Palin Makes Dems Cry "Uncle" On Death Panels

[Revmitchell]

You're right. It doesn't change the facts. The fact is there is no language in the bill that remotely resembles a "death panel" as described by Palin.

Again you only make claims with no support. Deal with the claims in the op. Otherwise you have no credibility.

 

[OldRegular]

I wasn't addressing how DC works. I was addressing the content of this bill. There is no language in the bill that remotely resembles a "death panel" as described by Palin.

Just shows that Governor Palin is more of an authority than you as to the language used in government bills and the way bureaucrats work.

It should be obvious to all that if this bill will save money as claimed then rationing must follow. Ask yourself why the democrats would not allow language in the bill specifically forbidding rationing and Federal funding of abortion. Because they knew the bill as written [HR 3200] would allow them and in the case of rationing require it.

 

[Johnv]

Just shows that Governor Palin is more of an authority than you as to the language used in government bills and the way bureaucrats work.

So ýou're saying that if anyone reads the bill, and finds that the governor is in error, then the person making the claim must be in error, because the governor didn't make an error. Sounds like the KJVO argument: The KJV doesn't contain errors, so if anyone finds an error, they're wrong, because the KJV doesn't contain errors.

Again you only make claims with no support.

On the contrary. I've read the entire bill. There's no language that remotely resembles a "death panel". If you dispute that, tell me what secion of the bill contains said language.

Just to reiterate, I'm 100% against the bill. That doesn't change the FACT that there is nothing in the bill that remotely resembles a "death panel" as Palin described.

 

[Revmitchell]

On the contrary. I've read the entire bill. There's no language that remotely resembles a "death panel". If you dispute that, tell me what secion of the bill contains said language.

So you say. Deal with the claims in the op specifically or you have no credibility on this subject.

 

[OldRegular]

So ýou're saying that if anyone reads the bill, and finds that the governor is in error, then the person making the claim must be in error, because the governor didn't make an error.

No! I am simply saying that your experience does not enable you to understand what you read unless you are a government bureaucrat involved in writing legislation, otherwise, you are simply mistaken

 

[targus]

No! I am simply saying that your experience does not enable you to understand what you read unless you are a government bureaucrat involved in writing legislation, otherwise, you are simply mistaken

True - especially considering that the bill often refers to other legislation. I am guessing that very few readers - if any - actually go to the those documents to understand what is being referenced.

 

[OldRegular]

True - especially considering that the bill often refers to other legislation. I am guessing that very few readers - if any - actually go to the those documents to understand what is being referenced.

The language of this bill is typical of what comes out of Congress. It is really unintelligible to anyone who did not work in drafting the language and opens the doors for bureaucrats who write the regulations enforcing the bill to write what they please.

 

[alatide]

Again you only make claims with no support. Deal with the claims in the op. Otherwise you have no credibility.

OK. The OP is a lie.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Isn't the point that there are bureaucrats who will decide what is appropriate care at the end of life? It won't be a decision between doctors and patients and families, but with an added person or persons who will say "We will pay for that" or "We won't pay for that."

I think this is a case where some creative and provocative wording came back to bite. The concept is probably true, but it raised the ire of some because of its provocativeness, not because of its untruth.

I have to laugh at people who said, "Show me the words 'death panel' in the bill." Seriously, laugh out loud. Discourse has stooped so low as to do a concordance search. How silly can we be folks? Can we not deal in concepts and ideas? That surely is not too much, even for a public school graduate.

 

[Revmitchell]

Isn't the point that there are bureaucrats who will decide what is appropriate care at the end of life? It won't be a decision between doctors and patients and families, but with an added person or persons who will say "We will pay for that" or "We won't pay for that."

I think this is a case where some creative and provocative wording came back to bite. The concept is probably true, but it raised the ire of some because of its provocativeness, not because of its untruth.

I have to laugh at people who said, "Show me the words 'death panel' in the bill." Seriously, laugh out loud. Discourse has stooped so low as to do a concordance search. How silly can we be folks? Can we not deal in concepts and ideas? That surely is not too much, even for a public school graduate.

When you cannot actually defend your position that is what you are forced to do other than just be honest

 

[Crabtownboy]

When you cannot actually defend your position that is what you are forced to do other than just be honest

Says an expert on avoiding rational replies and never defending positions with rational answers.

 

[targus]

Seriously, crabby, you better hope that there will be no "death panel" type stuff in what ever bill they come up with.

You won't always be the young guy that you are today.

Eventually they will come even for you.

 

[saturneptune]

Isn't the point that there are bureaucrats who will decide what is appropriate care at the end of life? It won't be a decision between doctors and patients and families, but with an added person or persons who will say "We will pay for that" or "We won't pay for that."

I think this is a case where some creative and provocative wording came back to bite. The concept is probably true, but it raised the ire of some because of its provocativeness, not because of its untruth.

I have to laugh at people who said, "Show me the words 'death panel' in the bill." Seriously, laugh out loud. Discourse has stooped so low as to do a concordance search. How silly can we be folks? Can we not deal in concepts and ideas? That surely is not too much, even for a public school graduate.

In the first place, several bills have only reached the level of being voted out of committee in the House and the Senate. After that, a unified bill will have to pass each house. At that point, a conference committee will have to create a single bill for another vote in both houses of Congress, then signed by your President (who received Michigan's electoral votes). In other words, until there is a final product, one cannot make a judgement about either concepts or words.

The liberal tone of your post is very similar to a town hall meeting I watched on C-Span with Barney Frank the other day.

 

[Pastor Larry]

In the first place, several bills have only reached the level of being voted out of committee in the House and the Senate. After that, a unified bill will have to pass each house. At that point, a conference committee will have to create a single bill for another vote in both houses of Congress, then signed by your President (who received Michigan's electoral votes). In other words, until there is a final product, one cannot make a judgement about either concepts or words.

What? It is very easy to make a judgment about what is being considered and promoted. And it's best to do that before it reaches its final state.

The liberal tone of your post is very similar to a town hall meeting I watched on C-Span with Barney Frank the other day.

Liberal tone? That makes no sense. What was liberal about my tone?

 

[saturneptune]

What? It is very easy to make a judgment about what is being considered and promoted. And it's best to do that before it reaches its final state.

Liberal tone? That makes no sense. What was liberal about my tone?

That was my fault and my apologies. I read another post and clicked on yours.

 

[OldRegular]

OK. The OP is a lie.

Since when has a leftist/democrat/fascist been able to tell the difference between the truth and a lie? Whatever they say is truth to them!