grown-up thinking if you believe that a politician would propose such a thing.

    Who need a politician to propose it when the nameless, faceless Federal bureaucracy will do it for you…and to you. The last time they called it Lebensunwertes Leben.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 27, 2010 @ 1:54 am - December 27, 2010

  3. Who need a politician to propose it when the nameless, faceless Federal bureaucracy will do it for you…and to you. The last time they called it Lebensunwertes Leben.

    But it isn’t nameless and faceless – Barack Obama is the name and the face of the federal bureaucracy. This death panel b.s. has been used as a direct attack against him. You either have to believe that Barack Obama has made the obvious mistake of consciously wanting to propose a policy that involved forceful euthanasia, or you have to believe that Barack Obama was so stupid that he thought he could get away with it by having the nameless, faceless bureaucracy of which he is the head propose it for him. Uh…. whaaaa?

    I mean Jesus Christ, you need to come up with a conspiracy theory here for why a politician would propose something like this. It simply doesn’t make sense, it’s literally the most absurd thing imaginable. Barack Obama, the current President of the United States, is either the worst politician in the history of human politics, or his Republican opponents are manufacturing a controversy to deny him a political victory and to advance their own agenda. Which of those is more likely? Which of those seems more plausible? Have you ever heard of Occam’s Razor?

    Comment by Levi — December 27, 2010 @ 2:08 am - December 27, 2010

  4. maybe talking points levi can explain why this portion was dropped from the original bill then 0bama and KS the death dealer put it back by fiat? I mean if no politician would suggest it. . . . well after being yelled at the first time, and many voted out of office for forcing the appalling thing through even after it’s removal. For that matter, perhaps levi can explain how something rejected by the senate and house can be put into law anyhow and why that is a good thing. . . . well at least good when a pair of communistic slimebags do it. Imagine the screams if Bush did a similar end-run on the Dems after 2006.

    Comment by JP — December 27, 2010 @ 2:51 am - December 27, 2010

  5. well Obama was all for late-term abortions in Illinois so whats not to believe when he does an end-run-around Congress and allows end-of-life “cost-savings” options? He was also interviewed by Rick Warren about the vote he most regretted as a Senator. The great and wise Obama said it was the vote to extend Schiavo’s life until a formal review of her case. Of course after she was allowed to starve & dehydrate her autopsy showed no evidence that she was in a persistant vegetative state. but what the hay…it saved money to end Schiavo’s life early, even though her parents had volunteered to take care of all he medical bills.

    …this is why alot of folks call the Obama’s ideas on healthcare “death panels”: Obama sees medically-assisted & state-allowed “death” as a medical option.

    Comment by lu-i — December 27, 2010 @ 3:29 am - December 27, 2010

  6. Palin is going to be the nominee. The same question as ’08 is going to come over the right. Rally behind her, or let Obama have another 4 years?

    I’ll pick 4 years of Palin any day over another 4 minutes of Barry the ideologue…

    :)

    Comment by Tim — December 27, 2010 @ 4:14 am - December 27, 2010

  7. Anyone else getting the idea that our leftard friend spent his Christmas weekend staking out this website, self-righteously ready to pounce on any post he angrily couldn’t “tolerate?”

    God knows the sanctimonious bitch-artist couldn’t be bothered to even wish anyone a Happy Kwanzaa…

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — December 27, 2010 @ 6:39 am - December 27, 2010

  8. Anyone else getting the idea that our leftard friend spent his Christmas weekend staked out in front of the computer, ready to self-righteously pounce on any post he simply couldn’t “tolerate?”

    God knows the bitch-artist couldn’t be bothered to even wish anyone a Happy Kwanzaa…

    Comment by Eric Olsen — December 27, 2010 @ 6:48 am - December 27, 2010

  9. Come on Levi, say it. “Sarah Palin was right.” I know it sticks in your throat, but you can do it…

    The government is rewarding doctors for encouraging people to not seek treatment.

    The FDA is considering pulling effective drugs because of cost.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 27, 2010 @ 6:49 am - December 27, 2010

  10. I can’t speak with the superior intellect of a Levi, but only draw from my own experience with the health care system. I was denied benefits by my company’s health insurance provider, even though I repeatedly passed out over the course of several months. It wasn’t apparent what the cause was regarding these episodes, even after numerous tests, treatments and specialists. I couldn’t drive, work, or function without the risk of severe injury.
    My first inclination was to lash out at the EVIL insurance company that obviously just wanted to pocket the premiums, while denying my medical claim. Then, the strangest thing happened while appealing the denial—I was forced to read the paperwork!
    Upon reviewing the doctor’s notes and the forms they were required to complete, I noticed a reference under each section of the paperwork. Each reference was to a state statute regarding the California Insurance Code. That’s right! All of the seemingly ridiculous questions were REQUIRED BY LAW.
    The infinite wisdom of the California legislature was on full display. I felt sorry for the doctors that had to try to treat my condition, and then, explain it on the forms. They were inundated with a deluge of paperwork, which were duplicative and contradictory.
    After nearly six months of working with an advocate(provided by my company free of charge), I was able to successfully appeal my claim. Five years after my initial episode of passing out, I was given a pacemaker with a diagnosis of Sick Sinus Syndrome.
    Anyone telling you that governement is the answer regarding your health, hasn’t dealt with a system ill-prepared to cope with a complex diagnosis.
    Levi is correct in one thing: it simply doesn’t make sense. You don’t have to believe in conspiracies, just the law of unintended consequences. Bureaucrats, in their never ending quest to regulate every aspect of our lives, have inadvertently made things worse. Go ahead and deny it, Levi. I have my own opinion based on my experience. Hopefully, you’ll never have to deal with the reality of your faith in government—just don’t count on it.

    Comment by Vote for pedro — December 27, 2010 @ 7:32 am - December 27, 2010

  11. Why do you nead a government to put in place a policy about any medically related procedure or process ? Why should any government be involved in my decisions abut my life at any time. It would seem to me that is for me and in consultation with my family and doctor oc course. But, that is a natural type of relationship. Once you have a government directive –BOOOOOOOYNG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    THE LIGHT BULB GOES ON ( AND IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO IS THE HEAD OF THE GOVERNMENT !!!!!! ). And the question WHY should immediately come up. I’ll tell you what, I have3 bargain for the LEFT trolls -YOU sign up for OBAMACARE DEATH PANEL SPECIAL and YOU volunteer to let THEM make YOUR deci
    I will take a pass on that. Good luck !!!!!!!!!sions for YOU> But,

    Comment by martin J smith — December 27, 2010 @ 7:41 am - December 27, 2010

  12. No, Sarah Palin wasn’t right. I love how you continue to write and distort a complete lie. There’s nothing in either the original plan or in the NYT article that withholds care from anyone, and you know it. It’s making sure patients know about options which have been available for years: Living wills, DNR directives, etc.

    Actually, the private, for-profit health insurers are the death panels; they’ve been the ones responsible for withholding treatment from patients for years.

    Comment by Kevin — December 27, 2010 @ 8:07 am - December 27, 2010

  13. Kevin, the point is that this stuff is tied to a government seeking to cut costs. What’s to stop these doctors from not only laying out the options, but encouraging the less expensive options, i.e., the ones that don’t include as much medicine.

    Remember, Obama said this –

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJYvaLS-xOw

    Comment by man — December 27, 2010 @ 8:29 am - December 27, 2010

  14. Kev, ever hear of the Complete Lives System by White House Health advisor Dr. Ezekiel Emanual. If you can guaranty that this is not the ultimate goal, I’d be willing to admit that the individual’s interest is paramount in this legislation.
    Is it just a coincidence that government power increases proportionately at the expense of individual liberty and responsibility? Do you feel that there should be no private health insurance? Is there a more regulated industry than health care insurance?
    The fact that the “Doc Fix” was punted once again should tell you all you need to know about Congress’ willingness to address the important issues regarding health care. And, it doesn’t help when our president claims that doctors are amputating limbs and extracting tonsils unnecessarily to enrich themselves. Demagoguery is not limited to one side of the political spectrum.

    Comment by Vote for pedro — December 27, 2010 @ 8:32 am - December 27, 2010

  15. Government run health care in Canada does institute death panel like decisions in that they decide levels of funding, approved procedures, length of waiting lists etc. Although it is unreported and even not understood by many Canadian citizens, every year 1000′s of people die on waiting lists as there is a government imposed shortage on health care availability. In Canada, I can pay a prostitue for sex or gamble $10,000 at a government run Casino, yet I can’t pay a doctor for healthcare when I am without a doctor and on a waiting list for who knows how long.

    Comment by Mike — December 27, 2010 @ 8:38 am - December 27, 2010

  16. maybe talking points levi can explain why this portion was dropped from the original bill then 0bama and KS the death dealer put it back by fiat? I mean if no politician would suggest it. . . . well after being yelled at the first time, and many voted out of office for forcing the appalling thing through even after it’s removal.

    It was dropped from the original bill because Democrats are terrible politicians who will usually choose to cave in completely whenever the going gets rough, whether the accusations are credible or not. You need to understand that what Sarah Palin says the does is not actually what the law does – Republicans fabricated the ‘death panels’ controversy because they can’t make real arguments against healthcare reform or offer viable alternatives. Getting people emotional and afraid is the conservative political response to anything because they have absolutely no footing to make policy arguments.

    I would add that the tendency for Democrats to cave to these spurious Republican demands is exactly why Republicans concoct these fictions in the first place. It’s quite a gambit for a political party to make things up, but the GOP can always count on Obama and the Democrats to acquiesce, which has the effect of legitimizing the allegations. When Republicans first start flogging their little talking point, lots of people will assume they’re lying simply because it doesn’t make sense. But then a couple of weeks later, the Democrats decide to remove the provision, which makes those same people conclude that maybe the Republicans had a point. They figure, ‘Why would Democrats change the policy if it wasn’t true? There must be something to it.’ In this way, the Republicans can set the tone and frame the controversy. I know you guys love to pretend that the media is biased towards liberalism, but the reality is that political discourse in this country is almost always on conservative terms because of this predictable pattern of behavior for each party.

    For that matter, perhaps levi can explain how something rejected by the senate and house can be put into law anyhow and why that is a good thing. . . . well at least good when a pair of communistic slimebags do it. Imagine the screams if Bush did a similar end-run on the Dems after 2006.

    I don’t like the healthcare bill and I don’t like the way it was done. On the spectrum, I’m somewhere between feeling indifferent about it and kind of hoping it gets repealed. As far as this particular provision – I don’t know what to tell you. The executive branch has its set of powers and this seems pretty routine.

    Comment by Levi — December 27, 2010 @ 8:52 am - December 27, 2010

  17. No, Sarah Palin wasn’t right. I love how you continue to write and distort a complete lie. There’s nothing in either the original plan or in the NYT article that withholds care from anyone, and you know it. It’s making sure patients know about options which have been available for years: Living wills, DNR directives, etc.

    Actually, the private, for-profit health insurers are the death panels; they’ve been the ones responsible for withholding treatment from patients for years.

    Yes, this is exactly right. The ‘death panel’ part of the bill is more about education and instituting best practices. Meanwhile, the supposedly ‘best healthcare system in the world’ is compelled by the profit motive to deny coverage and service to people.

    Comment by Levi — December 27, 2010 @ 9:00 am - December 27, 2010

  18. Levi, without going too deeply into an ad hominem mode, I have to say that you are the biggest dunce and democrat parrot I have heard in a while.

    Maybe the bill does not “withold” healthcare, but it most certainly encourages and incentivizes the medical profession to find ways to spend less money on the less useful in society. That would be the elderly, the chronically ill and those with difficult conditions. If they are gone, then we can get down to business and have a healthy society that Mooshelle can tell us what to eat, JNap can tell us how safe we are, and all the czars can just take care of business. You certainly don’t have any need, right or reason to know why or how things are being done. You should just be grateful that your benefactor and massa, the democrat party and all its’ myrmidoms have granted you the benevolence of their wisdom and charity.

    What an effin dunce.

    Comment by CW4 — December 27, 2010 @ 9:09 am - December 27, 2010

  19. If we are going to have someone else pay for your health care someone else is going to decide how much you get. It has to be this way.

    If your kids were paying they would make decisions about their kids or their parents. Rationing. I am a conservative and I think that I would rather make the decision myself or let my wife or kids make it. But if we are going to have socialized medicine we will/must have death panels.

    Comment by almiller — December 27, 2010 @ 9:33 am - December 27, 2010

  20. The ‘death panel’ part of the bill is more about education and instituting best practices.

    Uh-huh. Because the government does such a great job at education.

    The upside of all this is that can’t wait to see you libbies when Bush the 14th is in charge of appointing the panels that will make your medical decisions based on “best practices”. Oh, the wailing will be sweet. And short…

    Comment by The Mega Indepedent — December 27, 2010 @ 9:37 am - December 27, 2010

  21. CW4, The bill doesn’t encourage doctors to find ways to spend money on the less useful in society, insurance companies already do that in case you were wondering. The bill just encourages doctors to outline all possible options for the patient, in the end, they’re the one making the decision on which path to choose.

    Sara Palin was not right, she’s just good, like many republicans are, at creating meaningless catch phrases like cap and tax and tax and spend. Death panels are nothing more than doctors advising patients on the various options they have. It may turn out that the best option medically and monetarily for the patient is to stop seeking treatment. It’s a tough thing to say, but it is often true, and doctors would tend to know what’s best. But neither the doctors nor the government will decide that. The patient and how much money they’re willing to spend will.

    Comment by AJ — December 27, 2010 @ 9:47 am - December 27, 2010

  22. Actually, the private, for-profit health insurers are the death panels; they’ve been the ones responsible for withholding treatment from patients for years.

    No. An insurance company CANNOT “withhold treatment” from anyone – they do not PROVIDE treatment. They PAY for it. They absolutely have no power to prevent a doctor or hospital, whether working for a profit or pro bono, to give you the TREATMENT.

    The problem with single-payer, Levi, is that when the government both PROVIDES treatment and PAYS for treatment, the government CAN and WILL decide who gets what and who doesn’t.

    Why is it some people would prefer to literally let the government make their decisions?

    Comment by Christi — December 27, 2010 @ 9:48 am - December 27, 2010

  23. Poor AJ,

    you’re right, the Insurance companies don’t encourage not spending money on the ‘less useful’ in society, since their policies are written equally and w/o bias. Unlike the Obamanation that is the Health Care bill, you can get a medical plan description of your plan and see coverage information, often online.

    (standard disclaimer applies. I work for an insurance company, I don’t speak for them)

    Let’s not forget though, the FDA is already looking at removing drugs that work, but are too expensive.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 27, 2010 @ 9:52 am - December 27, 2010

  24. Obama lied. Geezers died.

    Comment by V the K — December 27, 2010 @ 9:54 am - December 27, 2010

  25. meaningless catch phrases like cap and tax and tax and spend

    “Tax and spend” is not a meaningless catchphrase. It’s the Democrat platform.

    Well, that and “destroy all infidels”.

    Comment by The Mega Indepedent — December 27, 2010 @ 9:57 am - December 27, 2010

  26. Yes, this is exactly right. The ‘death panel’ part of the bill is more about education and instituting best practices. Meanwhile, the supposedly ‘best healthcare system in the world’ is compelled by the profit motive to deny coverage and service to people.

    Try suing the government when you’re denied care. BTW, who is the largest denier of health care claims?

    Comment by Vote for pedro — December 27, 2010 @ 10:04 am - December 27, 2010

  27. Not just Sarah Palin, but Glenn Beck has also been proven right about this administration. Congress rejected Death Panels, so he gets them by regulation. Congress rejected Cap and Tax, so now, the Obama EPA is instituting it through regulation. Congress rejected “Net Neutrality,” so the Obama FCC is implementing it by decree.

    And if you think that Obama won’t use START as an excuse to dismantle missile defense, you are as naive as those idiot Republicans who voted for it.

    Obama is every bit the tyrant the right has been warning he is. And it will only get worse.

    Comment by V the K — December 27, 2010 @ 10:11 am - December 27, 2010

  28. This is the same type of policy that the Nazi used to get rid of their undesirables, political enemies and people that did not ‘add’ anything to society.

    Under the guise of national health care, they would send mentally handicapped, gays, deformed, etc… off to health farms. They would tell the families that the farms were equipped to mass cure patients.

    The farms were nothing more than death camps. People were lead off the buses straight into gas chambers. After a few months, their relatives would receive a nice, we’re sorry to inform you, note from the government stating that their relative stopped eating and did not respond to care.

    This is how the Nazi attempted to keep their health care costs down and get rid of, what they considered, the impurities of their society.

    Comment by SirKnob — December 27, 2010 @ 10:13 am - December 27, 2010

  29. Obama said “you just get into some very difficult moral issues” when considering whether “to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill.

    “That’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues,” he continued in the April 14 interview. “The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health-care bill out here.”

    Comment by The Mega Indepedent — December 27, 2010 @ 10:13 am - December 27, 2010

  30. pedro,

    That won’t work on Levi. He’s argued that Medicare is our “popular and successful” and just ignores when he’s shredded by reality.

    I think I could lose weight more effectively than Levi could gain facts.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 27, 2010 @ 10:18 am - December 27, 2010

  31. Levi, Kevin, et al: the issue at hand is that unelected bureaucracies exercise power not granted by the peoples’ representatives in Congress. Is that so hard to understand?

    The issue is *not* whether or not doctors and patients should discuss end-of-life issues. They should.

    If we are to be ruled by a vast, unelected bureaucracy then we are no longer freeborn citizens of a democratic republic. We are subjects living under tyranny (soft for now but history shows that soft tyrannies don’t remain soft for very long).

    Where do you guys get your unbounded faith in the government?

    Comment by SoCalRobert — December 27, 2010 @ 10:22 am - December 27, 2010

  32. I agree with SCR. It’s not the end-of-life counseling I have a problem with, per se. It’s the Government involvement with same. And even if it were a good idea, we can’t afford it.

    “But it will save money in the long term by saving medical costs,” whine the leftists. You know what would really save money? Getting the Government out of health care. Then, people would make decisions based on their own economic priorities, not those of a Federal Bureaucrat.

    Comment by V the K — December 27, 2010 @ 10:31 am - December 27, 2010

  33. The_Livewire

    Please correct me if I’m wrong. Are most denials of health care due to errors in paperwork required by legislation, or was my experience an aberration?
    I contend that if my doctors spent as much time trying to get the diagnosis right, rather than attempting to wade through the convoluted claim forms, I wouldn’t have had to wait five years for a solution to my condition.

    Comment by Vote for pedro — December 27, 2010 @ 10:32 am - December 27, 2010

  34. My step-mom worked in billing. We would meet in the middle about the difficulties government regulations put on the doctors and the insurance companies in keeping things maintained.

    Indeed, with the government issuing actual threats against insurance companies now, I worry about my job, a lot.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 27, 2010 @ 10:36 am - December 27, 2010

  35. Levi,

    You are utterly crass.

    I mean Jesus Christ,

    This is apparently your go to hyperbole for your highest expression of rage.

    You have sneered in past comments that the name is meaningless in your enlightened world and it means no disrespect when you yank it out of your “mind” to decorate your opinions. In fact, you even advise that Christians who take offense should get with the program and lighten up.

    OK. Thanks, Levi for capitalizing the name of the Savior and using it so appropriate during the season of his birth. I am humbled to realize that you have paid close attention to the reason for the season.

    Now, how about you wander down to the Mosque and show the Islamic tribe how brave you are with your moral relativity. Take some cartoons. They love cartoons.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 27, 2010 @ 10:44 am - December 27, 2010

  36. Take some cartoons. They love cartoons.

    And a ham. Don’t forget to bring a ham.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — December 27, 2010 @ 10:45 am - December 27, 2010

  37. You know, what’s weird is, when my son was hit by a drunk driver earlier this month, he and his GF were airlifted to a Trauma Center 40 miles away instead of being taken by ambulance to our local hospital, which was about 10 miles away. Granted, he had multiple broken bones and they wanted to do a CAT Scan, but our local hospital is equipped to handle that. It makes me wonder whether part of the reason health care is so costly is the “We have a helicopter, and by jingo we’re going to use it!” attitude.

    I’m very grateful for the care he received, don’t get me wrong. But I can’t help but think he could have received the same type and quality of care locally, at far less expense. (When my other son was hospitalized earlier this year, I think he did get more attention and a higher quality of service at our local hospital than my other son got at “Shock Trauma.”)

    Comment by V the K — December 27, 2010 @ 10:48 am - December 27, 2010

  38. Levi, Kevin, et al: the issue at hand is that unelected bureaucracies exercise power not granted by the peoples’ representatives in Congress. Is that so hard to understand?

    Certainly, that has been true in the past. It will always be true as long as humans are imperfect beings that have to build a society together. People are going to overstep and people are going to make decisions – but there will also be a part of the bureaucracy charged with making sure that doesn’t happen.

    The issue is *not* whether or not doctors and patients should discuss end-of-life issues. They should.

    And that is all that this part of the bill did – it encouraged doctors to do something that is common sense and common practice among medical professionals. You’re being hysterical and extremely dishonest if you say that there’s a thin line between doctors handing out advice and grandparents being sentenced to death by the government.

    If we are to be ruled by a vast, unelected bureaucracy then we are no longer freeborn citizens of a democratic republic. We are subjects living under tyranny (soft for now but history shows that soft tyrannies don’t remain soft for very long).

    Oh, save your breathless indignation. Nothing about this section of the bill does anything to even remotely limit your freedom so stop pretending that it does. You could drive yourself crazy worrying about the overreach of bureaucracy if that’s how you wanted to live your life. Why, giving policemen guns might result in them shooting people that jaywalk! Hey, the governmint might start evicting people that flush their toilets too much! We all might be forced to pick up every piece of litter we walk/drive past under penalty of jail time! I mean how ridiculous and absurd do you want to be here? Do you really think that this means there is going to be some accountant in some building somewhere, with a stamp that says “KILL THEM ALL!!” dispensing orders to unplug Grandma?

    Where do you guys get your unbounded faith in the government?

    Well, I know you like to sit at your desk there thinking that you’re a self-made Galtian hero who never asked for anything and pulled yourself up by your bootstraps, but the truth of the matter is that we all owe our lives and economic opportunities to the existence of the United States government. As dysfunctional and labrynthian as it may seem, it does more to protect you from physical harm and from being exploited than any other component of our society. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin didn’t found an economy 200 years ago, they founded a government – and under that government’s direction we’ve become the wealthiest and most powerful nation in human history. Government simply works, and the whole course of human advancement has been marked by innovations in government.

    Comment by Levi — December 27, 2010 @ 11:01 am - December 27, 2010

  39. This is apparently your go to hyperbole for your highest expression of rage.

    You have sneered in past comments that the name is meaningless in your enlightened world and it means no disrespect when you yank it out of your “mind” to decorate your opinions. In fact, you even advise that Christians who take offense should get with the program and lighten up.

    OK. Thanks, Levi for capitalizing the name of the Savior and using it so appropriate during the season of his birth. I am humbled to realize that you have paid close attention to the reason for the season.

    Now, how about you wander down to the Mosque and show the Islamic tribe how brave you are with your moral relativity. Take some cartoons. They love cartoons.

    Gang way, everybody! Someone is taking unjustifiable offense at absolutely nothing at all! I’m sorry I hurt the imaginary feelings of your imaginary friend, why don’t you go lay down?

    Comment by Levi — December 27, 2010 @ 11:09 am - December 27, 2010

  40. Levi:

    I’m sorry I hurt the imaginary feelings of your imaginary friend, why don’t you go lay down?

    No apology given, no apology accepted.

    Strike two: 1) utterly crass, 2) utterly without class, 3) ……..

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 27, 2010 @ 11:20 am - December 27, 2010

  41. I sense Levi’s becoming a bit unhinged. I think I’ll goad him a bit.

    Hey Levi, Sarah Palin makes more money than you do.

    Comment by V the K — December 27, 2010 @ 11:24 am - December 27, 2010

  42. “That government is best which governs least.”-Thomas Paine

    Our country has become strong and wealthy due to the limits of governmental power. Your understanding of our country’s founding, its Constitution and history is seriously lacking.

    Comment by Vote for pedro — December 27, 2010 @ 11:30 am - December 27, 2010

  43. the truth of the matter is that we all owe our lives and economic opportunities to the existence of the United States government.

    I owe my life to water, too. But I’m not going to go drown myself in it.

    Comment by The Mega Indepedent — December 27, 2010 @ 11:34 am - December 27, 2010

  44. “Were we to be directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.”Thomas Jefferson

    Comment by Vote for pedro — December 27, 2010 @ 11:35 am - December 27, 2010

  45. In the words of P.J. O’Rourke, “A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.”

    Levi is such a fool.

    Comment by V the K — December 27, 2010 @ 11:37 am - December 27, 2010

  46. He is quite taken with his intelligence—must be a government employee.

    Comment by Vote for pedro — December 27, 2010 @ 11:48 am - December 27, 2010

  47. spam filter (the internet death panel) ate my comment!

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 27, 2010 @ 12:20 pm - December 27, 2010

  48. One other Levi comment can’t be allowed to pass…
    “The executive branch has its set of powers and this seems pretty routine.”

    Thank you Levi for endorsing warrentless wiretaps as part of the ‘routine’ powers of the executive in defending the country from enemies, both foreign and domestic.

    Thank you Levi for endorsing military tribunals as part of their routine powers.

    Thank you Levi for endorsing the Justice Department for endorsing defense of DADT and DOMA as part of their routine powers.

    Thank you for supporting rendition, as part of the executive’s routine powers.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 27, 2010 @ 12:23 pm - December 27, 2010

  49. One other Levi comment can’t be allowed to pass…
    “The executive branch has its set of powers and this seems pretty routine.”

    I don’t know about the rest of you guys, but yours truly is going to bookmark this little levi nugget…

    Something tells me that had he been stupid enough to post it before 2008, the Vast Leftard Conspiracy would’ve revoked the little dear’s membership card quicker than a Democrat rapes a La Raza chapter.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — December 27, 2010 @ 12:27 pm - December 27, 2010

  50. Eric in Chicago

    Levi most likely wears his Ché t-shirt to union rallies, bemoaning the evils of capitalism, while watching his Escalade driving union leaders give his dues away Democratic candidates.

    Comment by Vote for pedro — December 27, 2010 @ 12:40 pm - December 27, 2010

  51. s/b “to Democratic candidate.”

    Comment by Vote for pedro — December 27, 2010 @ 12:41 pm - December 27, 2010

  52. I was going to say what Sonic Frog said. Ain’t it funny how, to progressives like Levi, Government is being “oppressive” when it listens in on foreign terrorists, but it’s liberating when Government sticks its big fat greedy hands into every aspect of its own citizens’ lives.

    Comment by V the K — December 27, 2010 @ 12:50 pm - December 27, 2010

  53. Actually, Levi, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin already had a government.

    They rebelled against and removed it precisely because it was restricting their personal and economic freedoms.

    The government they replaced was perfect by “progressive” standards; industries were monopolized by the government, thought and dissent were appropriately punished, and a hereditary house, much like the Kennedys,Pelosis, and others, ruled over the uneducated peasants, telling them what was good for them and dragging them kicking and screaming in whatever direction they wished the peasants to go.

    In short, Franklin and Jefferson drastically slashed the size of government and regulation — and exponentially increased productivity, liberty, economic power, and quality of life.

    The reason you see government as the source of wealth and prosperity, Levi, is because it is the only entity stupid enough to pay lazy, ignorant, amoral individuals such as yourself. Private industry will not employ people like yourself who want six-figure salaries for unskilled labor, eight hours of pay for one hour of work, and preferential treatment based on minority status rather than business value.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 27, 2010 @ 12:59 pm - December 27, 2010

  54. This is Sarah Palin’s statement on death panels:

    “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.”

    I don’t see anything in this blog post to suggest that she was right.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — December 27, 2010 @ 1:03 pm - December 27, 2010

  55. They had to get this through somehow! Obviously we are too stupid to know how important end of life counselling is, and our elected representatives are too afraid to do whats best for us. Good thing the President knows what is best for us, and has the guts to go against our will! [/sarcasm]

    Comment by Jake — December 27, 2010 @ 1:07 pm - December 27, 2010

  56. *I mean Mohammad, you need to come up with a conspiracy theory here for why a politician would propose something like this. *

    That is easy… more money to give to the welfare class.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — December 27, 2010 @ 1:07 pm - December 27, 2010

  57. @Rob Tisinai
    “I don’t see anything in this blog post to suggest that she was right.”

    Don’t worry, they will regulate this part into existance next. Who needs congress when bureaucrats know best!

    Comment by Jake — December 27, 2010 @ 1:10 pm - December 27, 2010

  58. Levi – thanks for the insult. I’m a lot of things but “hysterical”? Galtian? Actually I’m not a great fan of Ayn Rand.

    I don’t imagine (yet) that some TSA-like functionary will walk the wards turning off ventilators and injecting old folks with boluses (boli?) of morphine and potassium chloride “to help things along”. Rationing is a bit more subtle than that (see Canada).

    I really doubt that Jefferson and Franklin’s idea of a government included the leviathin state where government employess make a lot more money than taxpayers and that took upon itself the authority to incur $14 trillion in debt (closer to $75 trillion if the current value of future liabilities are counted – as companies have to do).

    Think about that: $14 trillion is more than $2,000 for every man, woman, and child on the face of the planet. (And that’s not counting the huge liabilities incurred by state and local governments.)

    Yes – we elected the politicians that did this. As you point out, people are imperfect beings… all the more reason to keep government small enough that greedy and/or slothful interests and individuals can’t use government as a force-multiplier to loot the populace.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — December 27, 2010 @ 1:10 pm - December 27, 2010

  59. I don’t imagine (yet) that some TSA-like functionary will walk the wards turning off ventilators and injecting old folks with boluses (boli?) of morphine and potassium chloride “to help things along”. Rationing is a bit more subtle than that (see Canada).

    Not so fast.

    Comment by Vote for pedro — December 27, 2010 @ 1:22 pm - December 27, 2010

  60. Vote for Pedro – I stand corrected.

    I’m sure that these NHS functionaries are held personally accountable for poor decisions – just like those of us in the private sector.

    This accountability means that they’re seldom wrong… they work for the gummint (and they’re here to help)!

    Comment by SoCalRobert — December 27, 2010 @ 1:35 pm - December 27, 2010

  61. Rob,

    You’ll see more of this and this and of course the IPAB.

    What this article does is say that the doctors will be paid extra for offering this ‘end of life’ bit yearly instead of every 5 years as was in the bill before they cut it out. Since the plan reviews doctors for ‘overutilization’ there is the incentive to push ‘planning’ instead of medicine.

    If you want death panels, they’re already there.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 27, 2010 @ 1:46 pm - December 27, 2010

  62. I’m sure no government employee or agency will pull the plug on anyone or deny a medical procedure or drugs to anyone…

    What they WILL decide is whether or not they will PAY FOR a medical procedure or drugs.

    YOU will have to decided to stop treatment based on YOUR bank account, thus leaving the government’s hands clean.

    Which will start the class warfare arguments that the government will feel like they will have to decide…

    Comment by The Other Peter H — December 27, 2010 @ 1:53 pm - December 27, 2010

  63. Livewire, this is is the problem I had with Sarah Palin over the health care bill. You can have concerns about rationing and doctors’ incentives (and innovation and tax penalties and so on) and STILL be appalled that Palin mischaracterized “end of life counseling” as Obama wanting to set up death panel of bureaucrats who WILL DECIDE FOR YOU whether you can receive medical treatment.

    Unfortunately, the death panel lie managed to short-circuit most fact-based debate on the merits and shortcomings of the bill.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — December 27, 2010 @ 2:15 pm - December 27, 2010

  64. Livewire, btw, thanks for the links.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — December 27, 2010 @ 2:17 pm - December 27, 2010

  65. YW, Rob,

    Sarah Palin’s point, and how it ties into these ‘end of life discussions’ is that the end of life discussion is something between the patient and his doctor (and the patient’s family). This is the government requiring and encouraging these consults every year.

    “Well Bill, you’re a healthy male, aged 64, with the body of a 54 year old. Ever considered what you’d do if you had a massive stroke and started drooling in a cup?”
    “Short of changing my name to Levi, no I haven’t.”
    Doctor gets paid.

    “So Sarah, Trig has Downs. You didn’t abort him, and he has health issues. Should I put him down for a DNR option?”
    Doctor gets paid.

    If the doctor’s budget is looking high on the medicare budget, and he knows drug X (costing 90K a month) will extend Bill or Trig’s life, but will kick him out of the government health care pool, is he going to feel that he should mention it?

    While these are ‘death panels’ in the discussing death sense, it’s the other changes that will kill us.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 27, 2010 @ 2:30 pm - December 27, 2010

  66. I have to agree with Rob on this point. Whether or not you agree with the healthcare bill overall, Palin mis-characterized the true nature of this end of life counseling, quite well I might add. Palin and the loud talking heads on fox news were able to distort facts enough to almost derail the entire healthcare bill.

    No one is standing in front of a panel to decide if they have the right to receive healthcare. There are some things the government won’t pay for though, but you still have the ability to still buy the necessary healthcare yourself. Yelling about death panels makes as much sense as yelling that the government won’t pay for your botox treatment.

    Comment by AJ — December 27, 2010 @ 2:37 pm - December 27, 2010

  67. I have to agree with Rob on this point. Whether or not you agree with the healthcare bill overall, Palin mis-characterized the true nature of this end of life counseling, quite well I might add.

    I thoroughly disagree with AJ here, but I wanted to point something out, in case nobody else picked up on it…

    AJ has managed to do in one post that which levi and his other little leftards have proven unable to do in the year or so they’ve been trolling here: make a cogent argument, absent character assasination, personal insult, smug, hyperbolic generalizations, and any other manner of poo-flinging on the walls of a home they neither own, rent, nor seem particularly interested in respecting.

    I do not agree with AJ, but I am simply gobsmacked at the respect with which he presents his views.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — December 27, 2010 @ 2:54 pm - December 27, 2010

  68. I would argue that the characterization “Death Panel” is accurate for multiple reasons. The position “Oh, you can still pay for treatment yourself if the Government refuses” is a non-starter as the Obamacare mandates make private insurance increasingly unaffordable, and health care generally is made more expensive by Government mandates and the plaintiff’s bar. It’s also hypocritical coming from the “It’s not an imposition on your freedom for the Government to force you to buy health insurance” crowd. And the situation will only worsen as Obamacare drives more and more doctors out of the health care profession.

    Also, countries that have adopted socialized health care schemes do invariably end up with either de facto rationing or something like the UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence denying care and treatment; a de facto death panel. That the “End-of-Life” counseling is geared toward saving money definitely makes it a footstep in this direction.

    It’s just a bad, bad idea to get the Government involved in these kinds of decision; worse when they are incentivizing doctors to help patients die.

    Comment by V the K — December 27, 2010 @ 3:11 pm - December 27, 2010

  69. For Rob Tisinai, quick question; could he expound upon how the Obama Party’s statement that the Republican plan was “die quickly”, as endorsed and supported by gay and lesbian leaders like Rachel Maddow, constituted “fact-based debate”?

    Could you also explain why you have written numerous posts attacking private citizen Sarah Palin for this statement, when you have not written any posts concerning this statement by Obama Party elected leaders and gay and lesbian community leaders claiming that Republicans want people to “die quickly” and comparing it to the Holocaust?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 27, 2010 @ 3:48 pm - December 27, 2010

  70. AJ informs us in #58:

    No one is standing in front of a panel to decide if they have the right to receive healthcare. There are some things the government won’t pay for though, but you still have the ability to still buy the necessary healthcare yourself. Yelling about death panels makes as much sense as yelling that the government won’t pay for your botox treatment.

    1) No one is standing in front of a panel to decide if they have the right to receive healthcare.True. Also true is that no one is sitting in front or behind or along side of a panel , etc., etc., etc. The panel makes rules and the bureaucrats apply them and the individuals are grouped according to the rules and treated/not treated accordingly. The panel writes the regulations and people die as a result of the application of the regulations which deny health care.

    2) you still have the ability to still buy the necessary healthcare yourself. If you do not “have the ability to pay” you can not buy “the necessary healthcare” yourself. So, classist AJ says if they can’t buy necessary healthcare, let them suffer the death panel regulations.

    3) Yelling about death panels makes as much sense as yelling that the government won’t pay for your botox treatment. So, when the government panel says “no” to government paid botox treatment, it is the same as the government panel saying “no” to prolonging life, but not really, for reasons not stated.

    AJ and Levi sure to swim at the shallow end of the gene pool when they lay out what passes for logic in their universe.

    Clearly, a hospital can not provide an organ transplant on demand. In that case, when death is the result, it is attributed to supply. When two patients vie for one available, compatible organ, humans must decide the winner and the “loser” is left to wait and possibly/probably die. When government regulations make the decision of characteristics that will be used to deny treatment, the system becomes much less human and much more systematic, robotic and cold. Those who write those regulations are deciding life and death. I suppose AJ would rather call them “Life Panels” which sift out the losers.

    Now, here it comes, AJ: When the Statists start down the road of deciding who shall live under given circumstances, they are reverting to the Darwinist thinking that gave us eugenics, lobotomies, sterilization, and killing the fetus of people of color, poverty and those carrying the unworthy, abnormal genes such as Down syndrome and (maybe) the gay.

    You want to enable this return to elitist classism in the name of social justice. In my mind, that makes you a thoughtless (meaning you can not comprehend) fool (meaning you may have the capacity to learn.)

    The real problem is that ACORN can get you riled up to vote for their smoke and mirrors promises of getting even with everyone they have stirred you up to hate. You are such a pathetic tool.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 27, 2010 @ 5:10 pm - December 27, 2010

  71. he and his GF were airlifted to a Trauma Center 40 miles away instead of being taken by ambulance to our local hospital, which was about 10 miles away.

    It could be a standing SOP that any head on collision victims be medevaced to the Level I trauma center. The nearest hospital probably isn’t. The decision to call a trauma alert can also be based on several factors including the amount of damage done to the vehicle, the patient’s Glasgow Coma Scale rating etc.

    We used to have Lifenet Polk which would fly almost all Peds from here in Polk County to St. Joes in Tampa even though Lakeland Regional is a Level I. Now we have Aeromed from Tampa General, so that may have changed.

    I used to know what criteria were used for trauma alerts for Hermann Lifeflight in the Houston area, but that was 15 years ago.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 27, 2010 @ 5:15 pm - December 27, 2010

  72. *sigh* It’s amazing to me that some people on here who are obviously intelligent are so patently dumb. One of the big problems we have in the medical community is that as doctors age they rarely keep up with the newest research or techniques, or even on the status of decades old studies. Doctors tend to prescribe what they were taught, or at worst only read research from drug companies peddling their own product.
    One of the things that the health care over haul wants to do is start standardizing the research results and getting the findings to the doctors to prevent them from trying procedures with bad chances of success. You may like to believe that you or your loved one will be the lucky 2% that survives but most likely they won’t be. Doctors tend to be very narrow minded about other people telling them things won’t work, but at some point we need to have a way to tell them “try this it works better”. It won’t stop research, but it could prevent unnecessary costs and suffering. Calling them death panels is a pointless politicizing of an already sensitive issue that hurts the common good rather than helps it.

    Do you realize that nurses and doctors routinely kill terminal patients all the time? Do you know that dragging out the life of someone with inoperable stomach cancer who can’t talk and can only moan and scream in pain should be considered torture? Just because some people aren’t ready for their loved ones to die, does not mean that hanging onto life is the best thing for them. We will all die, each and everyone of us, it’s normal and natural, telling people that if they keep things like they are will help them is a blatant lie, and doesn’t even touch on the fact that our current system is unsustainable. Lets talk about this rationally and not resort to the tired catch phrases of a woman whose sole skill is smiling.

    Comment by Tim — December 27, 2010 @ 5:40 pm - December 27, 2010

  73. Shorter Tim: Doctors and nurses are stupid and need government bureaucrats to tell them what to do.

    This, of course, coming from people whose idea of competent, well-run organizations includes the IRS, Homeland Security, and DMV.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 27, 2010 @ 6:00 pm - December 27, 2010

  74. By the way, Tim, since you think doctors and nurses are incompetent and ignorant, can we assume that you go to your local government office for treatment? Or do you skip a step and call the DNC for medical advice?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 27, 2010 @ 6:02 pm - December 27, 2010

  75. Hey Tim, did you know that, given the cost of HIV drugs and the fact that it’s incurable, the government should just refuse to pay for them?

    After all, death is natural, we all have to die sometime, it just prolongs their suffering, yadda yadda yadda…….

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 27, 2010 @ 6:06 pm - December 27, 2010

  76. Shorter Tim: Doctors and nurses are stupid and need government bureaucrats with degrees in Public Policy and Community Organizing to tell them what to do.

    Fixed it for ya.

    Comment by V the K — December 27, 2010 @ 6:07 pm - December 27, 2010

  77. Ya know…..i was wondering how the Obama administration could ever hope to keep “preexisting conditions” from bankrupting the whole health care plan.

    It looks like i now have my answer. They won’t get treatment. They’ll get ‘End of Life’ counseling.
    .

    Comment by gastorgrab — December 27, 2010 @ 6:09 pm - December 27, 2010

  78. Heliotrope, nothing about these “death panels” decides who is going to get an organ transplant, that’s just ridiculous. All it is doing is requiring a doctor to have a talk he already has with patients, but instead of every 5 years, it’s once a year. You may not like that change, but it doesn’t anything to do with denying care. Doctors and insurance companies make decisions about denying funding of certain procedures all the time, these “panels” are not going to affect that.

    And to talk about classism, this healthcare bill gives basic healthcare access to 30+ million American’s that didn’t have access to it. No other healthcare alternative even came close to offering that much coverage. Thats’ 30 million American’s that won’t die because they have pneumonia or some other treatable illness like they may have before. But I guess us classists would rather see them suffer and be denied any healthcare whatsoever because they can’t afford it.

    I honestly don’t know who you think you are, but continue to baselessly insult my intelligence all you want. I hope you eventually choose to have a civil debate on the facts and not result to petty name calling. I thought it was just us liberals who attacked and demeaned our opponents instead of their arguments? I guess not..

    Comment by AJ — December 27, 2010 @ 6:32 pm - December 27, 2010

  79. Tim says…

    Do you realize that nurses and doctors routinely kill terminal patients all the time?

    So of course, we need to place our trust, faith and hope in Democrats, who will be so much more qualified to make these decisions for us, lest the evil medical professionals continue to kill us indiscriminately.

    Oh, the humanity…

    Comment by Eric Olsen — December 27, 2010 @ 6:36 pm - December 27, 2010

  80. this healthcare bill gives basic healthcare access to 30+ million American’s that didn’t have access to it

    Inaccurate. There was no one in America without access to health care prior to ObamaCare. There are… and there always will be… people who will spend $200 on Air Jordans and $400 on iPhones and then complain bitterly about a $20 co-pay for a doctor visit.

    Comment by V the K — December 27, 2010 @ 6:42 pm - December 27, 2010

  81. V the K, Based on that logic, everyone has access to a car or hosue. Fact is 30 million people that could not afford healthcare before will now have healthcare soon. If you want to play semantics with the word access that’s fine, but 30 million people that didn’t have coverage before will have it as a result of this bill.

    Comment by AJ — December 27, 2010 @ 6:55 pm - December 27, 2010

  82. Tim, please rethink this statement:

    One of the big problems we have in the medical community is that as doctors age they rarely keep up with the newest research or techniques, or even on the status of decades old studies.

    All doctors age, just like real people. Certainly, some doctors stay mired in always doing what they have always done. But that is not as a result of aging. That is because they are not good doctors.

    Here is an immutable truth. Some doctors-in-the-making do not pass medical school. But just a wink away are the ones who did make it, but just barely. The fact is not every medical school is equal, not every residency is a high powered learning lab, not every community can afford top tier medicine. Doctors are self-policing, but the real policing is done by the trip-and-fall lawyers who have an acute sensitivity for smelling money in easily picked pockets. Malpractice was once mainly limited to bad doctoring. Now, the omission of one almost meaningless test can be a cash cow for a patient who suffers a negative medical experience and it can cost the doctor and possibly a hospital a small fortune and a dramatic increase in malpractice insurance premiums.

    Now, imagine all doctors were given a rating with “10″ being the best educated, most successful at healing, best at staying at the edges of the learning curve and “1″ being just OK at his/her craft and better than asking a plumber, but avoid if the case is difficult and know that he/she is not very current on the literature or meds; “2″ through “9″ would be shades of higher competence. If the doctor had to wear a white coat with his/her number stenciled on the back and on the front pocket, what would the result be?

    Hospitals would try to have as many “8″ – “10″ doctors as possible and the “insta-meds” 24 hour clinic for the hoi-polloi would have likely have the low number doctors. However, the “10′s” would still be on Fifth Avenue private clinics where wealthy Penthouse clientele can brag about what they pay to have their bunions shaved.

    Most doctors who have practiced for some years learn a great deal from their experiences. They gain medical wisdom. They develop a certain sixth sense that comes experience.

    Do you realize that nurses and doctors routinely kill terminal patients all the time? Do you know that dragging out the life of someone with inoperable stomach cancer who can’t talk and can only moan and scream in pain should be considered torture? Just because some people aren’t ready for their loved ones to die, does not mean that hanging onto life is the best thing for them.

    The idea that “nurses and doctors routinely kill terminal patients all the time” is moronic hyperbole. I served on the board of a great hospital for well into three decades. We often aided in a death with dignity and managed pain. We never routinely killed anyone. Hospitals can keep people “alive” for very long times through medical intervention. You can even make the case for the term “medical intrusion.” I recall many times when our facility could have benefitted from “freeing up” equipment and room for patients who better chances than one under care. I dealt too often with family members who wanted “us” to “pull the plug.” I am very sensitive to your admonition: “Just because some people aren’t ready for their loved ones to die, does not mean that hanging onto life is the best thing for them.”

    ……does not mean that hanging onto life is the best thing for them. That really is the key, isn’t it? Who decides what is the best thing for them? A child worn out with the dementia and constant medical emergencies? A spouse who has been worn into a frazzled shell? A facility that needs the room for someone needing far less attention? A government trying to manage a finite budget? A judge who has state custody? This sloganeering for the “intelligent” and nuanced ending of life (……does not mean that hanging onto life is the best thing for them….) is such a cop-out.

    Just like Pontius Pilate, the run-of-the-mill statist just washes his hands of all responsibility and turns the decision over to the death panel. (Pilate absolutely knew what would happen to the “King of the Jews” and the Obamanauts absolutely know that the statist death panel will come up with a computer program that will either order extra medical procedures or wash its hands.) Like Schultz in Hogan’s Heroes, as long as you just know nothing, you are comfortable.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 27, 2010 @ 7:09 pm - December 27, 2010

  83. The best part is that the guy who wrote the original blog post even acknowledges that there is nothing wrong with this. In fact he says it’s a good thing. His only problem was the way in which Obama and Sebelius did it.

    There is nothing wrong with patients planning for contingencies through advance directives. There is also nothing wrong with doctors discussing those options with patients ahead of those decisions. As the spouse of a patient who has faced life-threatening circumstances on more than one occasion, I certainly understand why these conversations need to take place before the pressures of acute circumstances come into play. This new regulatory effort at least puts the conversation where it belongs, in routine wellness visits, rather than as a five-year set conversation. It also appears to make this a voluntary conversation (at least for now), one the patient can decline without any repercussions.

    But I guess that doesn’t jive with your whole “death panels” argument.

    Comment by AJ — December 27, 2010 @ 7:12 pm - December 27, 2010

  84. Well, Heliotrope, you just have to remember that progressives have a word for terminating inconvenient human life. They call it “choice.”

    Comment by V the K — December 27, 2010 @ 7:12 pm - December 27, 2010

  85. AJ,

    You know zero about the government medicare regulations and what they will reimburse. Organ transplants are a major section. However, I used it as an example to prod you into thinking objectively. I failed to get your thinking machine to turn over. Not my fault, entirely, as you may not be able to think. Who knows?

    You had this movie-like fantasy of a patient appearing before a government death panel and being sentenced to death. The facts are far less dramatic. The death panel will be a bunch of men and women writing regulations in a back room and deciding the criteria for medical help vs. denial. It will all be so neat and tidy that a computer can handle the rest.

    Suppose you get pulled over by a cop and from there on out everything that happens to you is decided by data assessed by a computer program?

    You are considered innocent until proven guilty. You are denied life support until you outscore the computer. I guess you agree?

    Clearly you have a set of opinions. You just can’t defend them. That, I posit, is because you know how you feel and you can spout talking points and sound bites, but you have never had to defend your feelings with logic. Logic involves facts, not notions.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 27, 2010 @ 7:20 pm - December 27, 2010

  86. OK, hypothetically, what would be the problem if the Government just denied medical care to anyone over 75? Why would that be any less morally problematic than any other scheme of rationing health care?

    (Of course they won’t. The AARP would never allow it. That’s part of the problem. For all the Government’s protests of deciding these issues rationally, these decisions will ultimately be made on a political basis.)

    Comment by V the K — December 27, 2010 @ 7:27 pm - December 27, 2010

  87. What facts have you used to show that this bill somehow institutes death panels? All you have said is that I don’t know how things work and give me hypotheticals about Medicare.

    Considering that we already have Medicare and Medicaid, if you believe what you believe, then aren’t these death panels already in place? What does this bill do to change those practices? So I guess Bush and the Republicans expanded these death panels in 2003 with their expansion of Medicare? You have not shown how this bill creates these new supposed “death panels.” I would love to see what facts you have to show this exactly besides your opinion, hypothetical situations and conjecture.

    Comment by AJ — December 27, 2010 @ 7:30 pm - December 27, 2010

  88. So I guess Bush and the Republicans expanded these death panels in 2003 with their expansion of Medicare?

    So I guess you don’t understand the basic point here.

    Medicare Part D, to which you are referring, is a voluntary and optional program. You are not required to participate in it or purchase coverage. If you don’t want Medicare passing judgment on your drug choices, don’t join Part D.

    Meanwhile, according to Obama Party rhetoric, denial of claims or refusing to pay for treatment constitutes having “death panels”.

    Therefore, since ObamaCare creates these government panels that will, as Tim says, block doctors from performing and payment being given for procedures that do not meet the government’s standards for “chance of success”, these are in fact death panels by the established definition of the left and the Obama Party.

    Unless, AJ, you would like to take the hilarious tack of claiming that it is a “death panel” when a private insurer denies claims and procedure approvals, but not when the ObamaCare regulators do it.

    Also, before you go off on a rant about how claims denial is always wrong and how private insurance is evil for doing it, please realize that the entity that denies the greatest percentage of health insurance claims in the United States is in fact the government.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 27, 2010 @ 9:08 pm - December 27, 2010

  89. AJ, do you think Gov. Palin literally meant you’d actually have to stand before a panel?
    Do you believe President Obama meant that doctors actually hacked off limbs and yanked out tonsils to enrich themselves?
    It’s called politics, hyperbole is used to criticize your opponents position. All politicians do it. Get it.

    Comment by Vote for pedro — December 27, 2010 @ 9:10 pm - December 27, 2010

  90. I understand that Vote for Pedro, and I even praised her for her execution of the hyperbole in an earlier post. My point is that this bill is not creating death panels, period.

    And NDT,

    What government entity is deciding who gets healthcare in this bill that wasn’t doing so before? This bill didn’t create a public option or some government panels deciding that. The bill gives people money to purchase PRIVATE insurance. The insurance companies will still be making the decisions about what procedures their plans cover. Medicare and Medicaid have been around for a long time, this bill didn’t create them.

    No one here has shown where these mysterious death panels come from. If you believe the government will ration healthcare through Medicare, then they’ve already been doing that for years. The end of life advisory occurs between doctors and patients, and patients ultimately have the choice of what they do. If the PRIVATE insurance they receive through government subsidies denies them, then that’s on the private insurance. Denials from Medicare have occurred since long before Obama was even born and thus are not a result of this bill. There is nothing in this bill that creates government run death panels. If there is, I would love for someone to please show me where.

    Comment by AJ — December 27, 2010 @ 9:26 pm - December 27, 2010

  91. Wow! AJ FTW!

    Comment by Vote for pedro — December 27, 2010 @ 9:37 pm - December 27, 2010

  92. AJ, Tim and Levi:

    Ed Morrissey writes of the “miles and miles of ambiguity in the final version of ObamaCare, with its repetitive the Secretary shall determine language, Congress has more or less passed a blank check for regulatory growth to Obama and Sebelius.”

    The New York Times has printed this information: When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

    Dr. Ezekial Emanuel, Rahm’s brother, had enormous influence in writing Obamacare, advising Obama and creating the language of the final bill. Here is something for your informed attention:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574374463280098676.html

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 27, 2010 @ 9:43 pm - December 27, 2010

  93. Vote for Pedro, I mean I’d like to actually have a real debate. But if you want to just make silly comments like that, then that’s fine too.

    Do you have a light to shine on these death panels? Seriously, I’d like to see what I’m missing. So far I have:

    1. Government in the form of Medicare and Medicaid will ration healthcare (both programs have been around for decades)
    2. The end of life counseling between patients and doctors will lead to the government somehow forcing/advising people to die.

    Are these the source of the death panels that people are speaking of? Is there something else the government is doing to orchestrate these death panels? Because these are the arguments I’ve seen presented so far. I’d love to see how Obama and this bill are creating death panels and I’d love to hear something factual or substantial you have have to add to the debate.

    Comment by AJ — December 27, 2010 @ 9:45 pm - December 27, 2010

  94. AJ writes:

    If you believe the government will ration healthcare through Medicare, then they’ve already been doing that for years.

    Nope. The Medicare regs do not create an open checkbook for anything and everything a person might order up such as a face lift. But in terms of life sustaining healthcare, I would be interested in knowing specifically what healthcare has been rationed by Medicare for years.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 27, 2010 @ 9:53 pm - December 27, 2010

  95. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574374463280098676.html

    Interesting read, thanks. But again that’s more conjecture, albeit from a much more well informed and influential individual. But I’m just wondering what, in the actual bill, concretely creates death panels? I mean people here seem so against this bill and so adamant that the government will now be rationing health care in a way it didn’t before. I’m just wondering what part of the bill created these rationing death panels. It seems like a fair question.

    Comment by AJ — December 27, 2010 @ 9:53 pm - December 27, 2010

  96. Nope. The Medicare regs do not create an open checkbook for anything and everything a person might order up such as a face lift. But in terms of life sustaining healthcare, I would be interested in knowing specifically what healthcare has been rationed by Medicare for years.

    Note in the quote I said, “if you believe what you believe.” I don’t think Medicare has been rationing healthcare for years. But some people think it has been or will start doing that. If these are the death panels people are speaking of, then they’ve been around for a long, long time. That was the point I was getting at if you read the whole quote.

    Comment by AJ — December 27, 2010 @ 9:55 pm - December 27, 2010

  97. AJ, you spawned Levi, didn’t you.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 27, 2010 @ 10:01 pm - December 27, 2010

  98. Heliotrope, I mean, I don’t know Levi and don’t really care to comment on them. If you want to lump all “lefties” together, then that’s fine. But I’m actually seeking out real debate right now.

    I feel like I’ve made a good point that you have yet to respond to. I’ve looked at all your posts in this thread and you have yet to once, concretely point to these death panels Is it the end of life care advice doctors already give to patients once every 5 years, or is it government run Medicare which has been going on for decades, or maybe some secret Obamanazi plan? I’m just curious where the death panels are in the bill and I’m still waiting for you to show me.

    Comment by AJ — December 27, 2010 @ 10:05 pm - December 27, 2010

  99. Call them ‘Death Panels’ or ‘End-of-Life Counseling’ or whatever you choose; it all amounts to the Government spending money we don’t have to perform a function it has no business doing; a function that doctors and patients are perfectly capable of doing without the costly intervention of Government bureaucrats.

    Comment by V the K — December 27, 2010 @ 10:44 pm - December 27, 2010

  100. this healthcare bill gives basic healthcare access to 30+ million American’s that didn’t have access to it.

    The number thrown around by liberals was 47 million. What happened to the other 17 million? Are they SOL?

    Thats’ 30 million American’s that won’t die because they have pneumonia or some other treatable illness like they may have before. But I guess us classists would rather see them suffer and be denied any healthcare whatsoever because they can’t afford it.

    If the liberals actually gave a shit, why did they not institute it immediately instead of waiting until 2014? What about all the people who will die by then?

    What about me? My doctor quit his practice due to ObamaCareless. Your Affirmative Action president promissed I could keep my doctor. What do I do now?

    What of the 6,000 kids of SEIU employees who got booted from their parents insurance?

    If ObamaCareless is so damn great, why won’t he subscribe to it? Why does he keep granting waivers?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 27, 2010 @ 10:50 pm - December 27, 2010

  101. Oh and lest we forget the People’s Economist, Paul al-Krugman, recommends death panels to save money.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 27, 2010 @ 10:56 pm - December 27, 2010

  102. Is it called a “death panel” when the insurance companies deny coverage? How about when they refuse people with pre-existing conditions? What should be done about those problems? The truth is conservatives have no idea! Health savings accounts? LMAO! People who have no money to begin with will save their way to an operation that costs $150,000 apparently. You know when “health savings accounts” are the first thing mentioned that the GOP has no idea what they’re talking about.

    Comment by Mike — December 28, 2010 @ 12:23 am - December 28, 2010

  103. This death panel thing hits close to home for me. I am being treated for a terminal form of cancer. This cancer can not be cured, but the growth can be controlled in some cases such as mine. Will people with fatal diseases be cut off from treatment because there is no cure? I’m a single parent of three, 48 year old, and every month, every year, is precious to me.

    Three years ago I was given three weeks to live. So far I have exceeded that, but no one knows how long I have. Months? Years? With no treatment, probably weeks or months. Does some government bureaucrat have the right to overrule my doctor and deny me life-extending treatment? Does he want to face my children and parents and say that my life is not worth the extra expense? God help us all.

    Comment by Lisa — December 28, 2010 @ 12:36 am - December 28, 2010

  104. The truth is conservatives have no idea!

    No, that’s not the truth. It’s a lie. How do you know when a liberal is lying? Besides when their mouth is moving or their keyboard is clicking, it’s when they start a statement with “The truth is…”.

    Conservatives have plenty of ideas, starting with allowing competition across state lines, letting people buy catastrophic coverage like they do life insurance, tort reform… all things that would bring costs down practically immediately, and all things that Democrats struck down in their bid to take over healthcare and start the ball rolling toward socialized medicine.

    Death Panels are a feature of socialized medicine, not a bug.

    Comment by The Mega Indepedent — December 28, 2010 @ 12:54 am - December 28, 2010

  105. Is it called a “death panel” when the insurance companies deny coverage?

    According to the left, yes.

    And, since the government denies coverage the most of all, then it can be conclusively established that the government does in fact have “death panels’ and that denial of coverage and benefits by government insurance kills the most people annually.

    If you would simply read the information presented, Mike, you wouldn’t ask questions that were already answered. Now explain why you support denial of coverage and benefits by the government while screaming that it’s wrong anywhere else.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2010 @ 1:22 am - December 28, 2010

  106. And here’s a typical example of AJ’s ignorance and duplicity on this topic.

    The insurance companies will still be making the decisions about what procedures their plans cover.

    WRONG.

    Democrats were celebrating the arrival of ObamaCare’s first regulatory wave, which was designed to land weeks before the election. These include mandated benefits like “free” preventive care (i.e., the cost is built into the premiums).

    And:

    The major driver of the increased premium costs are the new mandates that will force insurers to offer more comprehensive coverage, and effectively bar individuals from purchasing less benefit rich insurance at a lower price.

    In short, the whole point of Obamacare is to dictate coverage that will be provided and will be denied.

    And what has this already done? Thanks to Sebelius and her new panel of bureaucrats, children are being denied health care coverage — something that never happened prior to this law.

    And lack of health insurance causes death. The Obama Party said so.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2010 @ 2:04 am - December 28, 2010

  107. How about when they refuse people with pre-existing conditions? What should be done about those problems? The truth is conservatives have no idea!

    It’s called HIPPA. It became law in 1996. The truth is that liberals are lying sacks of crap.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 28, 2010 @ 2:38 am - December 28, 2010

  108. HIPAA rather

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 28, 2010 @ 2:39 am - December 28, 2010

  109. I’m sorry I hurt the imaginary feelings of your imaginary friend, why don’t you go lay down?

    I truly would like to know. Would you mind explaining to the class why liberals are terrified of offending anyone EXCEPT Christians, Jews, Mormons etc.?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 28, 2010 @ 2:45 am - December 28, 2010

  110. Vote for Pedro, I mean I’d like to actually have a real debate. But if you want to just make silly comments like that, then that’s fine too

    Right, because upthread I didn’t comment on how regulations affected my own health care claim denial, right? I didn’t link to an article regarding England’s problems with EOL care, right? I didn’t ask the pertinent question to make the point regarding who denies the most claims, right? I said politicians use hyperbole to criticize their opponents position, and gave a damn good example of the president’s absurd claim about reckless doctors enriching themselves at their patients expense, right?

    No one will be able to meet the AJ standard of accepted satisfaction, because AJ says so. Great debate. Let’s face it. You don’t want to debate, you want to lecture others you disagree with, period.

    “Whatever” seems the most appropriate response to your nonsense.

    Comment by Vote for AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 5:50 am - December 28, 2010

  111. Would you mind explaining to the class why liberals are terrified of offending anyone EXCEPT Christians, Jews, Mormons etc.?

    Because liberals are generally cowards and bullies. They know if they bash Christians, Christians will turn the other cheek, and all of the other liberals will cheer them on.

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2010 @ 6:29 am - December 28, 2010

  112. Poor Mikey doesn’t understand pre-existing conditions, nor how they work.

    First, a Pre-existing condition doesn’t count if you have had insurance in the three months prior to the new coverage starting.

    Second, most plans have a ‘run off’ period where after X months, the condition can be covered. This varies from zero to 18 months, depending on how the plan is written.

    Third, the pre-existing condition, like every other bit of coverage in the policy is determined by the plan sponsor. Well it used to be, until the Government got involved. Maximum age of dependents? Determined by the plan sponsor. Abortion coverage? Determined by the plan sponsor. Adoption coverage? (Wendy’s restaurants at least used to have this, since Dave Thomas was a man of honour) Determined by the plan sponsor. Coverage comes down to how much the plan sponsor (and by association, the employee) want to pay.

    I know I know… Shame on me on bringing facts to a liberal rant.

    (Standard disclaimer: I work for an insurance company. I don’t speak for them and I’m sure as hell they don’t want me to.)

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 28, 2010 @ 6:51 am - December 28, 2010

  113. In all seriousness, I want a serious debate. Seriously!!!

    Comment by Vote for AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 7:23 am - December 28, 2010

  114. It is creepy and Orwellian the way the administration is using the euphemism “Wellness Visit” to describe the Government’s Process for deciding if your life is worth preserving.

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2010 @ 7:23 am - December 28, 2010

  115. V the K,

    That’s what propagandist do.

    “We’ve always at war with Eurasia.”

    Comment by Vote for AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 7:53 am - December 28, 2010

  116. s/b “We’ve always been at war with Eurasia.”

    Comment by Vote for AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 7:54 am - December 28, 2010

  117. NDT, thanks for pointing out that the government is mandating minimum coverage for insurance policies, good point. That just shows that the government is acting on behalf of the consumer but saying what the insurance must cover, but nothing in the bill stops the companies from covering end of life services or anything amounting to death panels. The insurance companies are able to provide whatever services they want as long as they meet a basic minimum. Don’t see how that amounts to death panels.

    NDT, you also said:

    And, since the government denies coverage the most of all, then it can be conclusively established that the government does in fact have “death panels’ and that denial of coverage and benefits by government insurance kills the most people annually.

    So then you’re basically admitting that Obama and this bill didn’t CREATE these so called death panels that you believe exist? The government has been in the healthcare business for a while and this bill didn’t create another government entity providing healthcare to people. So why do you and other people insist that Obama created death panels, when in fact, you believe they’ve been around for decades?

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 9:17 am - December 28, 2010

  118. “That just shows that the government is acting on behalf of the consumer but saying what the insurance must cover”

    Except for all those people losing policies because they and their employer can’t afford what the government determines is ‘minimum coverage.’

    Thank you for failing reality again.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 28, 2010 @ 9:43 am - December 28, 2010

  119. hat just shows that the government is acting on behalf of the consumer but saying what the insurance must cover

    Wrong. The Government is denying the consumer the freedom to tailor a policy to his needs, forcing the consumer to pay for services he will not use, and driving up the overall cost of health care.

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2010 @ 9:44 am - December 28, 2010

  120. AJ,

    Get a life. Let us play your silly game.

    OBAMACARE DOES NOT HAVE A SINGLE REFERENCE TO DEATH PANELS ANYWHERE IN IT.

    Now what? Well, this:

    So then you’re basically admitting that Obama and this bill didn’t CREATE these so called death panels that you believe exist?

    No.

    Obama and this bill “will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1. (See New York Times excerpt in the post above the comment section.)

    So, the regulators will regulate the who, what, why, where, when, and how of end-of-life healthcare. The group (panel) which writes these regulations will deal with the end of life (death.) Ergo, the “end of life regulation writing group” could also be called the “death panel” as it is the regulatory committee of human beings determining the life-sustaining procedures the government will pay for and which ones the government will deny. This panel will pay doctors to talk with patients to set up plans for dying.

    Now, AJ, in a perfect world, the doctor and the patient have a long relationship of trust and the patient is a thoughtful and lucid human being. On the other hand, perhaps the patient is a drug addict who OD’s and meets the doctor for the first time in a life and death emergency in the ER. Since the drug addict is “human debris” and on his way to death, shall the ER just make him comfortable until his lights go out permanently? Your call, statist know-it-all.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 28, 2010 @ 9:51 am - December 28, 2010

  121. AJ,

    Do you recall that Obama favored killing the baby that survived partial-birth abortion?

    Just wondering.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 28, 2010 @ 9:54 am - December 28, 2010

  122. For those who have read the blatherings of AJ and friends, I offer this:

    Talking Points Memo and the Huffington Post started this “Death Panels” stupidity among the AJ’s by encouraging them to base their attacks on Palin’s words taken out of context. Here is the Talking Points Memo using Palin’s words with the same words in bold type that they put in bold type:

    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.

    See there? She said: “stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’”……..

    Really, I think AJ and his TalkingPointsMemoBorgs are just doing their duty by running with this “stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’”…….. until everybody’s ears bleed.

    Poor, dumb Sarah. She should have said “ground up in the Obama regulatory machine.” Oh, wait, there is no machine. Show me the machine.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 28, 2010 @ 10:11 am - December 28, 2010

  123. Obama considers unexpected children “punishment,” we on the pro-life side regard them as blessings.

    There’s a widespread belief that a lot of the deranged animus of the left toward Sarah Palin is that she allowed two children to be born whom the left would have had terminated for convenience; her daughter’s unplanned son and her own Down’s Syndrome son.

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2010 @ 10:13 am - December 28, 2010

  124. V the K,

    Have you seen Trig? I’ve watched SPAK for a while, he’s a cute little boy. And it’s clear the whole family loves him.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 28, 2010 @ 10:25 am - December 28, 2010

  125. I should say cute as in cute child, not in the Kevin Jennings kind of way.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 28, 2010 @ 10:27 am - December 28, 2010

  126. Heliotrope said this:

    Obama and this bill “will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1. (See New York Times excerpt in the post above the comment section.)

    So, the regulators will regulate the who, what, why, where, when, and how of end-of-life healthcare. The group (panel) which writes these regulations will deal with the end of life (death.) Ergo, the “end of life regulation writing group” could also be called the “death panel” as it is the regulatory committee of human beings determining the life-sustaining procedures the government will pay for and which ones the government will deny. This panel will pay doctors to talk with patients to set up plans for dying.

    I have read the article, have you? This bill doesn’t do anything you just said. If it does, I’d love for you to actually show me where the government will now be in charge of denying care in a way in which they weren’t before. Just because you say something exists doesn’t make it true. But since this regulation is spelled out so plainly in the bill, I’m sure you can show me where these regulators will “regulate the who, what, why,where,when and how of end of life healthcare.”

    These end of life regulations simply stipulate that doctors have talks that they already have with their patients. It just increases the frequency of those talks. And I’m not sure if you understand the bill, but the government isn’t providing funding for specific procedures through any other means besides Medicare and Medicaid, which they’ve done for years. They are giving subsidies to individuals who then decide, on their own, the healthcare they’d like to purchase from PRIVATE insurance companies. How does that result in the government denying you procedures by creating death panels?

    What in this bill creates some new sort of death panel? You have yet to show it. Withholding funding from doctors who don’t continue to have existing conversations with their patients about end of life planning is not a death panel. And the government has been in the business of having to deny funding for certain procedures for years. Simple question, how does this bill CREATE “death panels” that didn’t exist before? So far all you’ve cited is a conversation between doctor and patient. You may think the government shouldn’t encourage doctors to have this talk more often, but that doesn’t mean they are deciding what care to give or not give to patients. Where is that power created in this bill?

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 10:41 am - December 28, 2010

  127. The Palins do seem to be a loving and mutually supporting family, Livewire, something else a lot of liberals resent.

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2010 @ 10:44 am - December 28, 2010

  128. These end of life regulations simply stipulate that doctors have talks that they already have with their patients. It just increases the frequency of those talks.

    And this is the Government’s business why? How can it be the worst crime imaginable for the Government to listen in on the phone conversations of foreign terrorists. but hunky-dory for that same Government to insert itself into the doctor-patient relationship of its own citizens?

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2010 @ 10:47 am - December 28, 2010

  129. Now, AJ, in a perfect world, the doctor and the patient have a long relationship of trust and the patient is a thoughtful and lucid human being. On the other hand, perhaps the patient is a drug addict who OD’s and meets the doctor for the first time in a life and death emergency in the ER. Since the drug addict is “human debris” and on his way to death, shall the ER just make him comfortable until his lights go out permanently? Your call, statist know-it-all.

    It’s not my call, it’s the doctors/insurance companies call. If he’s on Medicare or Medicaid then it’s the government’s call. But it’s been the governments call in that regard for decades.

    This bill doesn’t change that and you still haven’t shown where it has. Insult me all you want, but you have yet to prove anything you’ve said. What in this bill grants the government new powers in deciding which procedures to grant or deny?

    The government doesn’t tell doctors which end of life procedures they can perform, it simply encourages them to have that conversation more often. If it’s such a terrible conversation to have, then why haven’t you had a problem with it before, since it’s already mandated?

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 10:49 am - December 28, 2010

  130. And this is the Government’s business why? How can it be the worst crime imaginable for the Government to listen in on the phone conversations of foreign terrorists. but hunky-dory for that same Government to insert itself into the doctor-patient relationship of its own citizens?

    Because it’s for Medicaid patients and they’re paying for it. The government is essentially acting as the insurance company in this regard. Insurance companies mandate things as well. I’m just wondering why people haven’t had a problem with this before since it’s already happening?

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 10:52 am - December 28, 2010

  131. As I have stated numerous times, AJ, my problem with it is that the Government is broke and needs to stop paying for stuff like this we can’t afford.

    Maybe because you are liberal, I’ll need to use the F-word to make you understand it. The Government is effing broke and needs to stop paying for effing s-word like this we can’t effing afford. Especially s-word that’s none of the Government’s effing business.

    Does that make it clearer for you?

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2010 @ 10:55 am - December 28, 2010

  132. Yea, I understand you’re point. I wasn’t really addressing the overall efficacy of Medicare and Medicaid because that wasn’t what this post was about, it focused on the mythical death panels. But I agree with you somewhat. The government has to change a lot of what it funds, from entitlement programs to military spending and everything in between, this is one place in which I agree with Rand Paul. I don’t believe, however, that Medicare and Medicaid should be abolished completely. But that’s a much bigger debate to have.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 10:58 am - December 28, 2010

  133. What in this bill grants the government new powers in deciding which procedures to grant or deny?

    From AJ’s comment above:

    NDT, thanks for pointing out that the government is mandating minimum coverage for insurance policies, good point.

    So AJ acknowledges that Obamacare grants the government new powers in deciding which procedures to grant in one post, and promptly forgets it mere minutes later.

    Next:

    They are giving subsidies to individuals who then decide, on their own, the healthcare they’d like to purchase from PRIVATE insurance companies.

    Wrong. Individuals are NOT allowed to decide on their own; they are forced at gunpoint to purchase insurance whether they want it or not, and are not allowed to choose what level of coverage they want.

    And by the way, what happens if you want more coverage? That’s right; the government imposes a penalty tax on it, the “Cadillac tax”, which is designed to make it unaffordable.

    I seem to remember AJ blabbering above that coverage being expensive equated to denial of coverage. Since the Obamacare bill forcibly raises the price on better coverage to discourage its use, that thus means that the government, through Obamacare, assumes new powers to deny coverage.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2010 @ 11:03 am - December 28, 2010

  134. So you acknowledge, AJ, that Medicare and Medicaid have death panels.

    You also acknowledge that Obamacare forces private insurance companies to act in the same fashion as Medicare and Medicaid.

    Therefore, the Obamacare bill creates death panels.

    Before, you could avoid death panels by simply not taking advantage of Medicaid and Medicare and purchasing private insurance.

    Now, under Obamacare, you have no option; you will face death panels.

    Game over. Your own definitions just blew up in your face. In your desperate attempt to spin, you tried to use Medicare and Medicaid as a red herring to claim that Republicans supported death panels; however, what Obamacare does is mandate private insurance to have death panels and adjudicate end of life care as do Medicare and Medicaid.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2010 @ 11:07 am - December 28, 2010

  135. NDT, you forgot that it also gives the government power to ‘play favourites’ in their waiver granting. “These laws apply to you, but not you.”

    So there’s another death panel… “Well Bill gets procedure X covered, but the government decided your insurer gets a waiver, so you don’t.”

    “We’ll pay you to discuss the best way for your paitent to die.”

    Sarah Palin was right. The government will decide treatments are too expensive to pay for, and that panel will thus decide you don’t get to live.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 28, 2010 @ 11:09 am - December 28, 2010

  136. NDT, the government is not denying anyone coverage. They play no part in saying that you can’t stay on life support if you want. Thanks for keeping me on my toes, but I still don’t see where these NEW death panels come from. Maybe you could show me since you seem pretty well versed on the bill. Where in the bill does Obama or anyone else have the created power to say you can’t receive this life saving procedure? Something NEW the bill creates for them to specifically say, grandma is too old, we don’t think it’s beneficial for the country to save her life?

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 11:10 am - December 28, 2010

  137. NDT, I don’t believe Medicare and Medicaid have death panels, I’ve been trying to say that if people believe they did, then they’ve been around for a while and the bill isn’t doing anything to create new ones.

    Thelivewire, the bill doesn’t decide what procedures you get covered. It grants subsidies to people based on their income level. They can purchase whatever available insurance they want with that, it’s their choice. Saying the government will now be deciding which procedures people can get in a way they didn’t before is simply not true. If the bill created a public option, then that would be true, it doesn’t though.

    The bill simply

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 11:15 am - December 28, 2010

  138. It’s not my call, it’s the doctors/insurance companies call. If he’s on Medicare or Medicaid then it’s the government’s call. But it’s been the governments call in that regard for decades.

    Wrong. Dead wrong. No insurance company, no medicare regulation decides when a person’s life should be ended or allowed to end. This is the trickiest moment in medical ethics and there is no computer program to consult. When to “allow nature to take its course” and when to use extraordinary intervention is not subject to rule books and regulations.

    Please cite examples of insurance companies or medicare making the call for decades.

    In #96 you say: Note in the quote I said, “if you believe what you believe.” I don’t think Medicare has been rationing healthcare for years. That stands in stark contradiction in what you say in the blockquote above. Which is it? Medicare has made the call for denying healthcare for decades or Medicare has not been rationing (making the call) for decades?

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 28, 2010 @ 11:17 am - December 28, 2010

  139. Heliotrope, Sorry, I meant Medicare has been denying claims for decades, not necessarily cutting the cord, that’s a little drastic.

    But instead of attacking my posts, I’d really love for you to bolster your own and show me where these NEW death panels come from. The government encouraged conversations between doctor and patient you cited already exist, so have death panels been around for decades? OR is there something new Obama has done that gives the government the power to cut the cord?

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 11:24 am - December 28, 2010

  140. Cutting the cord in a sense by denying necessary end of life care, not actually pulling people off of life support. Though I’m guessing some people baselessly think the government may have that power now too.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 11:56 am - December 28, 2010

  141. AJ

    Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

    The government will pay doctors additional money for the service. Now how will they do that? They’ll have to create a new procedure (and of course the AMA will cheerfully give a CPT code to it)

    So now the government will be mandating the doctors have this coversation yearly. It doesn’t matter if the person is 65 and running marathons weekly, or if they’re 77 and have a brain the consistancy of oatmeal. To say it isn’t new, is bogus. In fact… here is where as of 2009 it was included in the IPPE. Proving my point.

    They’re changing, making the end of life care as a cost saving method. Excatly as SP’s quote indicates. Also as she indicates, cost savings don’t make medicine cheeper, they just make it so people can’t get access to it. Again, exactly as we’re seeing being done.

    So which part of her statement is wrong?

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 28, 2010 @ 12:25 pm - December 28, 2010

  142. AJ,

    Well not our government (yet) just the one that is always looked to as a model by our current administration.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 28, 2010 @ 12:28 pm - December 28, 2010

  143. AJ,

    Obama, with the stroke of a pen, could issue an executive order that prohibits anything that could possibly be construed as a “death panel” under anyone’s definition. (He could also release his Hawaiian birth certificate, his college records, etc.)

    If you have read and been thoughtful about the two excerpts at the heart of Dan’s post, you would see that the New York Times finds that Obama has achieved end-of-life planning by regulation starting Jan. 1. You would see that Ed Morrissey finds “something at least vaguely disturbing about a government incentivizing doctors to do so (engage in end-of-life planning) as part of an expansive regulatory program that has, as one of its primary goals, cost reduction.”

    We all need to have a sane, give and take discussion about euthanasia and what constitutes euthanasia. My hospital always asks for living will information and offers living will consultation for those who are interested. However, a living will does not mean that the hospital will not cheat death when there is a good chance it can be averted.

    Obamacare can not be honestly defended by anyone, because it is amorphous and riddled with open-ended language which says the Secretary shall determine. For the same reason, my side of the argument can not find the exact phrase that proves what we expect and fear. We can only go on the evidence that Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel has made clear about his motivation concerning end-of-life “planning.”

    The State of Oregon has some tepid movement toward euthanasia. I have not followed it. However, when it comes to killing granny, you can bet that there are a lot of vested interests in seeing her go. The hospital or nursing home can use the space. The insurance company would like to stop paying on her care. The grandkids need the money for college. The son is run ragged trying to keep up with her medical stuff. You should not be surprised at the number of people who will be saddened and grateful that she is gone.

    Obamacare has not straightened out anything whatsoever in terms of providing affordable health care for nearly everyone. There were no discussions, no give-and-take, no promises made that were kept for more than a political cycle. You can not get a copy of the bill. You can not get a subscription to the regulations that are being developed. You can not tell who wrote the bill and how it came to be completed and ready within less than six weeks of the Inauguration.

    The reason this is so is because for all intents and purposes, the bill, which is now law, does not exist. It is two thousand pages of authorizations for nameless, faceless people to divide, partition, mandate, fine, require, prohibit, imply, threaten, manipulate, etc. by regulation yet unwritten.

    Years ago the auto makers were in charge of auto safety. Now we have the government doing much the same thing in writing the rules of healthcare and deciding the price they will pay. Would you take your car to have a government mandated $5 brake job? Are you comfortable that your end of life planning is not being driven by cost analysis?

    Obamacare is a messy system that is plotted and planned to end up as a single payer system. Single payer system is governmentese for socialized medicine. Regulations are not a list of rights, they are the framework for managing uniformity.

    End of life planning is not a bad thing if it handled as an ethical dilemma. We probably don’t want a cruel death. That is why Hospice is such a successful and wonderful service. Professionals help amateurs deal with death. My mother and my brother-in-law each died in the loving care of Hospice. I have another brother-in-law entering their care. People are not unaware of death and its approach. Living wills are valuable documents. But when cost analysis and “useful life” enter the picture, look out for the slippery slope that leads straight to eugenics, euthanasia and the final solution.

    I know we are not supposed to bring up Hitler. But there is plenty stuff between assisting death and rounding people up to be killed. You had just be pretty clear of the ground you stand on before you start empowering the state to sanction a wider swath of death’s scythe.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 28, 2010 @ 12:30 pm - December 28, 2010

  144. Death Panels would be an advancement over the haphazard and shadowy world that nurses and doctors operate in now. What’s better a nurse or a lone doctor making the sometimes hidden choice to kill the patient or a board certified group of doctors that keep up with the research? Saying that we should never have any discussion or plan for how, why. and when a hospital pulls the plug is just straight up crazy. Only because we, as a culture refuse to face the prospect of death head on do we allow this crazy unpoliced system of random death. While it is true that most nurses and doctors don’t need to be questioned bout their motives or decisions leaving it up to chance is just another ridiculous platform that some people on here are advancing.

    VtheK: you want government out of health care completely, does that cover VA’s too? do we just dump former soldiers and tell them they are on their own now? You plan on having people pay for everything while financially possible is morally culpable. the power will die in greater numbers as they can never afford even simple treatments (and I can assure you it won’t be because they are buying iphones) My parents worked at their own business for years, never put anything into SS and now that their business has failed are in their early 60′s with no savings and health care. They don’t go to the doctor for routine checkups, don’t get their diabetes monitored or even get pain medicine when they have things like kidney stones. They attend church three times a week, don’t smoke or drink and will likely die of complications of preventable conditions. This is the reality of the poor, the sad thing is they are both college educated but they have aged out of the work force and have to make do with menial work opportunities. That we can be the richest country in the world and be unable to offer even basic services to our citizens that countries that are far poorer and more rural offer in a routine and affordable manner. You’ve argued in the past that we are to large to do anything but for someone that champions american exceptionalism you seem oddly blind to turning that to help it’s own citizens.
    As for the childish and immature word baiting going on, about the word “government” end it, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT, if we are doing a crappy job than it’s our responsibility to improve it.
    Do you really think that pricing a procedure out of the reach of 99% of the population isn’t rationing? Pooling resources is a wise habit, should we suddenly stop? should all roads become private? should national parks be sold to mining companies? should the military be disbanded? should police and fire fighters only service houses that pay their taxes? We’re past the point of individuals living on hills folks, we’re an urban society and while we may dicker on the fine points I don’t see anyone on here moving to the country and getting off the net.

    Comment by Tim — December 28, 2010 @ 12:33 pm - December 28, 2010

  145. thelivewire, Did you read the article linked to in this post?

    This new regulatory effort at least puts the conversation where it belongs, in routine wellness visits, rather than as a five-year set conversation. It also appears to make this a voluntary conversation (at least for now), one the patient can decline without any repercussions.

    This conversation already occurs, and is voluntary. All the government is paying people to do is have it more often. It’s a new regulation but not a new conversation between doctors and patients. If increasing the frequency of a conversation between doctors and patients amounts to death panels in your mind, then that’s fine. I just don’t see how paying doctors to have a conversation they ALREADY have is instituting some NEW death panel scheme. Is it really?

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 12:35 pm - December 28, 2010

  146. Heliotrope,

    Obamacare can not be honestly defended by anyone, because it is amorphous and riddled with open-ended language which says the Secretary shall determine. For the same reason, my side of the argument can not find the exact phrase that proves what we expect and fear. We can only go on the evidence that Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel has made clear about his motivation concerning end-of-life “planning.”

    I understand that you may fear the government and what they can do with this bill, my only point is that nothing in the bill currently institutes death panels and saying otherwise is false. It seems that you agree with that point, but are using your opinions and conjecture to say that it COULD happen someday. That’s fine, you may believe that. I haven’t tried to say this bill is perfect or without flaw. My point this entire time has been that nothing in the bill currently can be shown to create these mysterious “death panels.” And it seems you have finally seen that yourself. Guess my “blatherings” weren’t so stupid after all.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 12:41 pm - December 28, 2010

  147. Yes, I did AJ, did you?

    “the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care” Previously, they didn’t. It was inclusive of one exam.

    The regulation, that died a public death, was going to pay the doctor for every five years. This one, pays for every year. By executive decree.

    If you don’t understand the difference, then I don’t see any point in continuing the conversation.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 28, 2010 @ 12:46 pm - December 28, 2010

  148. What’s better a nurse or a lone doctor making the sometimes hidden choice to kill the patient or a board certified group of doctors that keep up with the research?

    I would vote for the former. Morally ambiguous issues are best handled in private, in the shadows. When they become a matter of public policy, the ramifications are unpredictable and generally harmful. In Holland, for example, public policy supporting assisted euthanasia has spread to include a high tolerance for euthanasia in all its forms. Federal level abortion policy has led to cheapening of human life in general. Federal level policy to support single parenthood has broken down the traditional family with devastating social and economic results.

    Despite the conceit of liberals that everyone who isn’t a liberal is an idiot, most people are better empowered to make their own decisions than to have some bureaucrat with a degree in public policy make those decisions… or even advise on those decisions… for them.

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2010 @ 12:46 pm - December 28, 2010

  149. AJ,

    Why do you want to go back to the “death panels” after all you squirming and wriggling? Here are your new words:

    my only point is that nothing in the bill currently institutes death panels and saying otherwise is false.

    OK, you blockhead, I can repeat with certainty that the words “death panels” do not occur in the bill. I seriously doubt they will occur in any regulations as well.

    However, you have used the weasel word “institutes” and from your pathetic performance on this long thread, I have no idea where you will run with that stink bomb.

    If this was your only point why did you wander all over the place in your responses?

    I agree with the New York Times. Obamacare is going to arrive at the results of having death panels through the process of regulation. It is not like this has not been said before.

    You just want to cut and run because you have had your argument shredded.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 28, 2010 @ 12:52 pm - December 28, 2010

  150. Heliotrope, I wondered all over the place with my responses because people were bringing up different points. This post was about death panels tho, that was the main point I was focusing on. Obviously the word death panels don’t occur in the bill. Even more obvious is the fact that nothing even close to constituting death panels occurs in the bill.

    The post was about Palin being right in saying that this bill instituted death panels, was it not? I’m sorry for sticking to the topic and debating what the original post was about, you should try it sometime. But that’s the point I was addressing and, by your own admittance, it’s false. And your name calling is just getting petty now. You rant and rave about your opinions, making no reference to any facts in the bill and call me stupid? I would expect a better argument from someone claiming to be so intelligent and more class from someone who claims to be such a respectful conservative.

    thelivewire,

    I understand that they now have the conversation more often, I’ve said that multiple times in posts I’ve made. There is a difference, but can you tell me what new conversation is occurring between doctors and patients as a result of this change? Is anything new or different being discussed or is just the timing changed? How does changing the frequency of these discussions create a death panel?

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 1:17 pm - December 28, 2010

  151. My parents worked at their own business for years, never put anything into SS and now that their business has failed are in their early 60′s with no savings and health care.

    That’s rather odd, because, if they were employed by the business, it was legally required to deduct Social Security taxes from their paycheck and to pay its own matching contribution, and if they were self-employed, they were assessed on and required to pay them as part of their annual income taxes.

    In short, Timmy, the only way your scenario could possibly exist is if your parents broke the law, either personally or as business owners (and possibly both). So now what we have is gays and lesbians demanding payouts from a system when they illegally dodged making payments into it.

    Furthermore:

    You’ve argued in the past that we are to large to do anything but for someone that champions american exceptionalism you seem oddly blind to turning that to help it’s own citizens.

    Knowing V the K’s religious affiliation, I would say he will answer you when he gets back from a benefit dinner, fundraising meeting, delivering supplies to shut-ins, or something else of the sort.

    The problem is exemplified by you and your parents, Timmy. Your parents didn’t want to pay their bills. Your parents broke the law and didn’t pay their taxes. Now you’re whining and screaming because someone isn’t coming to bail you out.

    You are a moocher, Timmy. What you are trying to do is to use the power of government to compel people to pay your bills for you. Your parents broke the law and refused to pay their taxes, and now they have their little gayboy son whining and screaming and trying to use them as an example.

    You and your tax-cheat parents are demanding collective action when you want to sit on your ass and contribute nothing. That is the bullshit of the Barack Obama Party, and that is what you are pushing. It’s just like Charles Rangel, the Obama Party’s leader, who screams about forcing people to pay higher taxes when he dodges them.

    Why should you receive anything when you won’t lift a finger or pay your own bills, Timmy?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2010 @ 1:21 pm - December 28, 2010

  152. VtheK: you want government out of health care completely, does that cover VA’s too? do we just dump former soldiers and tell them they are on their own now?

    Problem with that logic, Tim, is that service in the military is voluntary. Participation in the VA is voluntary as well; former veterans are free to use whatever medical service they want.

    Personally, what I would love to see happen is for the VA to be expanded to be the only option for government workers. If you want to work for the government and get fat benefits, fine, but the only thing you’re getting paid is through government-provided health care.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2010 @ 1:25 pm - December 28, 2010

  153. Thanks for the rebuttal, NDT. I was content to ignore the 16 billionth iterations of the idiot-left’s favorite strawman: “If you oppose the Government bankrupting society to pay for lavish and unnecessary social benefits then, ipso facto, you must oppose the Government providing police, military, basic infastructure, and a modest social safety net.”

    Just for the record, I don’t want any extraordinary life-extending measures. (I am looking forward to an Afterlife free of socialist idiots.) But that’s my choice, and I sure as hell don’t want some Government bureaucrat with a “Yes, We Can” button pinned to her lapel sticking her fussbudget, control-freak nose into my business.

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2010 @ 1:30 pm - December 28, 2010

  154. This has been a great thread of comments. Haha! I took a break from politics for Christmas week but I’m glad others are keeping the blogosphere’s watchdog energy alive. I have to rank universal health care as one of the top ten rashest and poorly thought out moves of the last 10 years, along with the stimulus package, repealing DADT without knowing how the military would change or whether it would change anything at all, federalizing education standards, invading Iraq without a clear exit plan, and trying to prove that Barack Obama was born in Kenya:

    http://tinyurl.com/23kcfob

    I’ve realized over the last year that foolishness knows no party lines, and conservatives and liberals are equally capable of rushing into policies without understanding the practical details or impacts.

    Probably the area that most infuriates me about the debate has to do with the military, because I just came off a year of serving with everyday 18-year-old privates from across the country, and what they’re facing seems to be misunderstood or exploited by debaters. All the references to the VA and military benefits seem to overlook how much trouble people have in getting access to counseling and medical consultations through Tri-Care or the VA, especially when they’re low-ranking and told to deal with all problems through chaplains, who are going to pray to give them the strength not to have whatever problem they were dealing with.

    Tons of people are signing up for the military now to pay for health care for their families; they get to IADT and find out they are going to crumble emotionally in the high-stress life they signed up for, and at every turn people block them from quitting by reminding them that their family will lost coverage if they try to get discharged. I know of more than a few who sign up with the intent of getting killed in battle so their family can get half a million dollars in life insurance. While I am not a fan of ObamaCare, it is important that people understand all the practical issues surrounding the “voluntary” military coverage option.

    Comment by RO Lopez — December 28, 2010 @ 1:43 pm - December 28, 2010

  155. ND30 you should know by now that I have the lowest possible opinion of you and think that your ad hock attacks against everyone make you little better than a gay Westboro-phelps supporter. I find you craven, abusive, and self hating.

    I never asked for benefits for my family I said they would die of preventable conditions. Saying that they were tax cheats and calling them criminals when in fact they simply were bad at running a business is your normal mode of attack. My mother was a stay at home mom and a substitute teacher, my dad owned and ran the business and never counted his hours as wages. Your abusive attacks are little more than the words of a bully stomping anyone who disagrees with you.

    If VtheK is content for you speaking for him than sadly I will attach the same opinion I have of you to him. Which is a shame since I have known him for so long and contribute to his site. But I really cannot stand the vitriol that you throw at people having rational discussions.

    I for one am not a tax cheat nor do I curry special favors by rewriting the HR code for my business like you do. I pay on average 30k in taxes every year not even counting sales taxes and various fees.
    I made the point that we are already in a socialist system that uses regulated capitalist markets to do most of our business. History as well as experience has shown that unfettered capitalism quickly morphs into monopoly’s that strangle innovation and destroy the middle class. Our own history is in fact a blueprint for how various and very different groups of people working together for the common good.
    Shirking the the fact that it is easy for us to in fact feed the world and do away with famine, would than make you culpable just like seeing a child in the middle of the road and walking away because it wasn’t your responsibility. I think that’s what’s most morally troubling about some of these arguments is that we shouldn’t have to help people because that’s not our direct responsibility. I’m not even a christian and I have better morals than that, the fact that many of us were born in this country is a quirk of fate nothing more. nothing separates us from most of the starving masses of the world but chance. To say that their pain isn’t your problem because you don’t want to hike your taxes 5% is simply sad. You’ve become so cocooned in your comfortable lives that you forget that most people, and certainly most gays don’t have it anywhere as good as we do. That you can’t be bothered to lift a finger for them speaks of your own moral shortcomings.

    Comment by Tim — December 28, 2010 @ 3:03 pm - December 28, 2010

  156. NDT, the government is not denying anyone coverage. They play no part in saying that you can’t stay on life support if you want.

    Wrong.

    Obamacare establishes specific coverages that plans must provide in order to receive subsidies.

    If a plan exceeds this coverage, i.e. allows you to stay on life support, Obamacare institutes a punitive tax to drive up its cost and refuses to provide subsidies for its purchase.

    And what was it that you were saying before?

    Fact is 30 million people that could not afford healthcare before will now have healthcare soon. If you want to play semantics with the word access that’s fine, but 30 million people that didn’t have coverage before will have it as a result of this bill.

    You made a very clear equivalence that to be unable to afford health care was the same as denying access and eliminating coverage. Now, since Obamacare specifically contains provisions to make types of health care that the Obama Party doesn’t want you to have unaffordable, you suddenly flip-flop.

    The sheer inconsistency of your argument can be summed up in this simple example: if a private insurance plan charged ruinous rates to cover a given condition, you would call that denial of care. But if the government forces ruinous rates to be charged to cover a given condition with the sole goal of discouraging such coverage, as in the “Cadillac tax”, you insist that it is still a choice.

    Furthermore, you and your fellow lefties have a screaming fit when private insurance companies do not cover every single condition or charge for expanded coverage, blabbering about “death panels” — but then insist that when the government refuses to cover every single condition, refuses to subsidize premiums, and deliberately passes regulations to make expanded coverage unaffordable, that that does NOT constitute a “death panel”.

    The only way your argument can even be considered in any way rational is if it is based on the assumption that everything the government does and the Obama Party pushes is right. And that is why you are attacking Sarah Palin; she criticized the government and the Obama Party, so that means in your worldview that she is automatically wrong. This is why you so blatantly contradict yourself, insisting one minute that unaffordability is denial of access and then the next that it’s not; the only difference between the two is whether or not the government is doing it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2010 @ 3:06 pm - December 28, 2010

  157. Tim,

    Your parents can get the care they need here:

    http://www.cms.gov/home/medicaid.asp

    You should read up on the bazillion programs for the elderly. Your local government has some sort of office for all manner of rent, food, shelter, health, tax, utility bill, etc. welfare.

    If you are actively concerned, you can help them with the paperwork.

    While I am not a fan of the many layers of welfare and over-lapping programs, they are there for you, just like your despised wealthy have tax loop-holes.

    You might also find out why their church is not helping them with getting government aid. Perhaps they are huddling up with folks who just share the misery rather than attack the problem.

    Get busy and stop whining.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 28, 2010 @ 3:09 pm - December 28, 2010

  158. My mother was a stay at home mom and a substitute teacher, my dad owned and ran the business and never counted his hours as wages.

    Oh, this gets even easier.

    First off, substitute teachers are required by law to have contributions to Social Security deducted from their paycheck and matched by the school district — unless they’re in a state where there is a separate program for teachers, in which case your mother would have participated in and been eligible for that.

    First anecdote fail.

    Next up, it is impossible for your father to have contributed nothing to Social Security unless he lied on his tax forms, since it is assessed and taken out of individual income for self-employed individuals.

    So yes, your father is a tax cheat and a criminal. Why shouldn’t he be called that? After all, your screaming Obama Party and your fellow gays and lesbians insist that “the rich” who pay their taxes are cheats and criminals because they don’t pay MORE; why shouldn’t people like your father and mother who didn’t even pay what they owed by law be called anything else?

    And here’s the really entertaining part.

    I pay on average 30k in taxes every year not even counting sales taxes and various fees.

    And yet, how are your parents living?

    They don’t go to the doctor for routine checkups, don’t get their diabetes monitored or even get pain medicine when they have things like kidney stones.

    Funny; Timmy claims to “care” about the poor when he won’t even provide health insurance and care for his family. He wants to hike everyone else’s taxes to to relieve the suffering of the “poor” when he leaves his own parents to suffer without doctors’ visits, preventative care, pain medication, and whatnot.

    Doesn’t that make it patently obvious that Timmy is a moocher who is just using “the poor” as an excuse to guilt others into paying his bills for him?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2010 @ 3:28 pm - December 28, 2010

  159. Timmy seems ignorant of the established fact that Christians and Conservatives are far more charitable than his liberal overlords. Also, government forced charity never works. Never has, never will.

    It’s also interesting to note that, as a tool for bashing Bush, the VA is a cesspool only hospitable for Josef Mengele types. But when you support that for all Americans, it’s the best thing since sliced bread.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 28, 2010 @ 3:39 pm - December 28, 2010

  160. If a plan exceeds this coverage, i.e. allows you to stay on life support, Obamacare institutes a punitive tax to drive up its cost and refuses to provide subsidies for its purchase.

    NDT, These “Cadillac” healthcare plans go above and beyond normal care. The average rate for individuals and families is half of what the threshold. And it’s not based on certain procedures or types of coverage as you suggest, simply on a price threshold. The government is picking or choosing what procedures you can get.

    So it’s more conjecture into a far fetched scenario with no proof to back it up. The government isn’t regulating specific treatment a person can’t receive that applies to end of life situations. I mean you theorize that it could happen, but provide nothing to suggest that someone would be taken off of life support or denied a surgery they need because of this tax.

    And the tax isn’t making any certain types of necessary procedures unaffordable. It makes people think harder about buying policies that contain coverage for things like cosmetic procedures. No one is or will be denied necessary healthcare because of this tax. Whether that be for preventative measures or survival. If that isn’t the case, I’d love for you to show me how. Those 30 million people had no healthcare at all because of “ruinous rates”, it’s not even close to the same comparison.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 3:42 pm - December 28, 2010

  161. @Heliotrope thanks for the link, I’ll try it out and see what they qualify for it, I’m afraid you must have confused me for someone else though I don’t begrudge the rich wealth I just think we all have a common social responsibility to the poor and disposed. I just wish that people whose religion taught the same thing would bother to lift a finger when faced with reality instead of saying that churches will fill the void. If churches were half as concerned with helping the poor they wouldn’t pay their preachers and would spend the money on doctors and nurses to treat those in need.
    I don’t think all the prayer circles in the world will do the same good as a drug treatment center or a homeless shelter for kids.

    ND30 if you think that a substitute teacher has any substantial SS contributions perhaps your school system pays to well. My parents won’t let me pay for their insurance, besides the fact that my dad has diabetes and since it was classified as a preexisting condition found it almost impossible to get private insurance.
    As for the rest good job on avoiding any personal moral responsibility. Nice church you belong to there, I’m sure that’s what your savior taught. Screw the poor and the sick!!

    Comment by Tim — December 28, 2010 @ 3:46 pm - December 28, 2010

  162. And NDT, lumping me in with what fellow “lefties” said is a juvenile tactic at best. Just because I may have some liberal beliefs, doesn’t mean I agree with everything every liberal said ever. I haven’t commented on my belief as to Insurance companies having death panels. So saying other people said that to attack my argument makes no sense.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 3:47 pm - December 28, 2010

  163. @ThatGayConservative considering that my friend has been a nurse at the VA hospital in norman OK for the last 10 years I am more than aware of both the shortcomings and the very real good that it is capable of.
    As for saying that christians are more charitable than “Liberal overlords” well if the attitude on this message thread is any reading I would disagree, I find them to be mean spirited, judgmental and unwilling to sacrifice for the good of another. I’m glad I’m not one of them as well. My older brother is a preacher who also believes that government should have no business in health care, he is for cutting welfare and food stamps and making people pay for any medical services they receive. Since his views and this boards views seem exactly the same I will conclude that I would be better off without the christians or the conservatives.

    You know I don’t bring it up often but my voter registration does say republican and ND30′s ridiculous attacks that I must be a leftist say more about his small minded opinion of who can be in the republican party than the reality of what people identify as.

    Comment by Tim — December 28, 2010 @ 3:54 pm - December 28, 2010

  164. NDT, These “Cadillac” healthcare plans go above and beyond normal care.

    “Normal” as defined by whom?

    Oh, that’s right, the Obama Party, under the new Obamacare law.

    So what if keeping you alive exceeds “normal” care?

    Flushed.

    Next up:

    And it’s not based on certain procedures or types of coverage as you suggest, simply on a price threshold.

    The price of a health insurance plan is DIRECTLY proportional to the amount and type of coverage.

    Have you ever actually bought health insurance? Do you seriously believe that price is unrelated to covered procedures? Do you have any understanding whatsoever of what insurance IS?

    But this one was the hugely hilarious AJ backfire.

    And the tax isn’t making any certain types of necessary procedures unaffordable. It makes people think harder about buying policies that contain coverage for things like cosmetic procedures. No one is or will be denied necessary healthcare because of this tax.

    And who defines what is”necessary”?

    That’s right; under Obamacare, the government. “Unnecessary” procedures will be taxed into unaffordability or outright blocked.

    And who is determining what is “unnecessary” — which, ultimately will lead to care and procedures being denied?

    That’s right — the government bureaucracy.

    Death panels.

    Thank you for playing, AJ. And if you want to be considered as different than your fellow liberals, try not to parrot their lines.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2010 @ 3:56 pm - December 28, 2010

  165. My parents won’t let me pay for their insurance, besides the fact that my dad has diabetes and since it was classified as a preexisting condition found it almost impossible to get private insurance.

    Actually, if your father had been carrying insurance in the first place, he couldn’t have been denied for a pre-existing condition now. HIPAA, remember? Been in place for fourteen years, long back when your dad’s insurance would have been quite inexpensive because of his age.

    So it sounds like, in addition to failing to pay his taxes, he decided he didn’t want to spend money on health insurance either.

    Isn’t that interesting? Sounds like your parents are moochers too; they don’t want you to pay for their health insurance, and they sure didn’t want to pay for their health insurance, but they’re sure ready to demand that other people pay for it.

    And then the hypocrisy becomes even more blatant.

    If churches were half as concerned with helping the poor they wouldn’t pay their preachers and would spend the money on doctors and nurses to treat those in need.

    Mhm. So why should we pay gubmint workers, then? Isn’t that just taking away from money that could be used to pay doctors and nurses to provide free health care?

    This is where the hypocrisy gets hilarious from the moochers like Timmy. They scream and whine that other people should pay, that other people should give up salaries and whatnot, but adamantly refuse to pay for their own families’ health care, give up their own salaries, and follow the same rules that they demand of everyone else.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2010 @ 4:09 pm - December 28, 2010

  166. That’s right; under Obamacare, the government. “Unnecessary” procedures will be taxed into unaffordability or outright blocked.

    And who is determining what is “unnecessary” — which, ultimately will lead to care and procedures being denied?

    Doctor’s and Insurance, the people who have general dictated the cost of coverage and determined what is necessary for one’s survival.

    This is more conjecture on your part. What services will be denied because of this tax and to whom that will lead to these mysterious death panels? You say the government will tax these services into oblivion and death panels will decide who lives and who dies but offer no evidence of how this will occur except your own opinions. I mean if you believe that, that’s fine. But show me what procedures this tax will deny people that will lead to their premature death. Saying you think this tax will make healthcare unaffordable for people and lead to denial of care needed for their survival doesn’t mean it’s true.

    Furthermore, the excise tax isn’t even applicable to insurance in the individual market. It’s only for companies that provide insurance for their employees. It’s not denying care to any individual who wishes to purchase their own insurance at any price rate. If someone wants to purchase a plan that covers botox or liposuction or, in your belief, staying on life support, they can without being taxed. So again, these make believe death panels are just some ploy by the right to discredit healthcare reform.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 4:27 pm - December 28, 2010

  167. “Excise tax on high cost employer-provided health plans becomes effective. Tax is on the cost of coverage in
    excess of $27,500 (family coverage) and $10,200 (single coverage), increased to $30,950 (family) and $11,850
    (single) for retirees and employees in high risk professions. The dollar thresholds are indexed with inflation,
    and employers with higher costs on account of the age or gender demographics of their employees may value
    their coverage using the age and gender demographics of a national risk pool.”

    Here is the exact language you speak of. How is this going to lead to death panels? Companies can choose to pay for the coverage or drop the coverage and increase employers overall salary to offset the difference. Then the government will subsidize the healthcare costs if they qualify? The tax that will lead to “denial of coverage” doesn’t even apply to individual insurance plans.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 4:41 pm - December 28, 2010

  168. Doctor’s and Insurance, the people who have general dictated the cost of coverage and determined what is necessary for one’s survival.

    Oops, nope. The gubmint and the Obama Party are determining what’s “necessary”, remember?

    NDT, thanks for pointing out that the government is mandating minimum coverage for insurance policies, good point.

    So doctors and insurance companies aren’t getting a choice; they’re being forced by government mandate.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2010 @ 4:51 pm - December 28, 2010

  169. And about that cost.

    “First, health insurers including BlueCross BlueShield and Aetna revealed premium increases between 1% and 9% as a direct result of new mandates imposed by ObamaCare. Citing the law’s costly new provisions, insurers are beginning to inform regulators that they have no choice but to pass resulting costs on to consumers.

    Like clockwork, the Obama Administration broadly demonized health coverage providers by suggesting that they’re using ObamaCare mandates as a mere pretext for gouging. White House Office of Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle said, “I would have real deep concerns that the kinds of rate increases that you’re quoting are justified,” and that premium increases were “already their modus operandi before the bill.””

    So let’s see; we have doctors and insurance companies talking about what the cost of coverage will be, and Barack Obama and his Obama Party bureaucrats overruling them, stating they’re wrong, and insisting that there will be no cost increase.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2010 @ 4:54 pm - December 28, 2010

  170. The filter is going haywire with the links; for the previous quote, Google The Obamacare fit hits the shan .

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2010 @ 4:55 pm - December 28, 2010

  171. But show me what procedures this tax will deny people that will lead to their premature death.

    Denial of any coverage leads to death. Remember?

    Thats’ 30 million American’s that won’t die because they have pneumonia or some other treatable illness like they may have before.

    Again, AJ, same rules. You and yours shrieked that denying people anything led to their premature death. Now that’s going to be used against you. You can continue your hypocrisy and demand specifics for what you were generally demagoguing before, but that’s only going to make you look worse.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2010 @ 4:58 pm - December 28, 2010

  172. AJ,

    my only point is that nothing in the bill currently institutes death panels and saying otherwise is false.

    So you keep bouncing back like Sluggo the Balloon Clown with the lead butt. Perhaps you can list the seven or eight specious points that stick in your craw. Or are you just so high on your own too-clever-by-half half-wit that you just like tilting at windmills, real or imaginary?

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 28, 2010 @ 5:11 pm - December 28, 2010

  173. How is it that if Obama’s plan deny’s people coverage they are worse off, but if they have no coverage RIGHT NOW they are fine?

    Comment by Tim — December 28, 2010 @ 5:16 pm - December 28, 2010

  174. NDT, I said denial of any coverage at all led to deaths. The 30 million people had no insurance AT ALL. Again, there is a difference in scenario. This tax will not lead to people having no insurance at all considering it’s a tax on employers. There are many ways they can get the necessary coverage, whether that is still through their employers or through individual plans.

    Taxing “Cadillac” health plans will not deny people any and all insurance, that’s the difference. In fact the excise tax only applies to employer plans. Individuals are able to purchase however much care they want without being “taxed into oblivion”. I still don’t see how the government would be determining what procedures are granted to an individual. You’ve said “this could happen, that could happen, this is possible” but haven’t provided any evidence that people will be denied healthcare by government officials through something resembling a death panel.

    And your quote didn’t show any “party bureaucrats overruling” anyone. All he said is that he is deeply concerned.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 5:20 pm - December 28, 2010

  175. Your parents choose to have no coverage, Tim. That red herring blew up about ten posts ago.

    And by the way, you’ll just make matters worse if you start whining about having to pay for it and that higher costs constitute denial of care, given AJ’s current tack that Obamacare’s specific language to drive costs higher is not denial of services.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2010 @ 5:25 pm - December 28, 2010

  176. How is it that if Obama’s plan deny’s people coverage they are worse off, but if they have no coverage RIGHT NOW they are fine?

    I said denial of any coverage at all led to deaths. The 30 million people had no insurance AT ALL.

    Two comments by different commenters.

    Where are these deaths and people being denied health care? Where? Show me the facts. Where in LA or NYC or Birmingham or Miami or Ames or Sitka or Detroit or Swampknuckle or Leftkneecap are people being denied health care?

    Where?

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 28, 2010 @ 5:26 pm - December 28, 2010

  177. So you keep bouncing back like Sluggo the Balloon Clown with the lead butt. Perhaps you can list the seven or eight specious points that stick in your craw. Or are you just so high on your own too-clever-by-half half-wit that you just like tilting at windmills, real or imaginary?

    The post is about death panels! I’m sorry for sticking to the topic. If I was making a point about something completely unrelated to the post then I would understand why you’d be upset, but now you’re just being silly. What is the point of the comment section if not to comment on the topic of the post?

    If you don’t want to debate what the post is about, then that’s fine. I choose to do just that, you can rant about whatever it is you find wrong with me personally. Resorting to personal attacks instead of substantive ones is usually a sign of a very weak argument anyways.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 5:27 pm - December 28, 2010

  178. Where are these deaths and people being denied health care? Where? Show me the facts. Where in LA or NYC or Birmingham or Miami or Ames or Sitka or Detroit or Swampknuckle or Leftkneecap are people being denied health care?

    Where?

    Here:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/27/uninsured-americans-50-million_n_801695.html

    I’m just curious as to when you’re going to stay on topic, address my point and add something substantive to the debate. I guess I shouldn’t hold my breath though because apparently discussing death panels on a post about death panels is stupid, moronic, or whatever other childish name you want to spout off. Keep avoiding the debate, it’s fun to watch you say so much while saying nothing at the same time.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 5:31 pm - December 28, 2010

  179. NDT, I said denial of any coverage at all led to deaths.

    Wrong. This is what you said.

    Thats’ 30 million American’s that won’t die because they have pneumonia or some other treatable illness like they may have before.

    Now, AJ, please provide evidence that none of these people will die. Also, please provide evidence that all of them would have died from treatable diseases as you claim.

    This tax will not lead to people having no insurance at all considering it’s a tax on employers.

    This is more conjecture on your part. You provide no evidence, no facts, no specific language from the bill, nothing of the sort.

    Taxing “Cadillac” health plans will not deny people any and all insurance, that’s the difference.

    This is more conjecture on your part. You provide no evidence, no facts, no specific language from the bill, nothing of the sort.

    And also, please answer the point I brought up where you insisted that government would not set any coverage limits or types of coverage, but yourself acknowledged that the government was in fact dictating mandatory coverage.

    Also, please answer the point I made in which you claimed that the Obama administration would allow doctors and insurance companies to set rates without interference, but then were shown the Obama Party, Barack Obama, and the Obama administration openly threatening, attacking, and vetoing and blocking rate increases as brought forward by doctors and insurers.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2010 @ 5:40 pm - December 28, 2010

  180. AJ, here’s the problem from your good leftist quote.

    She now owes Kaiser over $55,000, she says. She owes the San Mateo County Hospital–her old employer– over $22,000.

    How could she owe anything, when according to you, since she lacks health insurance, she would not receive any care? Sounds like she’s received over $75k worth of care without having to pay for it.

    Can you please stay on topic and answer the question?

    Also, why isn’t Nancy Pelosi paying her bills for her? Nancy Pelosi and Jackie Speier, her local representative, are both rich Obama Party members. They in fact both own multiple houses, vineyards, and whatnot. Don’t they care? Why aren’t they paying her bills for her?

    Can you please stay on topic and answer that question?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2010 @ 5:45 pm - December 28, 2010

  181. @North Dallas Thirty um AJ is the only one that has actually quoted from the bill you’ve just presented rumors as facts and attacked anyone that disagreed with you as a leftist (your standard attack) as if being on the left was a moral wrong. Judging people’s morals by their political party is pretty juvenile at best but it’s really the only thing you have left. You seem to believe that labeling someone as a liberal means that they are damned forever in your ridiculous concepts of hell but I don’t even know where you could get doctrine to back that up. As for this debate your the only one here that can’t seem to master the actual art of it. You demand exact quotes from people but routinely use unqualified language, broad white washing, and internet rumors as fact. You do this in all your ‘debates’ and the only person that can’t see this is you.
    Find proof for your wild assertions or accept that they are just your own worries. Worries that could be justified or not but most, like your over blown fear of your fellow gays, are just in your head.

    Comment by Tim — December 28, 2010 @ 5:59 pm - December 28, 2010

  182. just like seeing a child in the middle of the road and walking away because it wasn’t your responsibility.

    Which is exactly what leftists do. They see someone in need, and they demand someone else be taxed so that a social program can be created and someone else can be paid to take care of that person. Then, they… as you did… pat themselves on the back for their superior ‘morality.’

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2010 @ 6:17 pm - December 28, 2010

  183. AJ @ #158,

    Can you read? You direct me to people without health care. I asked where bodies are piling up because people are not receiving medical treatment.

    You can not produce that, because the simple fact is that everyone gets medical treatment by federal law.

    I would like to show you a paragraph in your link:

    Those lacking health coverage are vulnerable to what has become a commonplace financial calamity: confronting a medical emergency, and having to pay for care entirely out of pocket. This year, 27% of uninsured adults used up most or all of their savings paying medical bills, according to the study. Half of these uninsured households had total assets of $600 or less.

    Let us parse this, shall we? Does this clip say that the uninsured is limited to health care equal to what they can pay? NO. Does this clip say that a little more than a fourth of all uninsured had to pay most of all their savings for out of pocket health care? YES. Does this clip say that half of uninsured these households had ASSETS of $600 or less? YES.

    Now, then, shouldn’t we have a trail of horror stories about poor people left with broken bones, gun shot wounds, mangled bodies in car wrecks and dying right and left from breast cancer, diabetes, heart attacks, diseases, viruses, malnutrition, medical neglect, back alley doctoring, botched abortions, acne and herpes?

    Why can’t you link to those statistics? I know why. THEY DO NOT EXIST. They do not exist, because we take extraordinary care of our poor at zero cost to them.

    Haul your stupid butt down to the projects and check out the health care complaints. You should be able to find people dying in the parking lots, in the hallways and certainly in the apartments. You should be able to find kids robbing people and homes just to buy medical care for dear old granny. You should find any or all of these if you are even 10% right about the miserable state of health care in the United States.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 28, 2010 @ 6:31 pm - December 28, 2010

  184. Tim and AJ news fact for you…

    My insurance (single individual) is almost $500 a month that my employer pays. That’s 6K right there. When you add the amount that I put in my HSA, the amount my company matches, I (single person, no dependents) am right at the 10K mark. Now I’m in a low risk job. So if you honestly believe that a ‘high risk job’ is going to have an individual premium of under 12K you and reality need to talk more. My premiums would be higher if I didn’t pass biometrics.

    That’s before premium increases, before I take any high level benefits. If I took an HMO or PPO, I’d easily be over the 10K mark.

    Now in case you’d forgotten… I work for an insurance company (and STILL don’t speak for them)

    Why does Obama hate firemen and cops?

    Oh, and Tim, before you try to compare ND30 to Westborough, do we really need to bring up your feeling that 15 year olds having sex with adults is fine?

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 28, 2010 @ 6:54 pm - December 28, 2010

  185. Can you read? You direct me to people without health care. I asked where bodies are piling up because people are not receiving medical treatment.

    here:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917

    Also, are you ever going to address my point and the overall point of this entire post and show us where these death panels are? Your game of distractions and creating other arguments and ignoring the point of this comment thread is getting old. But I guess when you don’t have facts to back up your argument, ignoring someone’s point is easier than proving it wrong. But keep ignoring that point, it just further show’s what little substance you’ve brought to this thread.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 7:11 pm - December 28, 2010

  186. And here is where AJ’s phony study is debunked.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/sep/17/junk-science-expert-sounds-alarm-insurance-study/

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2010 @ 7:15 pm - December 28, 2010

  187. Not so dramatic as The_Livewire’s recounting, but my wife and I pay $4800 per year to supplement our Medicare and we are being hosed on our prescription drug insurance. If we bought generics at Wal-Mart we would be way ahead. We have the insurance to offset costs for high dollar meds that might possibly come our way. After all, that is the true meaning of insurance.

    (Full disclosure: My auto insurance and home owners insurance have been a major sunk cost. I suppose I should crash my car into my house and make the insurance pay.)

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 28, 2010 @ 7:15 pm - December 28, 2010

  188. “The subjects were interviewed only once and the study tries to link their insurance status at that time to mortality a decade later. Yet over the period, the authors have no idea whether subjects were insured or uninsured, what kind of medical care they received, or even cause of death,” he said in a statement.

    One of the study’s co-authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, is a strong proponent of a single-payer system. In addition to working as associate professor of medicine at Harvard University, Dr. Himmelstein is also founder and spokesman for Physicians for a National Health Program.

    So, AJ’s study is only slightly less credible than studies from the Tobacco Institute that concluded that smoking is good for you. Or anything put out by any Climate Change group.

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2010 @ 7:18 pm - December 28, 2010

  189. Just for comparison’s sake, it cost me $70 a month to buy a health insurance policy for my teenage son. It costs over $300 a month to buy him car insurance. Gosh darn it, we need nationalized car insurance, so rich people can pay for my son’s car insurance. I mean, everyone would benefit, right?

    And nobody should be charged more because they have a pre-existing condition like a scad of DUI’s or something. Car insurance companies only raise rates for convicted drunk drivers because they’re greedy like that.

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2010 @ 7:21 pm - December 28, 2010

  190. AJ,

    You will fall for anything, won’t you?

    I spread parakeet feathers around my house to keep dinosaurs from eating my cats and my cats are fine.

    This is from your idiotic link:

    Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.

    Think about it. If these fools had just bought a $1.00 healthcare policy, they would be alive today.

    You got sucked in by the Harvard mention, didn’t you.

    Guess what, AJ. If you are poor, bloated on carbs and transfats, run in streets with gangs, hang around people with STD’s, don’t take care of hygiene, etc. health insurance is not going to do squat for you unless your welfare worker drags you off for check ups and treatment.

    What glass tower do you live in?

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 28, 2010 @ 7:24 pm - December 28, 2010

  191. I call bullshit:

    Those 30 million people had no healthcare at all because of “ruinous rates”,

    First it’s 47 million, then 30 and now we’re up to 50. Which is it? You have no idea. You have no idea who they are or whether “ruinous rates” are the issue. All you give a damn about is that you have a scary lying point used to try to terrify people into accepting the ass rape that is ObamaCareless.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 28, 2010 @ 7:27 pm - December 28, 2010

  192. NDT, I said denial of any coverage at all led to deaths.

    Wrong. This is what you said.

    Thats’ 30 million American’s that won’t die because they have pneumonia or some other treatable illness like they may have before.

    Now, AJ, please provide evidence that none of these people will die. Also, please provide evidence that all of them would have died from treatable diseases as you claim.

    This tax will not lead to people having no insurance at all considering it’s a tax on employers.

    This is more conjecture on your part. You provide no evidence, no facts, no specific language from the bill, nothing of the sort.

    Taxing “Cadillac” health plans will not deny people any and all insurance, that’s the difference.

    This is more conjecture on your part. You provide no evidence, no facts, no specific language from the bill, nothing of the sort.

    And also, please answer the point I brought up where you insisted that government would not set any coverage limits or types of coverage, but yourself acknowledged that the government was in fact dictating mandatory coverage.

    Also, please answer the point I made in which you claimed that the Obama administration would allow doctors and insurance companies to set rates without interference, but then were shown the Obama Party, Barack Obama, and the Obama administration openly threatening, attacking, and vetoing and blocking rate increases as brought forward by doctors and insurers.

    NDT that 30 million number is the number of people that didn’t have insurance before that will have insurance as a result of the bill. Clearly my point was in reference to them dying because they didn’t have any insurance at all, I figured that was implied since they were comepletely uninsured. I guess that fact escaped you though. I apologize for the confusion.

    The bill will provide those 30 million people subsidies to purchase insurance or cover them through medicare or medicaid. Thus they will be able to pay for treatment that they couldn’t afford before.

    If you’re employer chooses not to cover you and you can’t afford insurance, the government will make it affordable. If you can afford it, then you can choose to purchase it or pay a fine, it’s their choice, but they aren’t being denied.

    As to your point about minimum coverage, I already said you were right. They are mandating minimum coverage in hopes of protecting the consumer. But the government has done nothing in this bill to deny individuals certain procedures needed to for end of life death panels or whatever you want to call them, and you still haven’t shown how they do it.

    And all you showed was Obama saying he thought what the insurance companies was doing was wrong, so what? They didn’t veto or control anything that you’ve shown.

    Are you going to show how this bill denies American’s health care through death panels like you claim, or are you gonna keep diverting and not address the point of this blog post? The excise tax does nothing to deny individuals care, the end of life counseling already happens once every 5 years and Medicare and Medicaid have been around for decades. Where are these new death panels NDT? Can you please show me?

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 7:29 pm - December 28, 2010

  193. well if the attitude on this message thread is any reading I would disagree,

    So your opinion trumps fact?

    Since his views and this boards views seem exactly the same I will conclude that I would be better off without the christians or the conservatives.

    Sounds like you have issues with your brother of some sort. Why you would think it’s a great idea to KEEP people poor, make more people poor and keep them dependents of the State is better, I have no idea. Can’t imagine how you can call yourself a Republican either.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 28, 2010 @ 7:29 pm - December 28, 2010

  194. Hey, AJ, why is that when you get tied up with your illogical diarrhea that Levi always disappears?

    Just wondering.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 28, 2010 @ 7:31 pm - December 28, 2010

  195. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/dying-from-lack-of-insurance/

    Numerous studies have shown that being uninsured leads to increased death rates. But I’d be curious to see some that say it hasn’t. And even more curious to, once again, see these death panels everyone was sooo sure were being created by this bill.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 7:34 pm - December 28, 2010

  196. “A 1993 examination of 1971 through 1987 data on 25- to 74-year-olds from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found a 25 percent higher risk of mortality for the uninsured compared with the insured, after adjusting for various factors, such as age, smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity, education and income. The study, by lead researcher Peter Franks, was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.”

    So Heliotrope, even adjusting for your other risk factors, people still die more often because of being uninsured. And I’d love to see this life saving $1 insurance you claim exists that would save so many lives.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 7:36 pm - December 28, 2010

  197. AJ,

    You can not possibly be that stupid. Being insured does not keep your house from burning down or your car from crashing or your body from becoming HIV positive.

    If you have a disease and no insurance, go-to-the-public-health-clinic! If you must throw yourself at the mercy of the emergency room, do so.

    Never would I recommend being poor. Never would I recommend being stupid and irresponsible. But, AJ, a fair number of people just live stupid, unhealthy life-styles and they crawled out of the saucer deep gene pool.

    It is not health insurance that is their problem. It is their life style, stupid choices and idiotic consumerism that keeps them from eating properly, taking advantage of totally free to them health care and trying to pull themselves up.

    You are, in my humble opinon, and enabling sick puppy.

    Right now, in Ohio, there is a 700+ pound woman who can not roll over or get out of bed. She has medical problems and they can not figure out how to get her out of the house. How did she get that way? Did Krispy Kreme hook up a conveyor belt to her pie hole? And did her daughter and son-in-law who have to scrape up her poop and pee never notice the Krispy Kreme conveyor belt? So, according to you, health care insurance would have saved her sorry mess!

    Get, real, you intergalactic whiner. Obamacare is hardly going to fix her problems. Today, without Obamacare, if they can get a forklift to haul her carcass to the hospital, she will get marvelous care FOR FREE.

    Here, have a tissue …………… jackwagon!!!

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 28, 2010 @ 7:52 pm - December 28, 2010

  198. It seems you were right, that other study was dubious at best. My fault for not reading it furhter, thanks for pointing that out. Here is what this, much more thorough study measured.

    “Objective. —To examine the relationship between lacking health insurance and the risk of subsequent mortality.

    Design. —Adults older than 25 years who reported they were uninsured or privately insured in the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a representative cohort of the US population, were followed prospectively from initial interview in 1971 through 1975 until 1987.

    Participants. —Complete baseline and follow-up information was obtained on 4694 (91%) persons of the 5161 who reported not receiving publicly funded insurance at baseline.

    Main Outcome Measure. —The relationship between insurance status and subsequent mortality was examined using Cox proportional hazards survival analysis. The analysis adjusted for gender, race, and baseline age, education, income, employment status, the presence of morbidity on examination, self-rated health, smoking status, leisure exercise, alcohol consumption, and obesity. The effects of interactions between insurance and all other baseline variables were also examined.

    Results. —By the end of the follow-up period, 9.6% of the insured and 18.4% of the uninsured had died. After adjustment for all other baseline variables, the hazard ratio for lacking insurance was 1.25 (95% confidence interval [Cl], 1.00 to 1.55). The effect of insurance on mortality was comparable to that of education, income, and self-rated health. There were no statistically significant (P<.05) interactions.

    Conclusions. —Lacking health insurance is associated with an increased risk of subsequent mortality, an effect that is evident in all sociodemographic health insurance and mortality groups examined."

    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/270/6/737.abstract
    Older data, but still shows the same principle. People that don't have insurance die at a faster rate. Considering costs have gone up exponentially and the number of uninsured have increased drastically as well, it's hard to see how the situation has improved.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 7:53 pm - December 28, 2010

  199. Weird how progressives can correlate health insurance and mortality (Given that the mortality rate for any group of people is ultimately 100%) But they can’t correlate Islam and terrorism.

    Isn’t that weird?

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2010 @ 7:56 pm - December 28, 2010

  200. Have you guys heard that by early next year, Obama will launchc a new healthcare insurance that is affordable to all Americans? It is called Obamacare Death Panel Insurance Ltd. This company will provide you with free funeral services including coffin. Bwahahahahah! Liberals, you apply now for new year discount. :)

    Comment by Angelo — December 28, 2010 @ 8:06 pm - December 28, 2010

  201. People that don’t have insurance die at a faster rate.

    Everybody dies at the same rate: once.

    Some people have shorter life expectancies. Dumb people. Addicts. People who are obese. People with STD’s. People who didn’t dodge quick enough. People who HAVE insurance but play with tigers. People who irritate gang members. People who stand under falling coconuts. People who do not have insurance and sleep in shopping carts parked on steep hills.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 28, 2010 @ 8:58 pm - December 28, 2010

  202. Heliotrope, did you even look at the link I posted. It accounted for many many common risk factors. It compared people with similar risk factors, the only difference being whether or not they were covered. The study found that people who weren’t covered were at a higher risk for death. Of course all those things are the case, people who are at higher risk die quicker like you stated. Turns out being uninsured is also one of those higher risk factors, like playing with tigers or whatever else u want to say.

    But again I ask, where are these new death panels Obama and co created? I’m curious. I thought you were so convinced they existed, yet you don’t seem to want to discuss it.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 9:07 pm - December 28, 2010

  203. Correlation is not causation, but Heliotrope makes a good point; one of the effects of socializing health care (as with all welfare) is that people who make good choices are punished (economically) in order to subsidize the bad choices of less responsible people.

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2010 @ 9:23 pm - December 28, 2010

  204. The foregoing, of course, results in an increased incidence of bad choices.

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2010 @ 9:24 pm - December 28, 2010

  205. Yea, correlation doesn’t alway mean causation, that is very correct. But if you read the article, in this case the factor was statically significant and there were no significant interactions. Lack of insurance increased the hazard ratio in a statistically significant manner, aka it caused you to be at a higher risk for and increased your rate of death.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 9:31 pm - December 28, 2010

  206. Isn’t that weird?

    Weirder still is that tools like AJ can’t see the correlation between increased government involvement in health care and the higher costs. Therefore, he/she/it(?) demands more of the same because government can’t possibly be bad.

    Weirder than that is the fact that liberal policies KEEP people in poverty.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 28, 2010 @ 10:17 pm - December 28, 2010

  207. I’m sure that’s what your savior taught. Screw the poor and the sick!!

    Mine said absolutely nothing about forcing people into enriching liberals at the risk of fine and/or imprisonment. I can’t find anything in my Bible where Jesus said that the government should ignore the Constitution and get into the charity business. Nor does it say anything about governments turning their citizens into slaves.

    Guess what, sweetheart. We’ve spent 40+ years and trillions of dollars in a “war on poverty”. We still have poverty. However, through our “evil greed”, we have the richest poor in the world and the poor have gotten richer over the past 25 or so years.

    Our great liberals who’ve created the illusion that they give a damn more than you do have spent more money in this Congress than the first 100 Congresses combined. We STILL have poverty, we still have massive unemployment, massive debt, massive deficits, people are still losing their homes etc.

    How much longer do we go on flushing money down the shitter before we realize that doing the same thing over and over just isn’t doing a damn bit of good?

    You can take your Screw the poor and the sick!! and shove it straight up your six.

    Comment by cxThatGayConservative — December 28, 2010 @ 10:31 pm - December 28, 2010

  208. Where did I demand more healthcare. I’m just in search of these mythical death panels.
    And why am I a tool for disagreeing with you? Isn’t demeaning opponents instead of engaging them in civil debate exactly what loony leftists supposedly do? I thought conservatives respected people with different point of views.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 10:39 pm - December 28, 2010

  209. Know a stepping stone when you see one.

    Comment by Blaster84 — December 28, 2010 @ 11:14 pm - December 28, 2010

  210. False ‘Death Panel’ Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14panel.html?_r=1

    But the rumor . . . was not born of anonymous e-mailers, partisan bloggers or stealthy cyberconspiracy theorists.

    Rather, it has a far more mainstream provenance, openly emanating months ago from many of the same pundits and conservative media outlets that were central in defeating President Bill Clinton’s health care proposals 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey, whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative movement (and ultimately, New York’s lieutenant governor).

    . . .
    “I guess what surprised me is the ferocity, it’s much stronger than I expected,” said John Rother, the executive vice president of AARP, which is supportive of the health care proposals and has repeatedly declared the “death panel” rumors false. “It’s people who are ideologically opposed to Mr. Obama, and this is the opportunity to weaken the president.”

    at the end of the NY times article
    Correction: August 15, 2009
    An article on Friday about the origins of the false rumor that President Obama’s health care proposals would create government-sponsored panels to decide which patients were worthy of living referred imprecisely to the stance of The Washington Times, which shortly after the election published an editorial comparing some positions of the incoming administration to the euthanasia policies of the Third Reich. In describing the newspaper as “an outlet decidedly opposed to Mr. Obama,” the article was referring to its opinion pages, not to its news pages.

    Comment by rusty — December 28, 2010 @ 11:20 pm - December 28, 2010

  211. I’m just in search of these mythical death panels.

    No you’re not. You’re being a dick because you know damn well that the government has no business pushing death cleverly disguised as “end of life discussions”.

    Comment by cxThatGayConservative — December 28, 2010 @ 11:32 pm - December 28, 2010

  212. You also know damn well that Dr. Berwick is all for it. That’s why he was recessed appointed and THAT’S why his decree came down on Christmas Day when nobody’s paying attention.

    If it’s not that big of a deal, AJ, why are they sneaking around and hiding?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 28, 2010 @ 11:34 pm - December 28, 2010

  213. Yea, rusty, no one seems to be able to point out how these supposed death panels actually exist. They may not like what Sebelius did, but it in no way created death panels. Still waiting to see how this bill created anything close to something that resembles government panels or bureaucracies that will decide whether or not people are worthy of living or to deny people certain healthcare procedures.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 11:37 pm - December 28, 2010

  214. I’m right here, thatgayconservative. How is the government pushing death in these end of life discussions? Doesn’t the patient still have the choice of what they do or to even have the discussion at all? Because according to the source quoted in this post, they do:

    “This new regulatory effort at least puts the conversation where it belongs, in routine wellness visits, rather than as a five-year set conversation. It also appears to make this a voluntary conversation (at least for now), one the patient can decline without any repercussions.”

    So please tell me how the government is pushing death by letting people opt of of end of life counseling that is already happening every 5 years. Does increasing the frequency of this useful discussion really resemble “pushing death”? Especially if patients can opt out of it?

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 11:41 pm - December 28, 2010

  215. and they’re sneaking around and hiding it because Democrats have no fortitude. They know that the policy is a good one, but they lost the battle of public opinion thanks to Palin’s successful misclassification of it. Essentially they’re scared. That doesn’t make Palin right though. Fear often wins out over facts, and this is one instance. Hiding something doesn’t prove guilt. Maybe you could show what the government is doing to deny care to individuals or push death upon them in a way they weren’t doing before as a result of this bill.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 11:45 pm - December 28, 2010

  216. [...] Sarah Palin Was Right. . . [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Obamacare to limit our health care choices — December 29, 2010 @ 12:09 am - December 29, 2010

  217. Doesn’t the patient still have the choice of what they do or to even have the discussion at all?

    Do they? What choices do they have when the government forces them to buy insurance? What choices do we have when the liberals wad up the US Constitution, wipe with it and hand it to you?

    And I wasn’t saying you were hiding, schmucky. I said that Obama recess appointed Berwick so he wouldn’t have to stand scrutiny and answer any questions and they slid out this dictate on Christmas Day when nobody’s paying attention.

    No wonder you can’t find the death panels when you can’t even read.

    They know that the policy is a good one, but they lost the battle of public opinion thanks to Palin’s successful misclassification of it.

    And what did they do to teach people that it was a good idea? Attacked and smeared Palin, as usual. Hate is how the left believes they can win friends and influence people. If that doesn’t work, there’s always the fear or race card in hand.

    Hiding something doesn’t prove guilt.

    Perhaps no, but if it’s such a great idea, why sneak around? Why not show the people how great your idea is instead of smearing everybody who’s suspicious? Because you know it’s no damn good. Throw in the fact that Washington has a knack for dropping a turd when nobody’s paying attention and the suspicion is even greater.

    Maybe you could show what the government is doing to deny care to individuals or push death upon them in a way they weren’t doing before as a result of this bill.

    Why waste my time? In all the bandwidth you’ve robbed from Bruce & Dan, all you’ve proven is that you’ll ignore it and demand somebody else prove it. You don’t want to know and you don’t give a damn. Plain and simple.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 29, 2010 @ 3:08 am - December 29, 2010

  218. Fear often wins out over facts

    That’s why we’ve been saddled with health care deform, the porkulous and taxpayer money laundered through the unions.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 29, 2010 @ 3:10 am - December 29, 2010

  219. TGC, I notice AJ, also can’t defend where I shred his ‘who but a fat cat has a cadillac health plan’ argument.

    Why does AJ hate firefighters and police officers?

    He also won’t address that the ‘end of life discussions’ go from a bundled service dones once to a yearly seperately payable service. How does that ‘save costs’?

    So we have a government plan now that will withhold life saving treatment. We have a government plan that requires and will pay for doctors to ask medicare patients every year “Thought about dying?” (Yes, the patient can decline, the doctor is still required to initiate the conversation) We have a government plan that requires a person to buy a service. We have a government plan that punishes cities for giving their policemen and firefighters benefits.

    We also have liberals who whistle in the dark and like to focus on two words of Sarah Palin’s quote, rather than the entire thing and how this is yet another step to show that she is right. We also have a President who calmly talks about denying people medical procedures because we have to evaluate if granny really will be worth that life saving procedure.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 29, 2010 @ 6:49 am - December 29, 2010

  220. thelivewire, The excise health plan tax is only on employers. Any individual can purchase their own insurance without paying any sort of excise tax. Fat cats, poor people, it doesn’t matter, they can purchase the plan without the tax.

    Obama doesn’t hate firefighters, they have raised the coverage threshold for high risk professions before the tax kicks in on employers.

    If you read the article you just quoted, you’ll see that they initially rushed approval of the drug and upon further, more conclusive study, they realized it is not as effective as they initially believed. The healthcare bill is not denying anyone anything, just the FDA doing their job.

    Again, you bring up the conversation you don’t like, which is fine. It may not sit well with you, but it is not the government pushing death upon people. It’s a meaningful and important conversation to have that they can opt out of if they choose.

    The only reason I’m focusing on what Palin said and the general idea of death panels is because that is what this blog post is about! Is that such a hard concept to grasp? I’ve never said the healthcare bill was perfect or that some of your concerns weren’t valid. I’ve just said that this bill didn’t create any death panels or bureaucracies charged with rationing healthcare or denying people the right to coverage. Please show me some new entity or in this bill charged with rationing healthcare or denying people coverage they once had.

    Comment by AJ — December 29, 2010 @ 9:18 am - December 29, 2010

  221. Yes, they raised the cap to 12k As I shows, my HDHP, low risk plan already can push that. You’re telling me the High Risk plans somehow won’t have premiums that are more than 1000 a month, as paid by the employer and the employee

    Have you looked at COBRA rates? Or individual insurance rates?
    a PPO plan in my state, with an in network deductable of 5K is $86.00 a month. With a 2500 ded it’s 187.00 a month. That’s for a 39 year old male. *before* factoring in any risks.

    Add a wife and it’s 180/309. How much is the penalty for not enrolling again? And how often will that penalty be enforced?

    We’ve already seen people flocking to the high risk pools. Oh, wait

    So far Obamacare has raised costs, made less people insured, and decreased providers. SP’s statement leading to the ‘death panels’ comment has proved to be true. No matter how much you’d like to deny it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 29, 2010 @ 10:25 am - December 29, 2010

  222. After weighing the evidence, I think the assertion of the post that Sarah Palin was accurate in predicting that ObamaCare would bring back ‘Death Panels’ is, on balance, more accurate than the accusation that people are dying from lack of health insurance.

    Granted, the Orwellian “Wellness Visits” seem to be more the nose-in-the-tent than the whole camel… it is reasonable, given the history of Government… to predict where this is headed.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 10:55 am - December 29, 2010

  223. Any individual can purchase their own insurance without paying any sort of excise tax. Fat cats, poor people, it doesn’t matter, they can purchase the plan without the tax.

    But if people have to purchase their own insurance, you called that denial of coverage and insisted that it meant they didn’t have access to health care.

    Remember?

    81.V the K, Based on that logic, everyone has access to a car or hosue.

    So if private insurance companies require you to pay for coverage, that is denial of access, but if the Federal government does via Obamacare, it isn’t.

    Once again, the only consistency in AJ’s argument is that the government is always right and that private industry and anyone who criticizes the government is wrong.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 11:16 am - December 29, 2010

  224. Also, the problem here is that AJ simply refuses to abide by the Obama Party definition of death panels, which state that anything that denies care, limits care based on whether or not it’s medically necessary, and requires people to pay additional amounts for additional coverage has death panels.

    The Obamacare bill has all of those. It authorizes the government to mandate via unelected bureaucrats to doctors and private insurers what is and isn’t medically necessary. It authorizes unelected bureaucrats to limit care and payment based on whether or not said bureaucrats think something is medically necessary. It requires people to pay additional amounts for additional coverage and forces cost increases for anything that unelected bureaucrats deem unnecessary.

    Hence, it has death panels, just as Barack Obama and the Obama Party scream that private insurers have death panels.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 11:35 am - December 29, 2010

  225. Based on that logic, everyone has access to a car or hosue.

    And everyone does, provided they make appropriate and responsible lifestyle choices.

    Unless, of course, Barney Frank and a bunch of community organizers order the banks to hand out mortgages to deadbeats. That worked out real damn well.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 1:29 pm - December 29, 2010

  226. Obama doesn’t hate firefighters

    Of course he does. Just the other day he lamented that they weren’t able to unionize fire and EMS. He has fewer people to exploit and launder money through. Not to mention that he hates people that fire and EMS serves as they will be held hostage to their demands.

    Remember the kerfuffle about the TN family who’s house burned because they didn’t pay for fire service? The IAFF whined about “pay for play”, but there’s not a damn bit of difference between that and paying the union’s protection money.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 29, 2010 @ 2:48 pm - December 29, 2010

  227. Like I said:

    The regulatory process isn’t supposed to be a black-ops exercise, but expect many more such nontransparent improvisations under the vast powers ObamaCare handed the executive branch.

    The affront is that Medicare needs to sneak around in order to offer a type of care that is routine in private insurance. If the medical experts in Congress haven’t decided that some treatment or service is worthy of the fee schedule, then the program won’t pay for it even if it is in the best interests of patients.

    Indeed.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203731004576045702803914780.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 29, 2010 @ 2:52 pm - December 29, 2010

  228. [...] have not followed the extended threads to some of my recent posts, in large measure, because I prefer not to get involved in such shouting matches (but from my [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » On Dan Savage & Civil Discourse — December 31, 2010 @ 7:37 am - December 31, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.