Palin Makes Dems Cry "Uncle" On Death Panels

[Revmitchell]

On a Facebook post, former Gov. Sarah Palin puts the lie to The New York Times' assertion that "the rumor that government-sponsored 'death panels' to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere" (emphasis added by The Stiletto).

Had Times reporters Jim Rutenberg and Jackie Calmes read her commentary -- which was posted the day before their article was published -- they would have known that the death panels are real, and where to read up on the details. Palin makes a solid case that health care "reform," as originally envisioned by Democrats, would lead to rationed care and put a price tag on the value of people's lives based on their economic productivity.

Palin cites and explains the ramifications of Section 1233 ("Advance Care Planning Consultation," pages 424 to 434) of the House's proposed bill, "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,'' and quotes from "Principles For Allocation Of Scarce Medical Interventions" (The Lancet, January 31, 2009), a paper co-authored by one of President Obama's health care policy advisors, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel -- whose brother, Rahm, is the president's chief of staff.

Dr. Emanuel, a bioethicist, believes that doctors and hospitals should apply a rationing scheme he calls "complete life" for such medical services as ICU beds, heart transplants and vaccines during a flu pandemic. Under this scheme, adolescents and young adults would get priority over infants and the elderly, because "they have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants -- have not yet received these investments."


More Here

 

[Johnv]

Palin was wrong about the "death panels". There was no such language in the bill.

 

[Robert Snow]

On a Facebook post, former Gov. Sarah Palin puts the lie to The New York Times' assertion that "the rumor that government-sponsored 'death panels' to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere" (emphasis added by The Stiletto).

Had Times reporters Jim Rutenberg and Jackie Calmes read her commentary -- which was posted the day before their article was published -- they would have known that the death panels are real, and where to read up on the details. Palin makes a solid case that health care "reform," as originally envisioned by Democrats, would lead to rationed care and put a price tag on the value of people's lives based on their economic productivity.

Palin cites and explains the ramifications of Section 1233 ("Advance Care Planning Consultation," pages 424 to 434) of the House's proposed bill, "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,'' and quotes from "Principles For Allocation Of Scarce Medical Interventions" (The Lancet, January 31, 2009), a paper co-authored by one of President Obama's health care policy advisors, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel -- whose brother, Rahm, is the president's chief of staff.

Dr. Emanuel, a bioethicist, believes that doctors and hospitals should apply a rationing scheme he calls "complete life" for such medical services as ICU beds, heart transplants and vaccines during a flu pandemic. Under this scheme, adolescents and young adults would get priority over infants and the elderly, because "they have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants -- have not yet received these investments."


More Here

Show where the bill says "death panel."

 

[alatide]

On a Facebook post, former Gov. Sarah Palin puts the lie to The New York Times' assertion that "the rumor that government-sponsored 'death panels' to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere" (emphasis added by The Stiletto).

Had Times reporters Jim Rutenberg and Jackie Calmes read her commentary -- which was posted the day before their article was published -- they would have known that the death panels are real, and where to read up on the details. Palin makes a solid case that health care "reform," as originally envisioned by Democrats, would lead to rationed care and put a price tag on the value of people's lives based on their economic productivity.

Palin cites and explains the ramifications of Section 1233 ("Advance Care Planning Consultation," pages 424 to 434) of the House's proposed bill, "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,'' and quotes from "Principles For Allocation Of Scarce Medical Interventions" (The Lancet, January 31, 2009), a paper co-authored by one of President Obama's health care policy advisors, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel -- whose brother, Rahm, is the president's chief of staff.

Dr. Emanuel, a bioethicist, believes that doctors and hospitals should apply a rationing scheme he calls "complete life" for such medical services as ICU beds, heart transplants and vaccines during a flu pandemic. Under this scheme, adolescents and young adults would get priority over infants and the elderly, because "they have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants -- have not yet received these investments."


More Here

Health care is being rationed today. There are already invisible "death panels" in place. The rich get the care and the poor die. Where in the Bible can I find a justification for that?

 

[Walguy]

Show where the bill says "death panel."

Even the Dems aren't foolish enough to put language like that in the actual bill. 'Death panels' refers to the practical outworking of what the bill says, not the words the bill uses.
Show me where the bill specifically says there will NOT be something that could end up functioning as a 'death panel' under whatever official name it is given. With the overwhelming necessity to reduce spending under a plan like this, that's the more relevant question.

 

[Revmitchell]

Show where the bill says "death panel."

If you are going to quote something...read it.

 

[Johnv]

When this first came up, I did just that, and noted so in anotehr thread. I've read the bill. I speak with some authority here. There is no mention of anything remotely resembling a "death panel". Palin was wrong. There's no such thing, not even an implication of one, in the bill.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Health care is being rationed today. There are already invisible "death panels" in place. The rich get the care and the poor die. Where in the Bible can I find a justification for that?

Show me a stat on how many poor die due to lack of medical care.

 

[Nonsequitur]

Health care is being rationed today.

You are so correct. Here in my state, it is being rationed out to all of those that have never worked a day to bring a dime into it. So much so that the people who need it and have worked for it are often treated last.
Some say we need to pratice Christian charity....then they forget the Bible says that those that will not work will not eat.

 

[windcatcher]

When this first came up, I did just that, and noted so in anotehr thread. I've read the bill. I speak with some authority here. There is no mention of anything remotely resembling a "death panel". Palin was wrong. There's no such thing, not even an implication of one, in the bill.

Palin put it correctly in the character of what it is......

Anytime you have a panel of judges making medical decisions based upon economics or the material worth and value of a person.... so that some needing treatment are served and others in the same need are denied ......the result is the same. While you may complain that insurance companies exercise the right to approve or disapprove coverage on some medical procedures..... there is one difference...... a very big difference: Insurance companies have to offer patients and their doctors a method of appealing rejected procedures..... and many do get overturned.... and a person has the right to bring suit if he/she has a good case. But the goverment plan allows the government to pick and choose who sits on the panel to judge who will have care and who and when care will be denied or limited...... and there is NO PROVISION for the patient and/or his doctor to appeal NOR sue teh government. Futhermore, if a patient is harmed or his condition is worsened due to malpractice or mistakes in care neither the doctor/providers nor the government is liable in any way.

 

[Robert Snow]

If you are going to quote something...read it.

You made the accusation, back it up!

 

[Revmitchell]

You made the accusation, back it up!

hey silly..its in the op. Read the op, look at the words in the very first thread and move your eyes from left to right understanding the formation of the letters and the intent of the author. That is called reading.

 

[Robert Snow]

hey silly..its in the op. Read the op, look at the words in the very first thread and move your eyes from left to right understanding the formation of the letters and the intent of the author. That is called reading.

The article has the phrase "death panels" four times:

Palin Makes Dems Cry "Uncle" On Death Panels

On a Facebook post, former Gov. Sarah Palin puts the lie to The New York Times' assertion that "the rumor that government-sponsored 'death panels' to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere" (emphasis added by The Stiletto).

Had Times reporters Jim Rutenberg and Jackie Calmes read her commentary -- which was posted the day before their article was published -- they would have known that the death panels are real, and where to read up on the details.

Believe it or not, the rationing scheme Dr. Emanuel advocates in The Lancet is a softening of his views on which lives are worth saving. Though Palin was mocked -- surprise! -- for her "death panel" analysis, it's now Dr. Emanuel who is backpedaling from an article he co-authored 13 years ago, The Washington Times reports:

Other than a description of what some who are against this legislation say, an you show me where this is mentioned in any of the bills currently under consideration by Congress?

 

[Revmitchell]

The article has the phrase "death panels" four times:



Other than a description of what some who are against this legislation say, an you show me where this is mentioned in any of the bills currently under consideration by Congress?

Since your question has already been answered I will refer you to post # 5

 

[Johnv]

Anytime you have a panel of judges making medical decisions based upon economics or the material worth and value of a person....

That's exactly what private insurance carriers do, and the language of that portion of the bill replicates that function in private healthcare systems. This is not remotely a "death panel". I've read the bill myself, in depth. Palin is wrong about that.

 

[SeekingTruth]

It looks as if all the liberals and socialistic leaning folks are chiming in.

 

[Johnv]

If you're referring to me as an example, you're dead wrong. I'm a staunch opponent of socialized healthcare, and I abhor this bill 100%. That said, I've read the bill, and can assert with authority that there is nothing in the bill that remotely implies a "death panel" or anything of the sort.

 

[Revmitchell]

Sure...the folks over at the Heritage Foundation have never heard that before. Heck you have just set them straight. What were they thinking?

 

[just-want-peace]

Seems I read somewhere that the Ds have decided to drop this particular provision -- that was not in there -- because of all the furor about it -- even though it is not in there -- just to satisfy the opponents of the non-existent provision -- so its being dropped ------- somehow this whole conversation seems surreal --- but then its not a real conversation because the topic doesn't exist --- OH WHAT THE HECK!!!!!

I'm outta here to more sane topics!!:sleep::tonofbricks::1_grouphug::sleep:

 

[Johnv]

Sure...the folks over at the Heritage Foundation have never heard that before. Heck you have just set them straight. What were they thinking?

You told someone to look it up for themself. Yet when someone such as myself goes and looks it up for themselves, you get bent out of shape. Perhaps you shoudl take your own advice and look it up for yourself. You'll find it doesn't exist.