Fox News Pretends Palin Was Right About ‘Death Panels'

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Fox News Pretends Palin Was Right About ‘Death Panels'

One would have to pretend with regard to Palin being right about most anything.

 

[BobPlumb]

Sometimes it's better to just take a pill.

 

[tinydancer]

In Britain the NHS calls death panels "The Liverpool Pathway".

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Those that use the term "death panel," a term that reeks of paranoia-based propaganda, want to cry about propaganda. Grow the fuck up.

Yes, the AHC is a huge, unwieldy beast. Yes, whatever problems exist with it need to be addressed. "Death panels" is a sinister-sounding propaganda term whose effectiveness in criticizing the bill is questionable at best.

 

[koshergrl]

"Judging from the histories of governments which have adopted a collectivist philosophy, if death panels should appear on the scene they will not be aimed at determining which patients may live or die. That job, of course, will fall to the doctors at the bedside, who will offer or withhold medical services according to the dictates (i.e., “guidelines&#8221 handed down by those sundry expert commissions. Rather, any death panels which might eventually materialize will more likely be aimed at keeping those doctors themselves (and any other functionaries whose job is to do the bidding of the Central Authority) in thrall."

Chapter 13 ? Age-Based Medicine and End-of-Life Healthcare

 

[koshergrl]

"
I am very sorry to have to tell my friends of the Progressive persuasion the sad truth. For it was President Obama himself who created this circumstance. Sarah Palin may have first named the death panels, but before she ever thought of the phrase the President had already described them in detail.
During his first year in office, President Obama offered several homilies relating just what a “death panel” would look like. He described their function, how they would operate, and who they would target. Perhaps the most instructive example is the one he gave on ABC television during his June 24, 2009 National Town Hall meeting.
I refer, of course, to the famous question put to him by the granddaughter of a 100-year-old woman who had received a pacemaker. The questioner pointed out that her grandmother had badly needed this pacemaker, but had been turned down by a doctor because of her age. A second doctor, noting the patient’s alertness, zest for life, and generally youthful “spirit,” went ahead and inserted the pacemaker despite her advanced age. Her symptoms resolved, and Grandma was still doing quite well five years later. The question for the President was: Under Obamacare, will an elderly person’s general state of health, and her “spirit,” be taken into account when making medical decisions – or will these decisions be made according to age only?
President Obama’s answer was clear. It is really not feasible, he indicated, to take “spirit” into account. We are going to make medical decisions based on objective evidence, and not subjective impressions. If the evidence shows that some form of treatment “is not necessarily going to improve care, then at least we can let the doctors know that – you know what? – maybe this isn’t going to help; maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain pill.”"

Chapter 13 ? Age-Based Medicine and End-of-Life Healthcare

 

[koshergrl]

"President Obama’s clear and unflinching answer in this case told us several important things about Obamacare: 1) Under Obamacare, there would be at least one panel, or commission, or body of some sort, that is going to examine the medical evidence on how effective a certain treatment is likely to be in a certain subset of patients. 2) This, let’s call it a “panel,” will “let the doctors know” whether that treatment ought to be used in those patients. (“Letting the doctor know” is a euphemism for “guidelines,” which itself, as we have seen, is a euphemism for legally-binding and ruthlessly enforced directives.) 3) “Subjective” measures ought not to influence these treatment recommendations. Non-objective parameters – such as the doctor’s medical experience, intuition, or personal knowledge of the patient; or the patient’s “spirit,” or will to live, or likelihood of tolerating and complying with the proposed treatment; or even extenuating circumstances that might increase or decrease the success of the proposed treatment in a particular individual – simply cannot be evaluated or controlled by far-away expert panels, and therefore must necessarily be discounted. 4) But since our government is a compassionate and caring one, and wishes to reduce unnecessary suffering, palliative care will be made available in the form of pain control, even while withholding potentially curative care."

Chapter 13 ? Age-Based Medicine and End-of-Life Healthcare

 

[koshergrl]

"In the summer of 2008, the Oregon Health Plan (the Medicaid plan in that state) injudiciously sent a letter to lung-cancer patient Barbara Wagner denying coverage for the expensive chemotherapy her doctor had recommended, and offering instead to cover palliative care “including doctor-assisted suicide.”"

Chapter 13 ? Age-Based Medicine and End-of-Life Healthcare

 

[Caroljo]

Their propaganda is a beautiful thing to behold. I don't know why MSNBC doesn't just completely rip off their template.

Liberals tend to be more openminded and capable of seeing fault in their own side.

The Fox News narrative is not that flexible.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

"President Obama’s clear and unflinching answer in this case told us several important things about Obamacare: 1) Under Obamacare, there would be at least one panel, or commission, or body of some sort, that is going to examine the medical evidence on how effective a certain treatment is likely to be in a certain subset of patients. 2) This, let’s call it a “panel,” will “let the doctors know” whether that treatment ought to be used in those patients. (“Letting the doctor know” is a euphemism for “guidelines,” which itself, as we have seen, is a euphemism for legally-binding and ruthlessly enforced directives.) 3) “Subjective” measures ought not to influence these treatment recommendations. Non-objective parameters – such as the doctor’s medical experience, intuition, or personal knowledge of the patient; or the patient’s “spirit,” or will to live, or likelihood of tolerating and complying with the proposed treatment; or even extenuating circumstances that might increase or decrease the success of the proposed treatment in a particular individual – simply cannot be evaluated or controlled by far-away expert panels, and therefore must necessarily be discounted. 4) But since our government is a compassionate and caring one, and wishes to reduce unnecessary suffering, palliative care will be made available in the form of pain control, even while withholding potentially curative care."

Chapter 13 ? Age-Based Medicine and End-of-Life Healthcare

I get it, and I appreciate your attempts to at least rationalize and give the concern an objective treatment. That is something that should be done.

"Death panels" is propaganda, wielded by people who complain about propaganda. That is something that should not be done.

That's my observation. I believe in it. Do with it what you will.

If the counter is (and I'm not saying it is) is that such tactics are in retaliation for leftist propaganda, again, my answer will simply be: grow the fuck up. If that is not your counter, then please disregard.

 

[westwall]

"President Obama’s clear and unflinching answer in this case told us several important things about Obamacare: 1) Under Obamacare, there would be at least one panel, or commission, or body of some sort, that is going to examine the medical evidence on how effective a certain treatment is likely to be in a certain subset of patients. 2) This, let’s call it a “panel,” will “let the doctors know” whether that treatment ought to be used in those patients. (“Letting the doctor know” is a euphemism for “guidelines,” which itself, as we have seen, is a euphemism for legally-binding and ruthlessly enforced directives.) 3) “Subjective” measures ought not to influence these treatment recommendations. Non-objective parameters – such as the doctor’s medical experience, intuition, or personal knowledge of the patient; or the patient’s “spirit,” or will to live, or likelihood of tolerating and complying with the proposed treatment; or even extenuating circumstances that might increase or decrease the success of the proposed treatment in a particular individual – simply cannot be evaluated or controlled by far-away expert panels, and therefore must necessarily be discounted. 4) But since our government is a compassionate and caring one, and wishes to reduce unnecessary suffering, palliative care will be made available in the form of pain control, even while withholding potentially curative care."

Chapter 13 ? Age-Based Medicine and End-of-Life Healthcare

I get it, and I appreciate your attempts to at least rationalize and give the concern an objective treatment. That is something that should be done.

"Death panels" is propaganda, wielded by people who complain about propaganda. That is something that should not be done.

That's my observation. I believe in it. Do with it what you will.

If the counter is (and I'm not saying it is) is that such tactics are in retaliation for leftist propaganda, again, my answer will simply be: grow the fuck up. If that is not your counter, then please disregard.

What would you call them then? They are a group of bureaucrats who meet to determine the cost/benefit analysis of paying to treat the citizens who have paid into THEIR system.

So, what would you call that?

 

[koshergrl]

You know that any truthful description of appalling progressive policies is always called propaganda.

And their definition-switching, lying "explanations" of the same policies are the *truth*.

 

[koshergrl]

So when they say they aren't death panels, but qualified reviewers of what life-saving procedures to fund...and what not to fund...why, then, we have to go with that. Don't say the *d* word... it's "end of life" options......assisted suicide, euthanasia, or pallative care.

 

[BobPlumb]

I am not sure if this is true or not, but I've heard that life insurance was first sold as death insurance. Perhaps the left should start calling the death panels, life panels.

 

[SFC Ollie]

So when they say they aren't death panels, but qualified reviewers of what life-saving procedures to fund...and what not to fund...why, then, we have to go with that. Don't say the *d* word... it's "end of life" options......assisted suicide, euthanasia, or pallative care.

Soylent green........

 

[koshergrl]

That's how the Nazis sold it..."Death for life"....that's how they sold the idea of killing off certain people....the concept was that you had to kill those leeching off the system in order to provide for the more likely candidates.

Obama and his ghouls do the same thing.

 

[Luissa]

Fox News Pretends Palin Was Right About ‘Death Panels’

Fox News and their viewers love to pretend. They live in a fantasyland bubble -- only it's not a happy place -- it's full of fear and race-baiting.

Sarah Palin returned to Fox News’ “business block” today to lend her special brand of acumen to a discussion about Obamacare and death panels. Despite the fact that her “death panels” accusation was rated “Lie of the Year” by PolitiFact, host Eric Bolling joined her in throwing truth out the window as she took what was laughably called “The Hot Seat” for softball questions and a pretense that she has been proven correct. Simon Maloy, at Media Matters, breaks down Palin’s – uh, evolution – from her death panel accusations about the Advanced Care Planning provision in the House health care bill to her changeup to the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) in the Senate bill: Palin’s first deployment of “death panel” in August 2009 was in reference to the Advanced Care Planning provision of the House health care bill, and she said it would “decide” whether senior citizens and the disabled were “worthy of health care.” This was a lie, and Palin got called out on it, earning herself Politifact’s “Lie of the Year” award. In December of 2009, Palin switched it up and tried claiming that IPAB (which originated in the Senate’s health care bill) was what she was talking about all along and that “this type of rationing” was “precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.” This was also a lie; the law does not allow for the IPAB to make “any recommendation to ration health care... or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.”

She's the biggest moron ever.

Scary fact - people on this forum actually voted for her.

It was a sad lie. They took one thing that was actually very much needed. My grandmother is a prime example.

 

[tinydancer]

"President Obama’s clear and unflinching answer in this case told us several important things about Obamacare: 1) Under Obamacare, there would be at least one panel, or commission, or body of some sort, that is going to examine the medical evidence on how effective a certain treatment is likely to be in a certain subset of patients. 2) This, let’s call it a “panel,” will “let the doctors know” whether that treatment ought to be used in those patients. (“Letting the doctor know” is a euphemism for “guidelines,” which itself, as we have seen, is a euphemism for legally-binding and ruthlessly enforced directives.) 3) “Subjective” measures ought not to influence these treatment recommendations. Non-objective parameters – such as the doctor’s medical experience, intuition, or personal knowledge of the patient; or the patient’s “spirit,” or will to live, or likelihood of tolerating and complying with the proposed treatment; or even extenuating circumstances that might increase or decrease the success of the proposed treatment in a particular individual – simply cannot be evaluated or controlled by far-away expert panels, and therefore must necessarily be discounted. 4) But since our government is a compassionate and caring one, and wishes to reduce unnecessary suffering, palliative care will be made available in the form of pain control, even while withholding potentially curative care."

Chapter 13 ? Age-Based Medicine and End-of-Life Healthcare

I get it, and I appreciate your attempts to at least rationalize and give the concern an objective treatment. That is something that should be done.

"Death panels" is propaganda, wielded by people who complain about propaganda. That is something that should not be done.

That's my observation. I believe in it. Do with it what you will.

If the counter is (and I'm not saying it is) is that such tactics are in retaliation for leftist propaganda, again, my answer will simply be: grow the fuck up. If that is not your counter, then please disregard.

So you don't like the name. Boo fucking hoo.

In Britain they gave it a pretty name and called it the Liverpool Pathway. There have been so many scandals over this "end of life option" *cough* including hospitals getting bonuses for basically "offing" patients.

 

[Luissa]

That's how the Nazis sold it..."Death for life"....that's how they sold the idea of killing off certain people....the concept was that you had to kill those leeching off the system in order to provide for the more likely candidates.

Obama and his ghouls do the same thing.

It was end of life counseling, which is very much needed. Stop lying.

 

[koshergrl]

That's how the Nazis sold it..."Death for life"....that's how they sold the idea of killing off certain people....the concept was that you had to kill those leeching off the system in order to provide for the more likely candidates.

Obama and his ghouls do the same thing.

It was end of life counseling, which is very much needed. Stop lying.