Obama to Palin.....You Lie

[Modbert]

You wanna translate that nebulous gobbledygook into no-uncertain-terms English for the rest of us??

You obviously didn't bother to read the second part.

In other words, comparative effectiveness research will tell you whether treatment A is better than treatment B. But the bill as written won't mandate which treatment doctors and patients have to select.

 

[Zona]

Obama attacks "bogus claims" made about his plan. Calls the allegations of "death panels" nothing more than "a lie, plain and simple."

Refers to "prominant politicians" who claim there will be death panels

How low can Palin sink?

Palin did say that & has soon as she did--democrats went sprinting back to the HR3200 bill & took out a section that perfectly described what she stated. So whatever she said worked. It certainly was not a LIE.

To add to this--Obama wants to cut 500 BILLION out of medicare--while knowing that there are millions of baby-boomers entering the medicare system & will continue to do so for the next 15 years. Now with YOUR fuzzy math--can you explain how he can do that--without rationing health care to the elderly? Now who is lying?
View attachment 8062

Link.

 

[Oddball]

You wanna translate that nebulous gobbledygook into no-uncertain-terms English for the rest of us??

You obviously didn't bother to read the second part.

In other words, comparative effectiveness research will tell you whether treatment A is better than treatment B. But the bill as written won't mandate which treatment doctors and patients have to select.

I read it and there's more than enough wiggle room in there to imply no treatment at all....For the good of the hive, of course.

 

[Zona]

Palin continues to spread the lie of "Death Panels" so yes Sarah Palin is lying. Anyone who believes is such bullshit really needs to get their head checked. If only for their own safety.

you don't know if she's lying or speculating.

There already is a death panel. Its called the insurance company. If they say they will drop you, they can.

If hey say you are capped out, then you wont be covered any more. You die.

Get it?

 

[elvis]

Palin continues to spread the lie of "Death Panels" so yes Sarah Palin is lying. Anyone who believes is such bullshit really needs to get their head checked. If only for their own safety.

you don't know if she's lying or speculating.

There already is a death panel. Its called the insurance company. If they say they will drop you, they can.

If hey say you are capped out, then you wont be covered any more. You die.

Get it?

fuck off.

 

[Sinatra]

you don't know if she's lying or speculating.

No, she's lying.

PolitiFact | Obama is correct that "death panel" charge is a lie

PolitiFact | Sarah Palin falsely claims Barack Obama runs a 'death panel'

Palin may have jumped to a conclusion about the Obama administration's efforts to promote comparative effectiveness research. Such research has nothing to do with evaluating patients for "worthiness." Rather, comparative effectiveness research finds out which treatments work better than others.

The health reform bill being considered in the House of Representatives says that a Comparative Effectiveness Research Center shall "conduct, support, and synthesize research" that looks at "outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically."

The House bill states in the section creating the Comparative Effectiveness Research Center and an oversight commission that "nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer." In other words, comparative effectiveness research will tell you whether treatment A is better than treatment B. But the bill as written won't mandate which treatment doctors and patients have to select.

She's stated the "Death Panels" bit as fact twice now, she's lying.

That is your opinon pard.

Here is another one...


September 02, 2009
Sarah Palin vs. Dr. Death
By Stuart Schwartz

Ezekiel Emanuel is upset. The president's health care czar sees the growing resistance to his vision, to his brave new world of government-run "communitarian" health care in which politicians and bureaucrats control one-sixth of the economy and 100% of our bodies. He doesn't quite understand how it all came apart on him, but he does know who started the unraveling: Sarah Palin.


Where does she get off attacking him? Sarah Palin, it seems forever Sarah Palin. And he wonders, as have so many others, what it takes to put a stake through her heart? People should listen to him, not Sarah Palin. He is the philosopher king of Democrat health care. And he went to Harvard, you know.

One day he was vacationing in the Italian Alps, a top-level government bureaucrat and Democrat insider enjoying the fruits of his labors on behalf of the common good. Government health care was cruising and Zeke was the guy Time magazine predicted will build the most "equitable and ethical" health care system north of Cuba. Marty Peretz, his friend and publisher of The New Republic, described him as quintessential Harvard, "very impressive" and stuffed with "gravitas."


And then he got the call: Sarah Palin had done the unthinkable. She had read the health care bill. Mainstream journalists hadn't read the bill. Congress hadn't read its own bill. But Sarah Palin did. Sarah Palin! He has a medical degree and doctorate in political philosophy from Harvard. The only Harvard she's knows is the chunk of ice off Prince William Sound, Harvard Glacier.


Then she writes something on Facebook -- Facebook, for Obama's sake! -- and suddenly the president, congress, the media, and everyone who is anyone inside the beltway is scurrying for cover. Palin wrote that she wanted nothing to do with Obama's "death panel," the collection of bureaucrats who Zeke was so proudly putting together to assess the "level of productivity" that would determine individual access to medical care


They went after her, but...it was over. Everyone was talking death panels. Sarah Palin had let people know: if you're old, if you're sick, if you're disabled, they're targeting you. It became Mrs. Mom vs. Dr. Death, the governor vs. the terminator.

She cut through the rhetoric, the academic jargon, and adoring press to the truth: Ezekiel Emanuel and Barack Obama and the Democrat-led Congress are putting in place a health care system that will control the lives -- and deaths -- of citizens to an extent never seen in this republic. Her reaction:"we're saying not just no, but hell no!

And Zeke is upset. A slam-dunk had been transformed into an epic battle and, as an American Thinker commentator put it, ObamaCare turned into a "sick joke." That's not how it's supposed to be -- he went to Harvard, you know.

Ezekiel Emanuel "abhors" what she's done. She read his articles, which "even well-educated people" would have a difficult time understanding. And she's certainly not well educated. She's a graduate of the University of Idaho, where they probably write doctoral dissertations in crayon. And she only has a bachelor's degree -- in communications, for Obama's sake!?

It's as if the waitress at the Harvard Faculty Club had, instead of a check, taken out a baseball bat and cold-cocked him. Or the ball girl at the tennis event sponsored by the Harvard Club of Washington DC had reared back and smacked a Dunlop A-Player right into his groin. This is not supposed to happen -- he went to Harvard, you know.

This is crazy! People are packing town halls in protest. They are listening to Sarah Palin and not Zeke, who has been a fellow at Oxford -- the one in England, not the suburb of Fairbanks. And he has written nine books, almost a dozen chapters in other books, and more than 225 other pieces on bioethics and morality. And certified as a genius by The New York Times, which hired him as a book reviewer for its Sunday newspaper

And yet, this, this... this Facebook writer described his thinking as "downright evil." And demanded that he explain why he's trying to put in place centralized health care that "would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential."

Evil!? Sarah Palin called him evil!? She said "death panels," he didn't. Hey, some lives are worth more to society than others. Therefore, health services cannot be guaranteed for individuals like Trig, Palin's baby with Down Syndrome, who are "irreversibly prevented" from contributing to the public good. There is a subtle difference.

Sarah Palin simply does not understand. No nuance. She did not go to Harvard, nor is she a board member of Princeton University's Center for Human Values, where Zeke provides support for philosopher Peter Singer. Singer is best known for the view that fetuses and many disabled have less of a right to live than, say, fully functioning humans and "adult gorillas and chimpanzees." No, Zeke believes that those who know better, who understand morality, should make decisions for those less able to do so.


Like Sarah Palin. Like Trig. Like your grandma. And this is because he cares. Just ask him: "I hope at the end of the day I can make things better for people, especially vulnerable people." As an original member of the academic "communitarian" movement, he has pledged to establish "just" health care by means that are "nondemocratic or practice discrimination." A just society doesn't simply happen, he explains. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs... so to speak.

So when Sarah Palin says she doesn't want her "baby with Down Syndrome" to stand in front of his medical panels... that shows just how unsophisticated her thinking really is. She has already made the anti-social choice of giving birth to a child with a severe disability, who will never be able to live the "complete life" outlined by Zeke on behalf of the government.

Therefore, it is the responsibility of a health care system that operates in the public good to deny Trig -- or grandma, for that matter -- health services that are better used elsewhere. Sarah Palin, not the government, is to blame. She chose to have Trig. She forced a situation that provides her with, as Zeke puts it, "bleak choices."

And so government, for the sake of the common good, may deny Trig medical care. And may do the same with the elderly, the severely disabled, and others who fall low on the "complete life" value scale. It is the best way, the moral way, the smart way.

And Zeke knows smart -- he went to Harvard, you know.

American Thinker: Sarah Palin vs. Dr. Death

 

[Oddball]

Palin continues to spread the lie of "Death Panels" so yes Sarah Palin is lying. Anyone who believes is such bullshit really needs to get their head checked. If only for their own safety.

Why should anyone believe the denials any more than you believe Palin??

Gonna answer that one?

 

[Modbert]

I read it and there's more than enough wiggle room in there to imply no treatment at all....For the good of the hive, of course.

You're seriously buying into that Death Panel BS huh?

Think Progress » For ‘Death Panels’ Before She Was Against Them? Palin Endorsed End Of Life Counseling As Governor

Though this proclamation is now deleted from the Alaska governor’s website, it shows that Palin’s current fear-mongering is purely political. Palin is not the only conservative leader completely flip-flopping on this issue. Merely months ago, Gingrich too endorsed end of life counseling. At a conference in April of this year, Gingrich said advance directives can “save money” while also helping to “decrease the stress felt by caregivers.”

But hey, keep on being played like a puppet by those who have obviously fooled you. It's sort of hilarious too since I'm suppose to be the naive one since I'm younger.

 

[concept]

Which retarded liberal politician said this?

In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."

Here is a hint for you dopey libs. it was Obama.

Please translate that for all of us unenlightened, unwashed cons.

 

[Oddball]

I read it and there's more than enough wiggle room in there to imply no treatment at all....For the good of the hive, of course.

You're seriously buying into that Death Panel BS huh?

I know bullshit weasel-worded language when I see it....In fact, I'm trained to use it to help people.

What's your experience in the study of linguistics and semantics, plebian?

 

[elvis]

I read it and there's more than enough wiggle room in there to imply no treatment at all....For the good of the hive, of course.

You're seriously buying into that Death Panel BS huh?

I know bullshit weasel-worded language when I see it....In fact, I'm trained to use it to help people.

What's your experience in the study of linguistics and semantics, plebian?

Robert will like this one: what does "God damn America" mean?

 

[Modbert]

Gonna answer that one?

Look at my post above for part of my answer. The other part of my answer is this: Sarah Palin has been proven a liar in the past. She has flip flopped on various issues, and merely trying to keep the attention on herself.

Don't you remember the Bridge to Nowhere? Don't you remember how she flip flopped on various issues when first discovered in order to be a better mainstream Republican candidate?

While otherwise:

FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill - Yahoo! News

A: The American Medical Association, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization and Consumers Union are among the groups supporting the provision. AARP, the seniors' lobby, is taking out print advertisements this week that label as false the claim that the legislation will empower the government to take over life-and-death decisions from individuals.

Because the #1 thing that AARP wants to see is all their members dead, right?

Still need more evidence or you finished?

 

[Sinatra]

And yet more support for "death panel" concerns...

William A. Jacobson

Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY

Saturday, August 8, 2009
An Inconvenient Truth About The "Death Panel"

Sarah Palin has kicked off (another) firestorm of criticism because of the statement she released on her Facebook page:

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
The incoming fire has been withering, as usual. Palin is accused of becoming the "Zombie Queen," certifiably insane, "clinically wrong," and espousing a "gruesome mix of camp and high farce."

These critics, however, didn't take the time to find out to what Palin was referring when she used the term "level of productivity in society" as being the basis for determining access to medical care. If the critics, who hold themselves in the highest of intellectual esteem, had bothered to do something other than react, they would have realized that the approach to health care to which Palin was referring was none other than that espoused by key Obama health care adviser Dr. Ezekial Emanuel (brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel).

The article in which Dr. Emanuel puts forth his approach is "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions," published on January 31, 2009. A full copy is embedded below. Read it, particularly the section beginning at page 6 of the embed (page 428 in the original) at which Dr. Emanuel sets forth the principles of "The Complete Lives System."

While Emanuel does not use the term "death panel," Palin put that term in quotation marks to signify the concept of medical decisions based on the perceived societal worth of an individual, not literally a "death panel." And in so doing, Palin was true to Dr. Emanuel's concept of a system which


considers prognosis, since its aim is to achieve complete lives. A young person with a poor prognosis has had a few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern the disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses. When the worst-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable....
When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.

Put together the concepts of prognosis and age, and Dr. Emanuel's proposal reasonably could be construed as advocating the withholding of some level of medical treatment (probably not basic care, but likely expensive advanced care) to a baby born with Down Syndrome. You may not like this implication, but it is Dr. Emanuel's implication not Palin's.

The next question is, whether Dr. Emanuel's proposal bears any connection to current Democratic proposals. There is no single Democratic proposal at this point, only a series of proposals and concepts. To that extent, Palin's comments properly are viewed as a warning shot not to move to Dr. Emanuel's concept of health care rationing based on societal worth, rather than a critique of a specific bill ready for vote.

Certainly, no Democrat is proposing a "death panel," or withholding care to the young or infirm. To say such a thing would be political suicide.

But one interesting concept which is central to the concepts being discussed is the creation of a panel of "experts" to make the politically unpopular decisions on allocating health care resources. In a letter to the Senate, Barack Obama expressed support for such a commission:

I am committed to working with the Congress to fully offset the cost of health care reform by reducing Medicare and Medicaid spending by another $200 to $300 billion over the next 10 years, and by enacting appropriate proposals to generate additional revenues. These savings will come not only by adopting new technologies and addressing the vastly different costs of care, but from going after the key drivers of skyrocketing health care costs, including unmanaged chronic diseases, duplicated tests, and unnecessary hospital readmissions.

To identify and achieve additional savings, I am also open to your ideas about giving special consideration to the recommendations of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), a commission created by a Republican Congress. Under this approach, MedPAC's recommendations on cost reductions would be adopted unless opposed by a joint resolution of the Congress. This is similar to a process that has been used effectively by a commission charged with closing military bases, and could be a valuable tool to help achieve health care reform in a fiscally responsible way.
Will such a commission decide to curtail allocation of resources to those who are not deemed capable of "complete lives" based on prognosis and age, as proposed by Dr. Emanuel? There is no way to tell at this point since we do not have a final Democratic proposal, or know who would be appointed to such a commission.

To exclude the issue of allocating resources away from the elderly and infirm from the debate over "cost cutting," however, ignores the ethical elephant in the room. Let's have the debate, and understand specifically how resources would be reallocated, before any vote on a health care restructuring bill.

And before we create a commission to make such decisions for us, let's consider whether we should outsource these ethical issues or deal with them as part of the political process.


http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/inconvenient-truth-about-death-panel.html

 

[concept]

You know, for a group that thinks of itself as so enlightened and nuanced, you sure are a bunch of dopes.

And dupes. Obama is playing you because he knows what a herd of lemmings you are.

 

[Oscar Wao]

I read it and there's more than enough wiggle room in there to imply no treatment at all....For the good of the hive, of course.

You're seriously buying into that Death Panel BS huh?

Think Progress » For ‘Death Panels’ Before She Was Against Them? Palin Endorsed End Of Life Counseling As Governor

Though this proclamation is now deleted from the Alaska governor’s website, it shows that Palin’s current fear-mongering is purely political. Palin is not the only conservative leader completely flip-flopping on this issue. Merely months ago, Gingrich too endorsed end of life counseling. At a conference in April of this year, Gingrich said advance directives can “save money” while also helping to “decrease the stress felt by caregivers.”

But hey, keep on being played like a puppet by those who have obviously fooled you. It's sort of hilarious too since I'm suppose to be the naive one since I'm younger.

So you don't think loopholes can be applied...

Loopholes are sacred in law.

 

[Modbert]

Robert will like this one: what does "God damn America" mean?

You all act like I'm supporting Wright when he says that, I don't. Rev. Wright if you listened to his entire sermon wasn't completely wrong, but he was wrong in saying that.

Besides, do remember I'm not a obamabot, in fact I just spent half the night being a critic of his.

Elvis, are you going to tell me you believe in the "Death Panels" as well?

 

[Sinatra]

And yet more support for "death panel" concerns...

William A. Jacobson

Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY

Saturday, August 8, 2009
An Inconvenient Truth About The "Death Panel"

Sarah Palin has kicked off (another) firestorm of criticism because of the statement she released on her Facebook page:

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
The incoming fire has been withering, as usual. Palin is accused of becoming the "Zombie Queen," certifiably insane, "clinically wrong," and espousing a "gruesome mix of camp and high farce."

These critics, however, didn't take the time to find out to what Palin was referring when she used the term "level of productivity in society" as being the basis for determining access to medical care. If the critics, who hold themselves in the highest of intellectual esteem, had bothered to do something other than react, they would have realized that the approach to health care to which Palin was referring was none other than that espoused by key Obama health care adviser Dr. Ezekial Emanuel (brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel).

The article in which Dr. Emanuel puts forth his approach is "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions," published on January 31, 2009. A full copy is embedded below. Read it, particularly the section beginning at page 6 of the embed (page 428 in the original) at which Dr. Emanuel sets forth the principles of "The Complete Lives System."

While Emanuel does not use the term "death panel," Palin put that term in quotation marks to signify the concept of medical decisions based on the perceived societal worth of an individual, not literally a "death panel." And in so doing, Palin was true to Dr. Emanuel's concept of a system which


considers prognosis, since its aim is to achieve complete lives. A young person with a poor prognosis has had a few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern the disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses. When the worst-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable....
When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.

Put together the concepts of prognosis and age, and Dr. Emanuel's proposal reasonably could be construed as advocating the withholding of some level of medical treatment (probably not basic care, but likely expensive advanced care) to a baby born with Down Syndrome. You may not like this implication, but it is Dr. Emanuel's implication not Palin's.

The next question is, whether Dr. Emanuel's proposal bears any connection to current Democratic proposals. There is no single Democratic proposal at this point, only a series of proposals and concepts. To that extent, Palin's comments properly are viewed as a warning shot not to move to Dr. Emanuel's concept of health care rationing based on societal worth, rather than a critique of a specific bill ready for vote.

Certainly, no Democrat is proposing a "death panel," or withholding care to the young or infirm. To say such a thing would be political suicide.

But one interesting concept which is central to the concepts being discussed is the creation of a panel of "experts" to make the politically unpopular decisions on allocating health care resources. In a letter to the Senate, Barack Obama expressed support for such a commission:

I am committed to working with the Congress to fully offset the cost of health care reform by reducing Medicare and Medicaid spending by another $200 to $300 billion over the next 10 years, and by enacting appropriate proposals to generate additional revenues. These savings will come not only by adopting new technologies and addressing the vastly different costs of care, but from going after the key drivers of skyrocketing health care costs, including unmanaged chronic diseases, duplicated tests, and unnecessary hospital readmissions.

To identify and achieve additional savings, I am also open to your ideas about giving special consideration to the recommendations of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), a commission created by a Republican Congress. Under this approach, MedPAC's recommendations on cost reductions would be adopted unless opposed by a joint resolution of the Congress. This is similar to a process that has been used effectively by a commission charged with closing military bases, and could be a valuable tool to help achieve health care reform in a fiscally responsible way.
Will such a commission decide to curtail allocation of resources to those who are not deemed capable of "complete lives" based on prognosis and age, as proposed by Dr. Emanuel? There is no way to tell at this point since we do not have a final Democratic proposal, or know who would be appointed to such a commission.

To exclude the issue of allocating resources away from the elderly and infirm from the debate over "cost cutting," however, ignores the ethical elephant in the room. Let's have the debate, and understand specifically how resources would be reallocated, before any vote on a health care restructuring bill.

And before we create a commission to make such decisions for us, let's consider whether we should outsource these ethical issues or deal with them as part of the political process.


Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: An Inconvenient Truth About The "Death Panel"

,,,

 

[elvis]

Robert will like this one: what does "God damn America" mean?

You all act like I'm supporting Wright when he says that, I don't. Rev. Wright if you listened to his entire sermon wasn't completely wrong, but he was wrong in saying that.

Besides, do remember I'm not a obamabot, in fact I just spent half the night being a critic of his.

Elvis, are you going to tell me you believe in the "Death Panels" as well?

I have no reason to believe either way.

 

[Oddball]

Gonna answer that one?

Look at my post above for part of my answer. The other part of my answer is this: Sarah Palin has been proven a liar in the past. She has flip flopped on various issues, and merely trying to keep the attention on herself.

Don't you remember the Bridge to Nowhere? Don't you remember how she flip flopped on various issues when first discovered in order to be a better mainstream Republican candidate?

So, the ad hominem is all you have on Palin....Figures.

While otherwise:

FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill - Yahoo! News

A: The American Medical Association, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization and Consumers Union are among the groups supporting the provision. AARP, the seniors' lobby, is taking out print advertisements this week that label as false the claim that the legislation will empower the government to take over life-and-death decisions from individuals.

Because the #1 thing that AARP wants to see is all their members dead, right?

Still need more evidence or you finished?

Since we're at the ad hominem game, the AARP has lost no fewer than 60,000 members for supporting this joke of a bill, that has yet to take its final form, and the AMA represents something less than 1/3 of all MDs.

Hardly ringing endorsements, in anyone's book.

 

[txlonghorn]

You wanna translate that nebulous gobbledygook into no-uncertain-terms English for the rest of us??

You obviously didn't bother to read the second part.

In other words, comparative effectiveness research will tell you whether treatment A is better than treatment B. But the bill as written won't mandate which treatment doctors and patients have to select.

So in your logical rambling, you're saying that this team of researchers (i.e. panel) will decide if a person who suffers from a fatal disease in later terms of life should receive "treatment A - a procedure to fight the disease" or "treatment B - something to ease the pain". Fighting the disease would make more sense for those who actually care, but easing the pain for someone who has already lived a long life is more humane (cost effective).

I see. Now it makes more sense.