Breaking: Finance Committee drops “death panel” provisions from Senate bill
posted at 3:23 pm on August 13, 2009 by Allahpundit
I’m surprised it took them this long. If it had been Palin and the right tossing rhetorical grenades, they might have gone to the mat to keep it in there, but as the ‘Cuda herself noted in her response to Obama last night, it ain’t just conservatives who are freaked out by these provisions. Eugene Robinson and Charles Lane at WaPo also concluded that having “outside” input into end-of-life decisions when the government’s desperate to cut costs could lead to abuse; Mickey Kaus and Camille Paglia have hammered The One about it too. And Obama’s done himself no favors trying to explain what he has in mind, as Tom Maguire reminds us. From an interview in April:
THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
DAVID LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.
“Independent” guidance to seniors about death with an eye to reducing the lion’s share of health-care spending. What could go wrong?
Tired of the political migraines it’s getting from this, the Finance Committee finally decides to, er, pull the plug:
“On the Finance Committee, we are working very hard to avoid unintended consequences by methodically working through the complexities of all of these issues and policy options,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. “We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”…
“The bill passed by the House committees is so poorly cobbled together that it will have all kinds of unintended consequences, including making taxpayers fund healthcare subsidies for illegal immigrants,” Grassley said. The veteran Iowa lawmaker said the end-of-life provision in those bills would pay physicians to “advise patients about end-of-life care and rate physician quality of care based on the creation of and adherence to orders for end-of-life care.
In theory it could be reintroduced in the conference committee after each chamber passes a bill, but given the outcry over this, why risk an explosion that might queer the whole deal at the 11th hour? This never should have been in the bill in the first place, frankly; the way to encourage living wills (or, say, organ donation) so that people don’t end up undergoing expensive treatments they don’t really want is through a general public education/advertising campaign, not individual meetings with ailing patients terrified that the care they need to stay alive isn’t “cost-effective” in their case. Exit question: This is a win for Palin, but is it also a win for Obama? Now he can reassure Americans that the most worrisome parts of the bill are stripped out.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next »
The only leader that interests me is Sarah. I hear The Messiah is suppose to be “brilliant” and “eloquent” – he’s also a pathetic liar and I wouldn’t trust him to change the roll of TP in my bathroom. Sarah is also smart – but the main thing with her – she’s honest as the day is long. God Bless her and God Bless this fabulous country – let’s keep it free!
Cinday Blackburn on August 13, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Spathi, I am glad you have great faith in our states to protect this land, and I was a member of the Air National Guard, but to try and coordinate 50 states after an attack is pure chaos. The standing military allows us instant response and the guard allows us prolonged action. Sorry fellows, but the world isn’t nice and we would eventually be attacked even if we never meddled in any other nations affairs. The Constitution is a way of life but it’s NOT a suicide pact.
mo_gunslinger on August 13, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Anyways, done arguing, most anarchist are the first to call for the police or for help when someone else stronger decides to impose their will.
mo_gunslinger on August 13, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Isn’t it interesting how that of all the potential 2012 GOP Presidential candidates, at the moment its really only Sarah Palin that is actively criticising Obamacare, getting involved in the debate about it in any significant way and actually having having any sort of affect on public opinion about it as a result.
And what is amusing about this situation is that she has done it all with a few comments posted on her Facebook page.
Hellrider on August 13, 2009 at 8:10 PM
mo_gunslinger,
Really…so Israel with a population of 7 million has 300 nukes and does a good job defending itself even though it’s surrounded by people who want their land back.
You’re telling me Texas with a population of 25 million couldn’t afford say 20 nukes and defend itself? Plus there would be 50 governors all looking out for each other so if there was an event there is the possibility of declaring war and coming together for a short time.
National Defense has always been an excuse for the government to enlarge for the most part.
Spathi on August 13, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Besides Bush was a far great threat to freedom than any foreign enemy.
…and now we have Obama so it just gets worse.
Spathi on August 13, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Bush has murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans plus the Americans he’s either maimed or killed.
A real villain, but no trial yet for him.
Spathi on August 13, 2009 at 8:15 PM
You proved my point. Israel has a standing army and everyone is required to serve. The rest of your statement is just silly. Never mind, you have no military judgment and if it was up to you we would be a victim and your anarchist freedom would last for a brief moment until the invading force snuffs your life. Sorry thats the truth. Now I am done feeding the trolls.
mo_gunslinger on August 13, 2009 at 8:18 PM
At the risk of being mercilessly flogged, it’s more accurate to say that Sarah was on the winning side rather than _the_ winner. There were many people opposing the end of life clauses on the right and left.
——–
misty
mistythestripper on August 13, 2009 at 8:19 PM
I agree Misty and I would go so far as to say that Sarah would agree too. I dont think she would say this is her victory. I think she would say the fight isnt done and she is but one voice.
mo_gunslinger on August 13, 2009 at 8:21 PM
mo_gunslinger,
Uhhh…no my point was that a population of 25 million can easily defend itself without having to rely on the Obama or the Federal Government.
ps.- You can’t enforce a welfare state without the warfare state. If Montana doesn’t like the IRS, the they can nullify it, but not so long as the president is allowed a large overbearing standing army. Same goes for Supreme Court Laws.
We have a history of State Nullification of Federal laws that the States do not believe to be constitutional, but that’s all the past now, which is the problem.
Spathi on August 13, 2009 at 8:22 PM
What exactly do you find ‘silly’, mo_gumflapper?
Dark-Star on August 13, 2009 at 8:26 PM
There are also people on both the left and right who support encouraging end-of-life planning. Most notably…
As I said, intellectually dishonest/broke.
Tom_Shipley on August 13, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Spathi on August 13, 2009 at 8:15 PM
You’re acroso, aren’t you?
bw222 on August 13, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Spathi, dorkstar.
mo_gunslinger on August 13, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Smells like teen spirit dude. Get back to work and continue dismantling this. You haven’t put your photon torpedoes into the death star yet. We’re still nibblin’ at the edges. You need to keep droppin’ bombs, yeah bombs on dis bad boy.
ted c on August 13, 2009 at 8:30 PM
right2bright on August 13, 2009 at 7:05 PM
Not much you can do when the other side has no problem blatantly lying. Seriously, the right has no shame. They can’t win a fair fight so they just throw bald-face lies out there. Congratulations on your “victory.”
Tom_Shipley on August 13, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Let me know when the Spathi military thread is over.
heshtesh on August 13, 2009 at 8:33 PM
If anyone thinks this is the end of any form of “mandated death” for the old and infirmed, you’re crazy. A government that won’t abide the very Constitution that created it certainly will have no compunction about doing what ever it pleases with or without any regulatory legislature it might or might not enact.
We’re screwed until the Union is brought back into accord with the Constitution. That means reducing the size of government to about one tenth its current size. Can you imagine with our tax burden reduced 90% (That’s ALL federal taxes) how much cash there would be available to grow the economy and improve everyone’s lot in life? It boggles my mind!
Woody
woodcdi on August 13, 2009 at 8:34 PM
She hit the cord perfectly…ummm…I wonder how she is on Guitar Hero… ;)
jerrytbg on August 13, 2009 at 8:34 PM
NEITHER side has the moral high ground, not completely at least. Witness the Bush=Hitler comparisons for the last 7 years. And the continued attempts by the American Crackpots and Lunatics United to strip any remnant of our Christian history.
Dark-Star on August 13, 2009 at 8:38 PM
It seems you have a strange understanding of the concept of ownership and property rights. Of course, it could also just be the serious deficiency in history which is displayed in the insane ramblings about our Constitution and our Founders/Framers.
Tell me something, did Madison or any other Founders/Framers who served in the executive branch disband the standing army at any time? If not, why not in your estimation?
anuts on August 13, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Spathi originally went by the name of acroso and uses various other aliases on Polipundit (such as it is today). He has been banned by a number of conservative sites including http://www.bejohngalt.com.
He’s a big Ron Paul and gay marriage supporter. He is mainly a dsitraction and is almost always off-topic.
Yes, he’s probably nuts.
bw222 on August 13, 2009 at 8:39 PM
Hussein’s goals are power, more of it, and fundamental transformation of the U.S. into his image. His character and spirit will always lead him towards deception and death. Death of the unborn or elderly, it doesn’t matter to him. Deception and lies are needed so he (and his minions) can wordsmith literal evil into palatable terms (at least palatable to the apathetic citizens who don’t dig into the facts behind everything he says and just get spoon fed by the MSM, telling them what they want to hear, what they “think” they voted for).
They will poison the environment of those things they are against. They are against self-determination, so they legislate more government control. He hates America, so he promotes the “America is evil and must apologize” tour in Egypt, Turkey, Mexico and elsewhere. And on and on.
Until more Americans start digging and reading and listening to the facts and the truth, we are stuck with more chances of success of these continued attempts by Hussein to transform this great nation into his warped image of what America “should be”.
The real battle here is against apathy! The lemmings are dragging us down, not Hussein!
txrmctague on August 13, 2009 at 8:42 PM
Excuse me if I’m unimpressed by the group of LIARS in Congress and in the Administration.
Let’s sink this ship……it’s “downright evil” and Obama is a cold hearted thug.
It doesn’t matter what he or the other liars say in the BOOTLICK MEDIA it’s time to end this attack on the country and set them back so that it defeats this CRAP & TRADE and Illegal immigration.
OBAMACARE = OBAMACIDE FOR THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED AND…the chronically ill.
PappyD61 on August 13, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Dark-Star on August 13, 2009 at 8:38 PM
The left never blatantly lied about something like this during the Bush administration. Even with the Iraq war, Democrats gave him the benefit of the doubt — which turned out to be fucking dumb, but they went along with him. The only lying (or false statements, if you will) came from the administration.
But I don’t EVER remember an opposition party so blatantly lying about something to scare people. I mean, seriously, Palin used her office to encourage people to discuss end-of-life planning with their physicians. THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THE DISPUTED PROVISION DID. It’s a joke.
Tom_Shipley on August 13, 2009 at 8:43 PM
I guess maybe th WHEELCHAIR MAFIA is having an effect on their internal polling.
Don’t mess with the Granny.
PappyD61 on August 13, 2009 at 8:44 PM
Just suppose I accept the premise that the Healthcare Decisions Day story you linked is even remotely like this issue (by the way, it’s not even close). What kind of shame would you attribute to killing a provision where said provision was vehemently denied and questioners about it were attacked via fearmongering?
anuts on August 13, 2009 at 8:46 PM
The left and liberal media are making Sarah more legit by the day. They get addicted. SHe retired from public service, yet whe speaks and the whole liberal circus swarms to her words. I think they are addicted to her.
CriticalUpdate on August 13, 2009 at 8:49 PM
As they implode…ain’t it fun…
jerrytbg on August 13, 2009 at 8:53 PM
Noonan and Parker are now heavily sedated and are under constant observation. All sharp objects have been removed from their immediate environment. Suicide watch is in effect until further notice. Their world has come crashing down around them.
Geochelone on August 13, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Palin 1, Obama -1 for lying
DaMav on August 13, 2009 at 8:58 PM
The liberals better watch out. I hear Sarah’s next FB piece will be about Democrat corruption. I’m sure it’ll be a big hit with the msm.
ConservativeTony on August 13, 2009 at 8:58 PM
They may have removed the “death panel” that wasn’t there, but in the process they admitted the risk of “unintended consequences” due to the bill being “so poorly cobbled together.”
They gave us as much of a target as they took away.
(This is my first comment here, and has to be moderated, so I’m sorry if I’m repeating stuff that’s already been said.)
Steve Keeley on August 13, 2009 at 9:01 PM
Subtract another 2 for acting stupidly.
ConservativeTony on August 13, 2009 at 9:02 PM
anuts on August 13, 2009 at 8:46 PM
First of all, it’s not a story, it’s a press release by Palin’s office last year encouraging citizens of the state to not only discuss end-of-life issues with their physicians, but also encouraging them to “execute advance directives to make their wishes known.”
Section 1233 says physicians should approach their patients every 5 years to discuss end of life planning. That’s it. Palin’s press release is doing essentially the same thing as this section — promoting patients and their physicians discussing end-of-life planning.
As to your question: learn how to write a coherent sentence and maybe I’ll be able to answer it.
Tom_Shipley on August 13, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Time for political correctness and niceness is over. We must destroy the movement of the left and take out whomever gets in our way.
lavell12 on August 13, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Talk about “intellectual dishonesty”. Equating living wills and such as a generality as we have them now with the provisions of Section 1233 is not honest. Too many on your own side are saying so.
ddrintn on August 13, 2009 at 9:07 PM
I’ll rephrase it for him. How can you “kill” something that doesn’t exist?
ddrintn on August 13, 2009 at 9:10 PM
Read Charles Lane’s examination of the problems with Section 1233 in his WaPo piece and then compare them with Palin’s stance on end-of-life planning. Bonus points for spotting the one huge difference. Then you can lecture about “intellectual dishonesty”.
ddrintn on August 13, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Well, the difference is that physicians are subsidized by the government by this plan. But a patient isn’t MANDATED to have this discussion. They can decline it if they want.
In the end, these are both ways of government promoting a discussion of a end-of-life planning by physician and patient. They both have the same aim.
Beyond that, there is no “death panel” to be found — as Lane states, that idea is “rubbish” (i wouldn’t be as polite). Lane also admits that it’s not mandatory. He’s concerned that what the physician should talk about is included in the bill, but then concedes that it’s written so vaguely that it’s “unenforceable” so that’s really a moot point.
Aside from that, I can’t find exactly what Lane’s big issue with the section is.
Tom_Shipley on August 13, 2009 at 9:22 PM
Uh, living wills and end of life planning is EXACTLY what section 1233 is all about. How could you claim otherwise?
Tom_Shipley on August 13, 2009 at 9:24 PM
Not a very good student of military history, are you?
Hint- weaker nations very rarely attack stronger nations. Usually the other way around.
cs89 on August 13, 2009 at 9:26 PM
He’s concerned about the financial incentives and pressures to steer advice in a particular direction. In a cash-strapped system such as ObamaCare will inevitably be, do you see how that might be, um, sort of a problem? That’s a lot different from just “encouraging” living wills and the like.
ddrintn on August 13, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Tom_Shipley, here is THE intellectual dishonesty in the whole debate. “We can have government-run health care without a decrease in quality and without rationing.” That is an absolute lie, and you know it. That’s essentially what Palin’s statement is about, and that’s what the public knows as well.
ddrintn on August 13, 2009 at 9:31 PM
Yeah, but the bill just covers the topics that should be discussed. There’s NOTHING close to stating what “advice” should be given. And there’s nothing that would allow for “incentives” for physicians to steer certain outcomes. All the section is meant to do is promote awareness of end-of-life planning — the same aim that Palin’s press release had.
Tom_Shipley on August 13, 2009 at 9:32 PM
Weaker nations will and do attack stronger nations if the latter given them enough reason.
We don’t need to go all “Fortress America”*, but I think we would to well to mind our own beeswax a little more. Or to use an old saying “Don’t make a Hun where there is none.”
*…yet. “America Alone” is an eerily possible scenario, and we just don’t have the funds or firepower to keep being the ‘world’s policeman’.
Dark-Star on August 13, 2009 at 9:34 PM
So let me get this straight…people are going to consult with their physicians regarding “end of life” decisions, but instead of the cost of that consultation being covered by health care reform, people will have to pay out of pocket. And the Right considers this victory?
Two points:
*QuitterCuda was FOR “death panels” before she was against them. (April 16, 2008 “Healthcare Decision Day” in Alaska Proclaimation, which she signed)
*Rope-a-Dope – Keep celebrating. You think the fight is over in the first round? Obama is simply leaning into the ropes. The best part is, the rabid anti-Obamaists will end up as dazed and punch drunk as George was. That’s when he’ll come off the ropes…
“And I’m OUT!”
chumpThreads on August 13, 2009 at 9:35 PM
I am listening to Jimmy Buffet live from Pine Knob (DTE) Music Theater. He was singing a song just before half time break about reasons to be drinking. In it he was slamming the current administration big time.
At one point he sings in reference to Obamacare,
WOW, I thought Jimmy loved the Dems and Obama.
mechkiller_k on August 13, 2009 at 9:36 PM
Actually, it mandates end of life discussions under the federal government.
The premise of this whole reform is to lower overall costs. It also, by design, plans increase coverage to those uninsured. The often estimated number of that is around 47 million. If we are honest (which your posts I’m taking issue with are talking about) about basic math, there is no possibility for decreasing costs while dramatically increasing coverage except through rationing.
Specific points (although not in this case) to this kind of reform can be dishonest. I’ll grant you that. However, proponents of this reform are operating under a grotesquely dishonest premise. A sense of perspective is necessary.
Thank you. Apologies for the poorly written question, Tom_Shipley. What does the above quote mean to you in temrs of honesty?
anuts on August 13, 2009 at 9:38 PM
This is great…Shipley is trying to defend what ostensibly is a straw argument…
It’s hilarious…more please…
jerrytbg on August 13, 2009 at 9:39 PM
Alaska now has a state-run health care system? I must’ve missed that.
We also must not be reading the same Lane article.
ddrintn on August 13, 2009 at 9:39 PM
Trust. Honesty. Patriotism. Honor. Dedication to family, Country and God. She has it all. What does the Messiah have? Evil and the Chicago way……….
Cinday Blackburn on August 13, 2009 at 9:41 PM
temrs=terms
In case the typo leads to an ‘incoherent sentence’…
anuts on August 13, 2009 at 9:42 PM
Well, EVERY healthcare system has rationing to some degree. It’s why you see people with pre-existing conditions denied coverage by insurance companies. Of course, they always have the option to pay out of pocket.
I believe the way Medicare works right now is that any treatment is open to those covered by it, but at an increase expense to the patient depending on certain factors. To be honest, I don’t know exactly how it works. But I haven’t heard of people complaining about death panels or being denied service because they are old.
And, as I’ve said before, it’s important to remember that this “public option” or subsidized care I don’t think is supposed to be the best coverage out there. Like anything else, if you have more money, you’re going to be able to afford better care. This is meant to be an option for people who cannot afford ANY healthcare. It’s supposed to act as competition to help bring medical costs down in general. I mean, I went to the emergency room a couple months ago to have a chest x-ray. It cost ME personally $600, and that’s with my insurance picking up most of the tab. I was there less than an hour. Something’s just not right with that picture. We’ve had x-ray technology for how long now? You’re telling me it cost that much to take one?
Healthcare costs are ridiculous. If you don’t have a job that pays for your insurance, you’re f’ed in this country. this bill is meant to give those without insurance a viable option.
Tom_Shipley on August 13, 2009 at 9:42 PM
you betcha’ ddrintn…it’s the American way…Shipley has lost his…
Ship…you can’t defend this…esp… since CERTAIN provisions were removed….ummmmmm…
jerrytbg on August 13, 2009 at 9:44 PM
In a phrase…To solve the bulk of the problem…
TORT REFORM…
jerrytbg on August 13, 2009 at 9:47 PM
anuts on August 13, 2009 at 9:42 PM
There was no typo in your incoherent sentence. Lack of… something led to its poor construction.
And I’m still not quite sure what you guys are getting at. Are you saying that because the section was removed that proves I’m wrong? Well, the section was removed because so many BLATANT lies were told about it that got so many people in a tizzy over it that no one was going to be able to convince them it wasn’t a government plot to kill old people. Plus, it really isn’t the most important section of the bill. Really, not THAT big a deal to lose it. If people are going to freak out so much about it, fine, get rid of it to hopefully calm them down. Again, when you’re dealing with people who have no problem lying with a straight face, it’s hard to win an argument like this.
Tom_Shipley on August 13, 2009 at 9:52 PM
anuts on August 13, 2009 at 9:42 PM
;)
jerrytbg on August 13, 2009 at 9:53 PM
This bill is meant to destroy private insurance over time and force everyone, whether they want it or not to be dependent on the government for health care.
Some people may not have insurance but everyone gets health care if they need it.
Is it worth destroying the entire medical system to give a tiny percentage insurance when they don;t need it?
darwin on August 13, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Tom_Shipley on August 13, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Just a lame attempt to make this OMAMANATION more palatable …
jerrytbg on August 13, 2009 at 9:56 PM
Yeah, everyone gets healthcare if they need it… PAYING for that care, well, that’s another story. They get the care, but they go bankrupt as a consequence.
And if Obamacare puts private insurance out of business, it’s because they provide a better service, plain and simple. Personally, I don’t think that will be the case, but if it did happen, that would be the reason.
Tom_Shipley on August 13, 2009 at 9:58 PM
darwin on August 13, 2009 at 9:54 PM
+…Whatever value you want to put on your comment…
It’s on the money…
They are trying to bastardize the true meaning of what the Founding Fathers gave us…
It gives me a vile taste in my mouth…
jerrytbg on August 13, 2009 at 10:01 PM
I think they are using the H1N1 scare as a reason to arm up against OUR protests. Watch this carefully. If OBAMASCARE PASSES, well H1N1 might not be a bad idea.
johnnyU on August 13, 2009 at 10:01 PM
The Gang of Granny & GrandPa vs. Gang on the Hill
Round One: The clear winner and undisputed champions of the first round are: Granny & GrandPa Gang! Outstanding performace of knowledge and involvement.
TN Mom on August 13, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Now you’ve stepped over the line…
That is the most !@#$%^&*() arguement you’ve ever made…
Sorry Ship…you lost. Good Night…
jerrytbg on August 13, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Not particularly. You made an accusation about dishonesty. The ‘death panel’ rhetoric has been accused of dishonest language. People were saying nothing like that was even in the bill. The very provision that was indeed akin to a death panel was removed. Do you think it’s dishonest to deny something’s existence which had only recently been removed (post denial)?
Exactly.
anuts on August 13, 2009 at 10:05 PM
People who can’t pay don’t. That’s what millions of illegals do. For others there is Medicaid, and for still others there is Medicare, and for those who can afford insurance but don’t buy it they can set up a payment schedule.
Enough of the US taxpayer bearing the burden for taking care of the needs of everyone.
You want people to have insurance … YOU buy it for them with your own money. The taxpayers are not the democrats private bank.
No one can compete against the government because the rules set up in the bill make it impossible for them to compete.
darwin on August 13, 2009 at 10:06 PM
So it wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that Obamacare will have the unbeatable advantage of being funded by every taxpaying citizen, like it or not?
Seriously – who could compete in that environment, no matter how good their business model?
Dark-Star on August 13, 2009 at 10:07 PM
And here’s the relevant argument about ‘lowering costs’ juxtaposed with your taking issue with honesty. How do you lower overall costs by adding tens of millions coverage?
Not even remotely true. Page 16 deals with this very issue. Existing private policies are grandfathered. Moving between jobs after bill becomes law; private policy denied. Insurance companies enrolling new plans after bill becomes law; denied. After the generation of existing private insured are dead; industry expires.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.pdf
anuts on August 13, 2009 at 10:16 PM
By what right do you and your side of this issue claim to throw honesty around?
anuts on August 13, 2009 at 10:19 PM
So let me see if I’ve got this straight:
1) Sarah used the term “death panels” to describe an independent group who would make determinations about what kind of health care expenditures would prove useful at near end of life situations
2) The left, and some on the right, soiled themselves over her incendiary, hyperbolic statements which, btw, were complete crap because no such provision existed in the bill
3) Today the non-existent provision got pulled from the bill
Does that about describe it, more or less? So Sarah Palin was proved right, the left and Team Barry were proved liars, and the evil provision was stripped. And Barry is considered possibly a winner here? How exactly is he going to defend a provision that he and his swore didn’t exist and then removed? Using Beavis and Butthead mind tricks?
Well, at least now we know that Palin is totally and completely irrelevant, and stupid to boot. Good thing we’re all rid of her and her snowbilly ramblings, which are an embarrassment to all people.
Physics Geek on August 13, 2009 at 10:20 PM
They are, and absolutely NOTHING in these Dem plans floating around addresses that issue. We’re told that it’s all going to be “deficit-neutral”, in fact. And you’re saying conservatives are intellectually bankrupt?
Another example of either dishonesty or ignorance. Obama’s plan is to drive insurance companies out of business. Private insurers can’t compete with the government; the government can just float along in a sea of red ink (which is exactly what will happen, bringing rationing), which private insurers can’t do.
ddrintn on August 13, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Quit feeding the troll you simply cannot argue with this level of ignorance just as you cannot trust a word the Pinnochio Presidente utters!
dhunter on August 13, 2009 at 10:29 PM
I wouldn’t call Tom_Shipley a troll. He at least tried to flesh out his arguments, instead of simply snarking.
ddrintn on August 13, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Physics Geek, What is up with the domain of your website? What is mu.nu? Ace and mypetjawa also have that domain.
daesleeper on August 13, 2009 at 10:33 PM
I apologize if shipley is not a troll but that is very close to the most ignorant statement I have read today and I have read some whoppers from hottieinthehouse or whatever that newbies username is!
dhunter on August 13, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Howard Dean just said about 2hr.ago that Harry Reid told him that this provision would be in the bill and that Sen.Grassley had no say so about anything.So what gives.
thmcbb on August 13, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Um, sorry, I rarely, rarely comment, but I have to raise my hand politely and say that I think there is a perception problem here.
The argument has disintegrated into, “End of life councilling, good vs. evil?”
This is a False premise: it should be: MANDITORY end of life councilling, good vs. evil.?”
Now, maybe this is a moot point since the senate has said it’s out of their bill (aside: haven’t heard anything similar from the house, and we STILL don’t know what bill they are all championing…throw enough chit at the wall, somethin’s bound to schtick!).
But imagine this. If that clause in any-way-shape-or-form is in the bill, then end-of-life councilling is going to equal councilling regarding the unborn. I’m not articulate enough to outline why this is absolutely the case, so maybe someone can help. I know the trolls like Shepley will say this is nonsense, but I absolutely don’t think it is.
Ok, Alice, let’s take a giant leap wit through the looking glass:
Young married couple happily pregnant goes in to their first (and no doubt mandated)amnio. Said couple finds out the baby they are anxiously expecting has some birth defect.(Doesn’t matter what it is: it’s a birth defect…in fact, it could be a sixth toe).
The couple is informed of this and is told that it is their choice to have the child (certainly, the government would NEVER advocate abortion), but unfortunately, because the condition is known prior to birth, any treatment for this condition will not be covered under the national health care plan.
“OK”, parents think, “We will buy a private policy for this child that we desperately want.”
But guess what they find out? a)their unborn child is either ineligible for a private policy (pre-existing condition which is now known[yeah, yeah, yeah, I know THE ONE says he wants to get rid of pre-existing conditions, but I think this is the plan that will input the Mother of all Pre-existing conditions into our health care policy.]), or even more likely, b) by this time, there are no companies underwriting private policies unless you are extraordinarily wealthy (and then there is that pesky tax provision in which it is going to cost you a flipping fortune to buy that private policy.)
The bottom line, this couple weighs all their options and their choice at this point boils down to???
OK Shepley, 10 points if you can tell me their choices.
Chewy the Lab on August 13, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Wait a minute; didn’t some jackass commenter here call Sarah Palin “Iquitarod” and say she doesn’t matter?
OscarSchneegans on August 13, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Well said! I still want to have her puppies! I hooted when I heard the “death panel” quote for the first time! Unlike many, I was not the least bit uncomfortable with her characterization. Sarah is of course, calling
a spade a spadean implement designed for digging an implement designed for digging.Chewy the Lab on August 13, 2009 at 10:53 PM
We already pay for and bankrupt even further out medical system by giving care to illegals. No way the Dems give up on that. You’re talking millions of votes, legal or illegal (thanks to ACORN), millions of Hispanic vote can be bought and paid for.
Yakko77 on August 13, 2009 at 10:56 PM
I agree. True believer.
KCB on August 13, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Palin is no longer a GOP elected official and yet has accomplished with a comment posted on Facebook of all places far more than than those Republicans in Congress have managed in attacking this monstrosity of a bill.
Hmmm…for some reason the names Pawlenty, Romney, Paul, Huckabee, Steele and sadly even Jindal do not come to mind prominently in this ongoing health care debate.
Dr. ZhivBlago on August 13, 2009 at 11:37 PM
That is just not the case. The vast majority of bankruptcies are caused by credit card debt, not health care expenses.
Dasher on August 13, 2009 at 11:53 PM
My answer to that exit question: YES Sarah won, provided all the links and references to what she stated, backed up with links as a professional blogger and there’s no way no how (no matter how O spins it) that she is lying.
Obama lost and keeps losing in the polls. It was his idea and she crushed it. ‘Nuff said. My girl still rocks; perhaps she is in a bunker like Mark Levin.
Miss her tweets, that means gotta get in my FB more often.
ProudPalinFan on August 13, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Whose orders? Politicians? An Ahem “Death Panel?”
dogsoldier on August 14, 2009 at 12:02 AM
We already pay for and bankrupt even further out medical system by giving care to illegals. No way the Dems give up on that. You’re talking millions of votes, legal or illegal (thanks to ACORN), millions of Hispanic vote can be bought and paid for.
Yakko77 on August 13, 2009 at 10:56 PM
If Gov Palin is cagey that will be her next line of attack. Keep things in mind. the WAR is this federal takeover of haelthcare. Palin led as to a victory in one battle. The war still goes on. We can attack this bill in so many ways. From the illegal point of view. try telling grandma that the little mexican 18 year old that never paid into medicare gets to go first in line. that should go over well.
another line of attack of course is the money who and how is this going to be paid for.
the IRS tie in is a big flanking manuver waiting to be exploited. who wants the IRS in healthcare?
Palin will big her target carefully and she will shot to kill on one section at a time until people understand that the entire bill needs to be scraped.
It is what happened with shamnesty. conservatives picked and picked at the bill until the weight of the bad pieces caused the whole to fall in on itself.
the war goes on.
unseen on August 14, 2009 at 12:26 AM
AWOL, all of them.
Geochelone on August 14, 2009 at 12:42 AM
Yet you have no problem with your side sending out your union brown shirts to assault people. You and your ilk are total scum, total sacks of shit; you are the epitome of dishonest.
As far as your claim about your side never lying about the Iraq War. Let’s see we had your side faking photos to paint troops in bad light, we had your side faking military abuse stories by phony soldiers, we had your side faking “studies” concerning the amount of casulties for the specific result of putting our troops in harms way. Wow, look at that, I just proved without any doubt that you Tom are a lyiing sack of shit…imagine that.
I am so sick of even discussing anything with you parasitic, lying douchebags. It is time to settle this once and for all, or for each side to go separate ways.
ClassicCon on August 14, 2009 at 12:51 AM
Riddle me this-
Why on earth on every Fox News show pundits mention governors, senators, et. al. whenever Sean, Beck or others point to Palin as a possible POTUS candidate? Oh and they are all male.
And none of them have DONE diddly squat about this issue, come up front and center, and pull a stunt like this. I believe in a Boehner/Palin or vice versa combo for ’12, regardless of what you all might think. Democrats pick Democrats, Republicans MUST NOT pick middle of the aisle. Learned that lesson well in these past elections.
ProudPalinFan on August 14, 2009 at 1:13 AM
Well, well…Sarah’s at it again:
http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/08/sarah-palin-more-questions-that-must-be.html
Erich66 on August 14, 2009 at 2:00 AM
I wonder if this news drove Chubby McCain to an eating binge ?!?!?!?!?
WhatsRight on August 14, 2009 at 2:18 AM
Back by popular demand: The PitBull Woman
Spathi on August 14, 2009 at 2:51 AM
PALIN 1 , OBAMA 0
would have been better if she had quit her governer job back in February but better late then never
mooseburger on August 14, 2009 at 3:06 AM
Can I say that I luv this woman.
Bark, bark
oldyeller on August 14, 2009 at 3:46 AM
Let me change that to:
Can I say that I luv this strong, beauiful, and smart woman of five beauiful children and a beauiful man in Todd.
I luv them all.
Woof, woof, bark, bark.
What an amazing woman.
oldyeller on August 14, 2009 at 3:52 AM
ROOF ROOF dog-woman.
BARK BARK
Spathi on August 14, 2009 at 4:14 AM
Who let the Dogs out? ROOF ROOF, as Mitt Romney would say.
ROOF, ROOf.
Spathi on August 14, 2009 at 4:16 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next »