Video: Kirsten Powers says Bush 2008 veto of bill with end-of-life provision “not true”

posted at 3:00 pm on January 1, 2011 by SueZeeQ

Good stuff. When you tell a liberal the truth they recoil in disbelief.  Seriously.

Just watch Kirsten Powers and her disbelief  in this interview when the bomb is dropped about 6:00 in.  She’s so flustered when she finds out the truth that President Bush vetoed the 2008 bill with the end-of-life provision in it and it was the Democrat Congress that overrode the veto and forced it into law.


Here’s the transcript:

SCHLAPP: And government itself, let me tell you, the language here right, the language is different. They made the language worse, instead of doing this once every five years, now the Obama administration is allowing this to happen every year and actually reimbursing doctors to do it every year. So, that’s quite a slight of hand. And doesn’t government — aren’t they a little conflicted here? They have to find this huge health care savings for seniors at the same time they’ve become the counselors to seniors in their end of care decisions?

POWERS: Where was your outrage in 2008 when the Bush administration said that Medicare would reimburse end of life counseling?

SCHLAPP: It was a veto that was overridden by the Democrats. So, I give President Bush credit for vetoing that bill.

POWERS: No, it was a 2008 law. I mean, I don’t know what are talking about.

SCHLAPP: Yes, that became law over the president’s veto.

POWERS: No, that’s not true.

Yes it is true, Kirsten.  And you look foolish and lose more of your credibility for believing the false narrative and then trying to advance it on national TV.

Could you imagine if Sarah Palin made that mistake?

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3

I don’t know the answer, but the problem is not going to go away.
Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 5:38 PM

No one is arguing that patients shouldn’t be consulted about end of life care. But Obamacare encourages this conversation to go on every year of the patients life by rewarding doctors with cash to have the conversation. This conversation does have to occur every year, and to do so does end up putting pressure on a patient to make decisions which may not be in their best interests. Look up Betsy McCaughey on this – she’s the most well-informed source for healthcare issues.

Buy Danish on January 1, 2011 at 5:50 PM

I have told my husband that I don’t want to be kept in a vegetative state just because the medical community can find a way to do it.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Too late.

/

CWforFreedom on January 1, 2011 at 5:53 PM

I don’t know the answer, but the problem is not going to go away.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 5:38 PM

The answer is to plan ahead of time, so we can best fulfill the wishes of the person IN the situation. The answer is not for the government or its bureaucrats to decide whose life is worth living. That was Palin’s point. Too bad you missed it.

JannyMae on January 1, 2011 at 6:01 PM

I have told my husband that I don’t want to be kept in a vegetative state just because the medical community can find a way to do it.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Too late.

/

CWforFreedom on January 1, 2011 at 5:53 PM

You are so clever. You know something? I have spent years taking care of people who are just like that, I have done personal care, emptied the cathedars and changed the adult diapers. I have changed the sheets and washed their hair and cut their nails. I do this kind of work every day.

I have also taken care of people who have survived things people said they could not and they were very glad that someone brought them back..even if they did end up in a wheel chair.

My point is that this is not a simple question and that as the population ages it will become more of an issue.

What I find interesting is all the conservatives out there who hate Part D, because after all why should they help some old lady buy her meds…but then again the sky is the limit once she is hooked up to enough machines.

There is an inherent contradiction there and if we are actually going to cut the deficit then we have to deal with who pays for this care. It is just a fact.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Mrs. Powers proves that Fox sometimes misinforms it’s viewers by letting lying Democrats spout their unsubstantiated nonsense on the air. The Fox viewers who are easily misled are ofcourse the blithering idiot Rinos and Libs who need their daily dose of Beck so they can rant about how crazy he is.

The Bush did it meme should have been blown out of the waters days ago!

Africanus on January 1, 2011 at 6:08 PM

BS! I can get a “Health Care Directive for free! Zero, zip, nada, no cost.

This is not freaking brain surgery.

Vince on January 1, 2011 at 6:10 PM

No one is arguing that patients shouldn’t be consulted about end of life care. But Obamacare encourages this conversation to go on every year of the patients life by rewarding doctors with cash to have the conversation. This conversation does have to occur every year, and to do so does end up putting pressure on a patient to make decisions which may not be in their best interests. Look up Betsy McCaughey on this – she’s the most well-informed source for healthcare issues.

Buy Danish on January 1, 2011 at 5:50 PM

I understand what you mean, but if people don’t want to talk about it, they don’t have to. They can tell the doctor that they have dealt with it already, or that they have someone designated who will deal with these decisions. Then there is nothing to talk about.

We say that health care must be kept between doctors and patients and then we act as if end of life is not a medical issue. Of course it is. Believe it or not most people on Medicare are quite capable of having a rational conversation with their doctor without turning into a puddle of goo.

Does this mean that Medicare should pay doctors to do something most of them do already? I think that is debatable, and if people don’t feel comfortable with it..then the Obama administration should not do it.

But people still need to have this debate.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 6:13 PM

I don’t know the answer, but the problem is not going to go away.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 5:38 PM

The answer is to plan ahead of time, so we can best fulfill the wishes of the person IN the situation. The answer is not for the government or its bureaucrats to decide whose life is worth living. That was Palin’s point. Too bad you missed it.

JannyMae on January 1, 2011 at 6:01 PM

I agree that people should plan ahead. But the point is that if you do plan ahead and you do make the decision yourself and you have a living will or some other plans in place and people to deal with the problems when the time comes…then there will not be any consultation…I think Palin missed that point. I doubt very much that anyone is going to deny care to Sarah Palin’s son and parents. She will see to that.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 6:16 PM

Kirsten Powers… wait a sec, is she the one I use the MUTE button on whenever I see her? I do believe it is… or switch the channel, both work quite well. So does the OFF button. Her, Beckel, Skeletor… errrr… Colmes! That’s the rat’s name! That Lamont Hill guy… all party-liners, and the party is over and the liner is soiled and needs to be thrown out.

‘Fair and Balanced’ is one thing.

Partisan hacks another.

Now if they had ‘Partisan Hacks’ segments labeled as such, things would be much easier. Then I could channel flip for a few minutes, or pull out Pufendorf for a few pages, or pat the cat or otherwise do something productive. Its not that I’m not listening to them, its that by the time I see them on the tube the talking points have been circulating for a day or fifty.

And as for ‘end of life decisions’?

Keep the freaking government out of that. They mess up your life bad enough, you don’t want them to be encouraged to do that to the ends of messing up your death, now, do you?

ajacksonian on January 1, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Wow has she aged.

Wade on January 1, 2011 at 6:31 PM

There is no such thing as “Good Eugenics” When they couldn’t defend the label, they tried to nuance the “Act”.

I haven’t ever been a Kirsten Powers fan. I just figured she was so much “Eye Candy”. Reminder Candy rots your teeth – Progressivism rots your brain.

Dr Evil on January 1, 2011 at 6:33 PM

he explained why he vetoed the bill in this statement
audiculous on January 1, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Okay, from the link you provided.

I urge the Congress to send me a bill that reduces the growth in Medicare spending, increases competition and efficiency, implements principles of value-driven health care, and appropriately offsets increases in physician spending.

GEORGE W. BUSH

This can be interpreted as many things We have,

reduces the growth in Medicare spending
increases competition and efficiency
implements principles of value-driven health care
appropriately offsets increases in physician spending.

As it has been pointed out manyyyyyyyyyy times the “death panels” provision are in Medicare spending.

When a President vetoes a bill he vetoes the entire bill not just parts of it.

So lets recap for accuracy!

The 2008 law, enacted by overriding a Bush veto, said the visit can include “end-of-life” planning discussions.
The “end-of-life” “death panels” were originally in the ObamaCare bill but removed due to massive public outcry.

After signing ObamaCare into law, Obama put the death panels back into ObamaCare 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.

It must be noted the Dem’s and President Obama tried to hide this flagrant abuse of the public trust.

They tried to tie it to Bush by telling a bogus fairy tail about Bush supporting these “death panels”.

Considering The Dems have spent the last 10 years telling us how stupid Bush is, how uncaring Bush was, they evoke “Bush did it too” as cover for their own ineptitude.

So so sad.

DSchoen on January 1, 2011 at 6:36 PM

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 so sad.

DSchoen on January 1, 2011 at 6:36 PM

B-b-but that already happens or something…

The fact is that many even within the Republican Party are sympathetic to this since in order for the System not to crash, this needs to happen.

I’m not even sure if it “needs” to happen but I would say we wouldn’t get into these sticky areas if the government was out of healthcare altogether. But something tells me that the moderately sized government enablers within the GOP don’t have the stones to take on the current system.

MeatHeadinCA on January 1, 2011 at 6:46 PM

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.

It must be noted the Dem’s and President Obama tried to hide this flagrant abuse of the public trust.

They tried to tie it to Bush by telling a bogus fairy tail about Bush supporting these “death panels”.

Considering The Dems have spent the last 10 years telling us how stupid Bush is, how uncaring Bush was, they evoke “Bush did it too” as cover for their own ineptitude.

So so sad.

DSchoen on January 1, 2011 at 6:36 PM

I agree with just about everything that you said…but..advance directives are not a new concept and as time goes on the whole idea of aggressive treatment will expand…and exactly when do we pull the plug? That is the problem we will have to face in the future.

For instance, Arizona has cut funding for transplants for people on medicaid..well if you need a transplant and don’t get one, you will die.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 6:50 PM

“I think Palin missed that point. I doubt very much that anyone is going to deny care to Sarah Palin’s son and parents. She will see to that.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 6:16 PM”

Palin didn’t miss the point at all. She was dead on and that’s why they had to remove the provision. The left loons are even using the words Death Panel, ever heard of left demi god Paul Krugman. The government will try to convince Grandma and Grandpa to snuff it, so they can save costs. This is not the job of the Federal Government.

Africanus on January 1, 2011 at 6:53 PM

For instance, Arizona has cut funding for transplants for people on medicaid..well if you need a transplant and don’t get one, you will die.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Seems like incentive to earn more money and stop depending on medicaid.

MeatHeadinCA on January 1, 2011 at 6:54 PM

I’m not even sure if it “needs” to happen but I would say we wouldn’t get into these sticky areas if the government was out of healthcare altogether. But something tells me that the moderately sized government enablers within the GOP don’t have the stones to take on the current system.

MeatHeadinCA on January 1, 2011 at 6:46 PM

They do talk to people already, after all, doctors need to know this stuff at some point in time.

But I am not sure if you need to be blaming moderates for this. I agree that if government was not involved it would not be an issue in the first place, but if government was not involved most people would not think about spending this kind of money on long term care or end of life care for the elderly in the first place. The money just would not be there.

For children, people might find away no matter what however.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 6:54 PM

For instance, Arizona has cut funding for transplants for people on medicaid..well if you need a transplant and don’t get one, you will die.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Seems like incentive to earn more money and stop depending on medicaid.

MeatHeadinCA on January 1, 2011 at 6:54 PM

I am not saying Arizona is wrong, after all there is a limit to how much they can spend and people and should take care of themselves as much as possible. But then again, you could say the same thing about medicare. That is the problem, we want the government to pay, we just don’t want them bothering us.

I don’t know what the answer is.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 6:57 PM

Seems like incentive to earn more money and stop depending on medicaid.

MeatHeadinCA on January 1, 2011 at 6:54 PM

It really is that simle. Happy New Year Meaty

darwin-t on January 1, 2011 at 6:57 PM

“I think Palin missed that point. I doubt very much that anyone is going to deny care to Sarah Palin’s son and parents. She will see to that.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 6:16 PM”

Palin didn’t miss the point at all. She was dead on and that’s why they had to remove the provision. The left loons are even using the words Death Panel, ever heard of left demi god Paul Krugman. The government will try to convince Grandma and Grandpa to snuff it, so they can save costs. This is not the job of the Federal Government.

Africanus on January 1, 2011 at 6:53 PM

I don’t think she was dead on. They removed the language because people hate the whole idea of government even going near this issue. But where I disagree with Palin is her reference to the government deciding that people like her son and parents could be denied health care. No one is talking about denying basic health care to anyone. That is not the point. I think Palin hit a nerve, but I also think there was some melodrama in her comment.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM

That is the problem, we want the government to pay

we just don’t want them bothering us.

I don’t know what the answer is.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 6:57 PM

They have no money that they don’t confiscate, and I personally don’t want them paying.

darwin-t on January 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM

They do talk to people already, after all, doctors need to know this stuff at some point in time.

Um, yeah, I’d say so. I’d hope my doctor could give me my options … just without any incentive from the government thank you very much.

But I am not sure if you need to be blaming moderates for this. I agree that if government was not involved it would not be an issue in the first place, but if government was not involved most people would not think about spending this kind of money on long term care or end of life care for the elderly in the first place.

Why? You have data to back this up?

The money just would not be there.

Why? Again, you have data to back this up?

For children, people might find away no matter what however.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 6:54 PM

Maybe.

MeatHeadinCA on January 1, 2011 at 7:01 PM

They have no money that they don’t confiscate, and I personally don’t want them paying.

darwin-t on January 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM

I couldn’t have responded better. I don’t know who this “we” is that Terrye is talking about but I’m with you. I want the government out of healthcare completely. I’m willing to compromise and take steps to get them out of it.

MeatHeadinCA on January 1, 2011 at 7:03 PM

BTW, Happy New Year, @darwin-t and @darwin-t.

MeatHeadinCA on January 1, 2011 at 7:05 PM

There is an inherent contradiction there and if we are actually going to cut the deficit then we have to deal with who pays for this care. It is just a fact.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 6:07 PM

The only reason “we” have to deal with who pays for this care is if the government is involved in paying for medical care. That’s why the question specifically comes up when talking about government-paid healthcare, as in Obamacare.

As long as private individuals make those decisions and pay for the care, the deficit is not affected.

I don’t think she was dead on. They removed the language because people hate the whole idea of government even going near this issue. But where I disagree with Palin is her reference to the government deciding that people like her son and parents could be denied health care. No one is talking about denying basic health care to anyone. That is not the point. I think Palin hit a nerve, but I also think there was some melodrama in her comment.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM

No, Palin was right. You admitted it yourself with the statement that “we have to deal with who pays for this health care.” In an Obamacare world, that becomes a government decision, and the government has already tipped their hand. She was dead on target, no melodrama needed.

But maybe you missed that she was discussing not just what the current bill says, but where it would lead. And it would lead inexorably to the government deciding how much health care it could afford to provide. Because under Obamacare, your healthcare is partially or completely paid for by extracting taxes from other people.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 1, 2011 at 7:10 PM

ajacksonian on January 1, 2011 at 6:19 PM

…+7%!

Seven Percent Solution on January 1, 2011 at 7:21 PM

Kirsten Powers’ whiny arguments made her look like a fool. And she needs to wash her hair.

LASue on January 1, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Could you imagine if Sarah Palin made that mistake?

Yeah I could and I don’t want Kirsten or Sarah to be President. At least Kirsten does not have an army of supporters who follow her the way some herds follow Oprah.

lexhamfox on January 1, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Thank you, There Goes the Neighborhood. You saved me the trouble.

Terrye was trying to say that Palin got it wrong. Palin got it exactly right.

I do not want the government making decisions about healthcare for me or my loved ones.

JannyMae on January 1, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Can I make a request? A “nurse” shuld be abel to spull.

c-a-t-h-e-t-e-r

Key West Reader on January 1, 2011 at 7:51 PM

It’s not just about deciding if you want to be kept alive on a machine, at least not the way most people think of being kept alive on a machine. The advanced directive form used in our state has a place for the person to indicate whether they want all treatment withheld, including food and water, even if they are able to feed themselves, if they are in an “end stage condition” indicated by “incompetency” and “complete physical dependence.” This form was adopted by statute in 2006, with basically no fanfare. I feel certain the elderly will be encouraged to check that box on the form, because after all, they don’t want to be kept alive on a machine. But if their physician and another doctor decide they have an “end stage condition” (which is pretty vague and broad, in my opinion – certainly Alzheimers would seem to fit), the doctor can withhold food and water. So are we going to start starving Alzheimer victims? It’s not the idea of end of life counseling I object to, it’s the fact that I know it will be abused, and I know the end goal, which is to reduce health care costs by cutting medical treatment for the elderly.

mbs on January 1, 2011 at 7:57 PM

Kirsten Powers’ whiny arguments made her look like a fool. And she needs to wash her hair.

LASue on January 1, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Sad, because she is an attractive woman. She should know basic grooming skills before appearing on television. Perhaps this will be the Faux Lady’s next great idea…

/Oh, wait.Do these beads that I got in Noleans make me look phat?

Key West Reader on January 1, 2011 at 7:59 PM

If I said “MassRighty is as brilliant, honest, and gaffe-free as Joe Biden” I would be damning you with faint praise because my intention would be to insult you. Too bad you’re too thick-headed to see the difference.

Buy Danish on January 1, 2011 at 5:45 PM

It’s possible to damn with faint praise unintentionally.

You didn’t know this, and that makes me thick-headed?

massrighty on January 1, 2011 at 8:37 PM

I saw it live. When Schlapp smacked Kirsten between the
eyes with that one, she blubbered and stammered like a president who forgot how to read a teleprompter.

She protested enough to make Shakespeare proud.

She’s just a stupid cow.

Mr. Grump on January 1, 2011 at 8:47 PM

Powers needs to get over herself. She seems to have appointed herself the liberal talking head for TV. Though its better than looking at Pelosi and her scared-to-death expressions.

tx2654 on January 1, 2011 at 8:47 PM

not just ignorant, but dishonest.

When conservatives talk about “death panels” we aren’t talking about end of life consultations, we’re talking about government panels rationing care. While both may be means to the same end, they are distinctly different means.

The term first made news when it was used by Palin in reference to rationing, later President Obama pretended (the same way KP is here) that Palin was referring to end of life consultations. Then Politifact, like KP, let Obama define Palin’s term and went on to “debunk” it.

In this clip KP is setting up the straw man of “Death Panels” to try to avoid discussing the issue at hand. Even though she says that she agrees with Carlson on both of his key points, she keeps bringing up “Death Panels.”

29Victor on January 1, 2011 at 8:48 PM

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 5:38 PM

You spent a lot of words not doing what I had asked iu_conservative to do: find an example of Governor Palin making a mistake like the one KP made here: repeating it several times when challenged on it, and only retracting it later, when forced to by incontrovertible proof.

Your response doesn’t do this.

massrighty on January 1, 2011 at 8:49 PM

Key West Reader on January 1, 2011 at 7:59 PM

Oh, I am going to have to find the source of an email by brother-in-law sent to me. FLOTUS is wearing some kind of weird flat show that are said to cost $645. It says it is a picture from Hawaii. They would be just awful at $20.

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2011 at 8:50 PM

He is a fashion Icon http://www.michellesmirror.com

Really, h/she is!

Key West Reader on January 1, 2011 at 8:53 PM

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Never mind, he’s circulating ugly shoe emails from last year’s Hawaiian vacation.

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2011 at 8:55 PM

like a president who forgot how to read a teleprompter.

Mr. Grump on January 1, 2011 at 8:47 PM

An idiom in the making.

Decades hence teenagers will be consulting Wikipedia (or “Space Wikipedia” as it will be known) to find out what grandpa mean when he said “…was stammering like Barry flyin’ solo.”

29Victor on January 1, 2011 at 8:55 PM

Key West Reader on January 1, 2011 at 8:53 PM

Since you had a hall of fame I’m putting up the link. Please Obama lovers, I know we don’t pay for her shoes and I don’t care that she bought them and I would say they were ugly no matter who was wearing them, so cool your jets.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2416710/posts

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2011 at 9:00 PM

so cool your jets.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2416710/posts

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2011 at 9:00 PM

You mean, GunBoats? Woah!

/lmao

Key West Reader on January 1, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Twit

Hening on January 1, 2011 at 9:15 PM

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Well, I don’t know what’s Wong with you. All of my toes always curl over the top of my shoes and touch the ground when I bend them. What is Wong with you? Why can’t your toes Lean Forward?

/heh

Key West Reader on January 1, 2011 at 9:29 PM

Key West Reader on January 1, 2011 at 9:29 PM

I think I will say that she pushes “fashion forward” to unnecessary lengths and leave it at that.

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2011 at 9:33 PM

I know a family right now that can not decide what decision to make for their 93 year old matriarch. She has an exterior pace maker, is on dialysis, is on a ventilator and is so doped up for the pain she suffers that she is not aware of her surroundings. If we did all that to someone in prison it would be considered cruel and unusual punishment..and if her family were paying for the cost themselves, they might be able to make that decision. Too bad she did not make it herself when she was still able to do it.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 5:38 PM

Really! 93-years old with external pacemaker and kidney issues and the family never had a discussion with her about what should happen should she become incapacitated? I have a feeling the heart and kidney issues were evident years before she had to get doped up for the pain and unaware of her surroundings but this family of Democrats just couldn’t have the discussion with Granny. Let’s find an extreme example of why we need government intervention in end-of-life discussions.

PatMac on January 1, 2011 at 9:36 PM

I do not want the government making decisions about healthcare for me or my loved ones.

JannyMae on January 1, 2011 at 7:50 PM

They don’t have to, ever, just pay for it yourself.

lowandslow on January 1, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Kirsten has a bit of an excuse here, though it really doesn’t completely absolve her. Per her tweet:

Apologies for saying on Hannity that Bush put in place “end of life” planning. Got that from WSJ (also corrected) http://on.wsj.com/dZCDPi

And there’s the WSJ correction:

Congress passed a law making changes to Medicare in 2008 by overriding President George W. Bush’s veto. A previous version of this article incorrectly said Mr. Bush signed the legislation.

If you’re a paid pundit, should you be collecting your historical facts from yesterday’s WSJ article? That tells us where she got the notion, and it wasn’t from paying attention to what was going on in Washington. It isn’t like Bush was vetoing bills left and right. He only used the power a dozen times and this was the last bill he vetoed.

Then again, this is a talk show and not a written piece, so I suppose you have to allow for random, current brain detritus to make its way out of someone’s piehole.

Pablo on January 1, 2011 at 9:46 PM

They almost cost as much as the keds that she wore to feed the homeless. I wish I had a picture but they cost near $600 and they were ugly too.

Bambi on January 1, 2011 at 9:48 PM

I do not want the government making decisions about healthcare for me or my loved ones.

JannyMae on January 1, 2011 at 7:50 PM

They don’t have to, ever, just pay for it yourself.

lowandslow on January 1, 2011 at 9:40 PM

That is what we did before and then liberals like you insisted that we had to pay for others that didn’t make arrangements for healthcare. Now we have Obamacare and surely as the sunsets we will then all find ourselves not being able to pay for things ourselves, like in Canada. Don’t tell me that doesn’t happen I am from there. They come down HERE to actually get healthcare and PAY for it themselves. of course tools have now ruined it for everyone. Instead of REAL answers which are always in the direction of a free market – and there were answers out there that folks like you an Obama Ignored- pretended no one was saying them.

You see folks like you want someone else to pay for your healthcare. They the joke of a “free” healthcare in Canada. NOTHING is free honey, and you are the type that wanted us all to pay for you.

Noelie on January 1, 2011 at 9:59 PM

They don’t have to, ever, just pay for it yourself.

lowandslow on January 1, 2011 at 9:40 PM

So I can keep my health insurance when I turn 65 instead of going on Medicare? Golden! I won’t even ask for a refund of moneys I put into the system, let me keep my insurance.

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2011 at 10:15 PM

(Caption to be forever under her name)

Kirsten Powers
Democrat Political Hack
Wouldn’t know the true facts if it sat on her face!

Seven Percent Solution on January 1, 2011 at 10:17 PM

I think it’s clear that in that exchange, Kirsten clearly
got ‘b@@ch SCHLAPP’ed‘ .

Thank you! I’ll be here all night! Please try the veal.

:D

Handel on January 1, 2011 at 10:19 PM

I am sure you must have far more insightful things to add to the conversation.

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Well said. It’s a long, unnecessary trip from “I think you’re mistaken” or even “I think you must be an imbecile” to “I think you gobble your employer to get on TV”.

Jaibones on January 1, 2011 at 10:29 PM

Seems to me that I’ve heard this lie from other liberals in the past few days. Just another example that they don’t understand our Constitution. If the House and the Senate override a president’s veto, you cannot possibly argue that that particular president signed that legislation into law.

That said, a HotAir contributor, a Fox News contributor, and a Wall Street Journal source ought to provide the roll call votes for the House and Senate regarding the legislation in question.

And to answer Powers’s question about the absence of outrage in 2008, in all honesty, it’s only within the past two years that I’ve realized that as a citizen of this country I have to be aware of virtually every f***ing thing these idiots in DC are doing for fear of what they’re doing next. We don’t have a representative form of government. We have a government run largely by POS elites, who really aren’t all that smart.

BuckeyeSam on January 1, 2011 at 10:41 PM

Jaibones on January 1, 2011 at 10:29 PM

I appreciate it.

BuckeyeSam on January 1, 2011 at 10:41 PM

Of all the things the Founding Fathers tried to consider for our future, I doubt that they knew that keeping an eye on our “citizen” representatives would become a full time job.

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2011 at 10:54 PM

It’s been more than 8 hours since Patterico’s directive wrt this thread. Is that stale? Or still in effect? I’m feeling rudderless.
How should I think and behave Pat? You’re my only hope.

Stephen M on January 1, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Kirsten Powers: Don’t confuse me with the facts!

Rational Adults: *sigh*

Why do I feel like conservatives are always arguing with unter-pubescents that lack, not intelligence, but rather wisdom and judgement?

Claypigeon on January 1, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Stephen M:

My new directive to you: acquire a sense of humor.

Don’t let on that you don’t have one already. They’ll raise the price.

Patterico on January 2, 2011 at 12:07 AM

FYI: from the first link in the post, here’s a list of the GOP senators who voted to override the Bush veto. I omitted all the Dems (all of whom voted in favor of the override), and I omitted those Republicans who opposed it. Again, this is the list of those who voted to override.

Alaska
Yea AK Murkowski, Lisa [R]
Yea AK Stevens, Ted [R]
Florida
Yea FL Martinez, Mel [R]
Georgia
Yea GA Chambliss, Saxby [R]
Yea GA Isakson, John [R]
Indiana
Yea IN Lugar, Richard [R]
Kansas
Yea KS Roberts, Pat [R]
Maine
Yea ME Collins, Susan [R]
Yea ME Snowe, Olympia [R]
Minnesota
Yea MN Coleman, Norm [R]
Mississippi
Yea MS Cochran, Thad [R]
Yea MS Wicker, Roger [R]
Missouri
Yea MO Bond, Christopher [R]
North Carolina
Yea NC Dole, Elizabeth [R]
Ohio
Yea OH Voinovich, George [R]
Oregon
Yea OR Smith, Gordon [R]
Tennessee
Yea TN Alexander, Lamar [R]
Yea TN Corker, Bob [R]
Texas
Yea TX Cornyn, John [R]
Yea TX Hutchison, Kay [R]

Interesting point: neither Obama nor McCain participated in this vote. Sorry, not ambitious enough to do this with the House, though I was disappointed to find out that Jean Schmidt (my OH rep) voted to override. Boehner, by the way, opposed the override.

BuckeyeSam on January 2, 2011 at 1:00 AM

At least Kirsten is a cute liberal idiot.

TheAlamos on January 2, 2011 at 1:07 AM

One need only follow the progress of national health care systems in the Netherlands and UK as they have dealt with “end of life issues,” as the left so delicately describes state-sponsored euthanasia.

Kirsten Powers has always been a fool and a liar, as are nearly all leftists. I salute those who sacrifice their time to watch her and bring her most egregious offenses to light.

Adjoran on January 2, 2011 at 1:10 AM

Interesting point: neither Obama nor McCain participated in this vote. Sorry, not ambitious enough to do this with the House, though I was disappointed to find out that Jean Schmidt (my OH rep) voted to override. Boehner, by the way, opposed the override.

BuckeyeSam on January 2, 2011 at 1:00 AM

NO WONDER WHY THESE REPUGNANTS HATE PEOPLE LIKE DEMINT AND PALIN.

TheAlamos on January 2, 2011 at 1:10 AM

Alaska
Yea AK Murkowski, Lisa [R]
Yea AK Stevens, Ted [R]

And Miller was not able to capitalize on this! Sad.

TheAlamos on January 2, 2011 at 1:19 AM

But where I disagree with Palin is her reference to the government deciding that people like her son and parents could be denied health care. No one is talking about denying basic health care to anyone. That is not the point. I think Palin hit a nerve, but I also think there was some melodrama in her comment.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM

Come on. You state that she implies one thing, then in your response you change one word but blatantly sets up a straw man to ‘win’ on a totally different point. basically, you are saying, “Palin is concerned that she make not be able to get the specialized care disabled and older citizens need but that’s crazy because no one is saying she won’t be able to get an aspirin if they have a headache!”. You’re right – no one is saying that, including Palin.

This sort of ‘debate’ only shows that either you realize she was right and are willingly trying to deceive people to push an agenda – which is dishonest, or that you have a hard time making logical arguments – in which case you might want to listen more and talk less.

miConsevative on January 2, 2011 at 1:34 AM

And Miller was not able to capitalize on this! Sad.

TheAlamos on January 2, 2011 at 1:19 AM

Right. Millers fault. No corrupt machine there – like entrenched political hacks or a complicit media actively trying to find child molesters at his rallies or anything.

Can’t tell from your post, but I hope your “Sad.” comment is geared toward the state of things and not Miller as a candidate.

miConsevative on January 2, 2011 at 1:41 AM

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Opps my bad!
I should have put “quote” marks a round it.
This paragraph apparently comes from the White house, as it has been repeated verbatim by

NYT Dec 25, 2010
mediamatters Dec 26, 2010
democratifi Dec 26, 2010
toledoblade Dec 26, 2010
news-medical Dec 27, 2010
usnews Dec 28, 2010

And 8600 more times

So according to the Obama admin this is new.
Then again the Obama admin does have a credibility problem.

DSchoen on January 2, 2011 at 4:36 AM

For instance, Arizona has cut funding for transplants for people on medicaid..well if you need a transplant and don’t get one, you will die.
Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 6:50 PM

How,exactly,does Arizona “cut funding” for medicaid?

Medicaid is a Federal program. Last time I checked Federal trumps State.

Some States have their own State program. California has Medi-Cal, Massachusetts has MassHealth,Tennessee has TennCare and Arizona has Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) program.

So how did Arizona, which doesn’t control Federal medicaid, control medicaid?

Did you get that from Olbermann?

DSchoen on January 2, 2011 at 4:56 AM

We say that health care must be kept between doctors and patients and then we act as if

end of life is not a medical issue.

Of

I have a problem with the most pro-death president in history forcing this issue. Heathcare is about enhancing life – not facilitating death. That involves informed ethical and moral judgments beyond the training of doctors.
ets not corrupt the medical profession any more that it has been with abortion.

End of life questions might be sought at the John Paul Center for Bioethics. They’ve been at it a long time.

The last thing we need, is to become another Holland where one of five deaths are euthanized and one of ten deaths are involuntarily, but covertly done by doctors. Shades of pre-war Germany when the undesirable and old were killed, first with innoculations (by doctors) and later,(when that backfired and the population began to fear the doctors) they shifted to a no fat diet (sauerkraut) A good read on this is a book called The Nazi Doctors

Don L on January 2, 2011 at 5:59 AM

Thanks Buckeye. We see the 20 hypocritical statist republican Senators without whose help this provision would never have been enacted. Now for political advantage these wolves seek to clothe themselves in smaller government rhetoric, but should the winds change again, we could expect these bottom feeders to turn to liberal spenders and statist power grabbers quick as you can say Jack Robinson.

eaglewingz08 on January 2, 2011 at 8:23 AM

Whatever happened to the Hippocratic oath: First, do no harm?

How/why has the federal government dared to impose its agenda on a profession dedicated to the preservation of life? When people cede control of their lives to government by expecting others to pay for care, they have lost both their liberty and their dignity.

Donald Berwick has made his philosophy quite clear that a government that controls costs of medical care will determine the quality of life and ultimately decide who his worth treating. We have only to look at the abuses taking place in the English nationalized healthcare system in the name of cost containment to understand an object lesson of the ultimate outcome. Yes, these are death panels.

onlineanalyst on January 2, 2011 at 8:29 AM

Kirstin said 3 times that if she were terminally ill she would want end of life counseling. Kirstin, being a lib is a terminal illness, please contact a doctor soon and do the right thing. Make America a better place to live.

Wills on January 2, 2011 at 8:46 AM

Bush did, as a compromise allow it to be part of the Bill knowing the sensible people would removed it. Mow the Demoncrates put it back in and tell their masses not to talk about so they can get their way.

The truth is how many Doctors will direct a person to die rather than seeking potentially life prolonging therapy. It goes against their Hippocratic Oath.

The only Doctors that will use that method are those facing a terminally ill patient given a short period of life remaining rather than subject them to expensive life support which eats away at their whatever little is left of their assets which are meant to be passed on to their heirs.

MSGTAS on January 2, 2011 at 9:05 AM

What I find interesting is all the conservatives out there who hate Part D, because after all why should they help some old lady buy her meds…but then again the sky is the limit once she is hooked up to enough machines.

There is an inherent contradiction there and if we are actually going to cut the deficit then we have to deal with who pays for this care. It is just a fact.

Terrye on January 1, 2011 at 6:07 PM

I object to your blanket use of conservative here. The “death panel” fear mongers are engaged in irrational demagoguery that is no more conservative than Birtherism. But your overall point is excellent. I can’t even imagine a logical argument for the idea that the government should spend huge sums of money to prolong suffering, but no government spending should go to alleviate suffering.

thuja on January 2, 2011 at 9:43 AM

She’s unthinking and lazy like all the other lib talking heads who just repeat the talking points of the day. Haven’t you all listened to Rush when he plays the news sound bites of the day. They all sound like a chorus of parrots in the tiki hut at Disney. Remember, if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it.

Kissmygrits on January 2, 2011 at 9:45 AM

I find this woman to be a typical female Liberal; loves to feel a sense of purpose behind all of the feel good crap these people sell themselves on, and wears way toooooo much make up and girly crap when she was already blessed with natural good looks. She is deep into caring for humans while crapping all over those humans who don’t agree with the typical feel good Liberal non sense. Common sense, as in looking at what works vs what doesn’t work is beyond her. As is the case with all Liberals, they want to keep trying the same crap some how convincing themselves that it will work this time.

For me, I’m so tired of our news cycles being filled with arguments over failed policy. I want to hear people talking about policy that has been proven to work over a period of time. The bickering between sides is so old now. Get into the solution or be gone with you; this is what I wish for after such a long period of financial hardships.

Keemo on January 2, 2011 at 9:48 AM

That’s a good one! lol

Once upon a time, I thought Kirsten was a pretty level-headed liberal, but I lost respect for her over time. Had to de-friend the kook on facebook, because her political ignorance became irritating.

This is pretty simple stuff. The only reason federal government wants to get involved with end of life decisions is financially based. The quicker you die; the better off the books look. They want us all to work until we are 80 and then drop dead the next day. In five years they will probably have Dr. Kevorkian making house calls and putting on a powerpoint slide show to sell the up side of being dead.

Democrats strongly support this activity, because they have a lock on the dead voting bloc.

joedoe on January 2, 2011 at 10:22 AM

Suzanne, you don’t like women, do you?

She made a mistake. Not an unreasonable one. Can we stop being so superior? I hate it when dems do it. So, can we stop it, please?

Pablo Snooze on January 2, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Unfortunately I have heard numerous leftists, Bush hating, Obama worshipping Democrats make that false claim, that Bush put that end of life counselling into a bill before Obama and the Democrats did.

In point of fact Bush vetoed the Death Panels (Yes, they ARE death panels. They are panels which discuss the option of death with patients.)

Kristin cited “Politifacts” calling the “Death Panels” term the “Lie of the Year.”

Sorry, Kristen, the fact that you claim “Politifacts” call the Death Panels term the lie of the year does not lend it legitimacy. It isn’t a “lie.” It is a fact.

Also, Kristin, YOU sold a lie claiming that the Bush admnistration already was saying that you can get reimbursed for end-of-life planning. Lie!!!!

Also, Kristin contradicts herself and states that now you can get that counselling on your deathbed.

Question: If you are on your deathbed, how can you react or respond to end-of-life decisions?

Kristin comes off as a shrill, angry, impatient, intolerant person who employs lies and fabrications to carry on a conversation with two people who clearly have their facts straighter than she does.

William2006 on January 2, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Kristin comes off as a shrill, angry, impatient, intolerant person who employs lies and fabrications to carry on a conversation with two people who clearly have their facts straighter than she does.

William2006 on January 2, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Yep; dead on target with this statement…

Keemo on January 2, 2011 at 10:51 AM

This is a central policy issue for ObamaCare not an add on. The only way to make this scheme work financially (if then) is to have death panels and early exits from this mortal coil. That is why it is back in regulatory form. It is a baseline must for ObamaCare. That is also why the left excoriated Gov. Palin for her disclosures of this issue. From the left’s perspective death panels are a must and yet their reality must be denied.

Mason on January 2, 2011 at 10:53 AM

It’s possible to damn with faint praise unintentionally.
You didn’t know this, and that makes me thick-headed?
massrighty on January 1, 2011 at 8:37 PM

Archer did not ‘damn’ Kristen Powers so your premise is false from the outset. It was not his intent nor did he did do it unintentionally. Calling someone “open minded and sensible” is legitimate praise and is not “damning” or insulting them.

If you want to argue that it’s next to impossible to be a moderate in today’s Democrat Party, fine make that argument. No doubt, Powers (and, say, Juan Willians) is among the last of a dying breed. But to conflate the issue and suggest that the rest of them are prepared to send people to gas chambers (or whatever your nonsensical point was) makes you look like an extremist wack-job.

Buy Danish on January 2, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Suzanne, you don’t like women, do you?

She made a mistake. Not an unreasonable one. Can we stop being so superior? I hate it when dems do it. So, can we stop it, please?

Pablo Snooze on January 2, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Foolish.

Your mentality is the reason why so many lies against conservatives have never been corrected before the eyes of many Americans.

TheAlamos on January 2, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Buy Danish on January 2, 2011 at 12:03 PM

You have, over several posts, consistently missed my point.
I would suggest you stop trying to understand, and move on.

massrighty on January 2, 2011 at 1:30 PM

And she’s certainly partisan and a Democrat, but compared to most of the members of her party, pretty open-minded and sensible. much less likely to push someone into a gas oven.
Asher on January 1, 2011 at 3:36 PM
massrighty on January 1, 2011 at 3:57 PM

I didn’t miss a thing. What you wrote speaks volumes.

Buy Danish on January 2, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Buy Danish on January 2, 2011 at 1:43 PM

You’ve focused on this to the point of an almost stalker-like obsession.

You’ve ignored both context (withing the original post) and explanation.

You’ve called me names.

Somehow, this is all my fault; you’ve failed to make the reason clear.

I’ll invite you again to move right along.

massrighty on January 2, 2011 at 2:04 PM

“That’s not true.”

These are commonly the first words out of a liberal’s mouth when confronted with facts they don’t like. Myself, when I find myself in such a situation, would tend to say “Really, that doesn’t seem possible?”, unless I was absolutely certain, that is. And I would not be absolutely certain unless I knew the facts of the matter very well.

But liberals (and I am related to loads of them) do not suffer from anything remotely like doubt, ever. Their poli-religio-tics absolves them of any nagging doubts, the way Jesus absolves Christians of their sins. So they confidently bellow “Not true!” or even better “That’s a lie!”, trusting that by definition the narrative they have been fed is always the gospel truth. That blind faith, which they have been luxuriating in since youth, is their substitute for skeptical thinking.

drunyan8315 on January 2, 2011 at 2:16 PM

This is a very difficult issue to deal with even when the person has planned ahead.

My father had a DNR/DNI, and I was designated as his medical power of attorney and durable power of attorney, and I still had a very difficult time making sure his wishes were followed. He was fairly healthy until his last year of life and even then he was not an invalid. He had several medical issues that periodically bothered him and he suffered a broken cervical vertebra that was inoperable, he was 84 years old. He went into the hospital complaining of sever back pain, he did have diagnosed disc problem in his lower back, but this isn’t where the pain was. As it turns out he had a growth on his spine where the nerves to the kidneys branch from and he was not a good candidate for any surgery. I was given his chances of survival and his prognosis of recovery even if there was a surgeon that would take the case. I had a lot of pressure from family and from the medical establishment to do things against his stated wishes. I had to make the medical decisions because he was heavily medicated because of his back pain, so he wasn’t cognizant of his situation. His personal physician said that if the family wanted him to try to find a surgeon he would make a few calls, but that even if it was successful, he might live another year and that would probably be in a nursing home and he would probably not be ambulatory and need significant care to recover from the surgery. I knew he was adamant about not ending his life in a vegetative state or requiring constant care just to keep breathing. I followed his orders and wishes and got hospice involved. He died three days later of renal shutdown.

He and his physician had this discussion on several occasions and he planned for his end of life. Most of the problems arise from people not making their wishes be known as soon as possible and to make sure that it is legally stated and spelled out precisely. Even with this done it is sometimes difficult to follow through with the person’s wishes. My father had a very long and vigorous life and lived 12 productive years longer than he would have had the gubbmint been making the decisions.

belad on January 2, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Archer did not ‘damn’ Kristen Powers so your premise is false from the outset. It was not his intent nor did he did do it unintentionally. Calling someone “open minded and sensible” is legitimate praise and is not “damning” or insulting them.
Buy Danish on January 2, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Really?
“There’s a very fine line between a groove and a rut a fine line between an open mind and an empty head

DSchoen on January 2, 2011 at 3:25 PM

You’ve ignored both context (withing the original post) and explanation.
massrighty on January 2, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Oh, I’m sorry! This context?

Not really: again, just showing, by example, how badly excusing someone as “not nearly as bad as others” often ends.

I could have said, she was (compared to other members of her party)much less likely to massacre people in the katyn forest, or much less likely to drain the swamps from which they draw their livelihood.

Heh.

In 1951 and 1952, in the background of the Korean War, a U.S. Congressional investigation chaired by Rep. Ray J. Madden and known as the Madden Committee investigated the Katyn massacre. It concluded that the Poles had been killed by the Soviets and recommended that the Soviets be tried before the International Court of Justice.

Rep. J. Madden was…hold on for this…a Democrat. All you’ve managed to do is put me in a position where I have to defend Democrats against your nonsensical and poisonous hyperbole. Believe me, that is the last thing I want to do.

Buy Danish on January 2, 2011 at 4:21 PM

“There’s a very fine line between a groove and a rut a fine line between an open mind and an empty head”
DSchoen on January 2, 2011 at 3:25 PM

Is there a fine line between a horses’ ass and a jackass?

Buy Danish on January 2, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Buy Danish on January 2, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Rep. J. Maddens’ political party does not change the conversation one iota. No one (save your own creepy obsession with my post) has put you in any kind of a position.

Have asked you to stop. You persist.

massrighty on January 2, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Too late.

/

CWforFreedom on January 1, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Best post of the year

Wade on January 2, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3