Palin Calls Obama Health Plan 'Evil'

[VaYank5150]

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Aug. 7) -- Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called President Barack Obama's health plan "downright evil" Friday in her first online comments since leaving office, saying in a Facebook posting that he would create a "death panel" that would deny care to the neediest Americans.
"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," the former Republican vice presidential candidate wrote.

Fear monger-in-chief anyone?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

This is about the fourth thread on this. But, I do have one question:

Have you read the bill?

 

[VaYank5150]

Have you read the bill?

Which one?

 

[VaYank5150]

Have you read the bill?

Has Palin? If so, which one?

 

[xsited1]

News flash: Palin quit. Maybe you should, too.

 

[VaYank5150]

News flash: Palin quit. Maybe you should, too.

IF she had quit, she wouldn't be calling Obama's plan evil.

 

[xsited1]

News flash: Palin quit. Maybe you should, too.

IF she had quit, she wouldn't be calling Obama's plan evil.

And you're giving her an audience. Congratulations.

 

[garyd]

Have you got a damn clue? Every country that has so-called universal health care has a board that determines who gets treated and who doesn't which, aside from the fact that it makes a mockery of the term universal healthcare, puts the government in charge of who lives and who dies and that usually boils down to how much money they expect to make off the chump if they decide to keep him alive.

If you think this is a good thing then you desperately need help.

 

[VaYank5150]

Every country that has so-called universal health care has a board that determines who gets treated and who doesn't which, aside from the fact that it makes a mockery of the term universal healthcare, puts the government in charge of who lives and who dies and that usually boils down to how much money they expect to make off the chump if they decide to keep him alive.

Which is different from the boards at the Health Insurance Companies.....HOW?

 

[garyd]

Because I can higher a lawyer to challenge the insurance companies ruling. The governments say so is final and cannot be legally challenged.

 

[EriktheRed]

Because I can higher a lawyer to challenge the insurance companies ruling. The governments say so is final and cannot be legally challenged.

Really???


When did the US government suddenly become so tyrannical that people can't challenge them in court?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Every country that has so-called universal health care has a board that determines who gets treated and who doesn't which, aside from the fact that it makes a mockery of the term universal healthcare, puts the government in charge of who lives and who dies and that usually boils down to how much money they expect to make off the chump if they decide to keep him alive.

Which is different from the boards at the Health Insurance Companies.....HOW?

I must have missed the point where insurance companies make decisions based on your productivity to society, or mandate that you have end-of-life counseling where you prove that your treatment is really in the best interests of everyone.

Insurance companies just contract to pay for certain treatments, and refuse to pay for treatments not in the contract. Doesn't mean you can't still go get those treatments on your own dime. They don't make value judgements about your life.

 

[EriktheRed]

I must have missed the point where insurance companies make decisions based on your productivity to society, or mandate that you have end-of-life counseling where you prove that your treatment is really in the best interests of everyone.

Maybe you can point us to where the this kind of thing is being proposed in the legislation. As has been said before numerous times, rationing is and always has been going on in one form or another and there's no reason to believe that this would be worse on those grounds.

Insurance companies just contract to pay for certain treatments, and refuse to pay for treatments not in the contract. Doesn't mean you can't still go get those treatments on your own dime. They don't make value judgements about your life.

Yup, and as we all know, any Joe Blow can just go out and buy his own treatment costing five or six figures if the insurance company says "sorry", right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I must have missed the point where insurance companies make decisions based on your productivity to society, or mandate that you have end-of-life counseling where you prove that your treatment is really in the best interests of everyone.

Maybe you can point us to where the this kind of thing is being proposed in the legislation. As has been said before numerous times, rationing is and always has been going on in one form or another and there's no reason to believe that this would be worse on those grounds.

I didn't say anything about rationing. This goes past rationing.

And the answer to your question is Section 1233 of the House Ways and Means Committee version deals with the government getting involved in "end-of-life" counseling and treatment.

Insurance companies just contract to pay for certain treatments, and refuse to pay for treatments not in the contract. Doesn't mean you can't still go get those treatments on your own dime. They don't make value judgements about your life.

Yup, and as we all know, any Joe Blow can just go out and buy his own treatment costing five or six figures if the insurance company says "sorry", right?

Oh, I'm sorry. What was it about your lack of financial success in life that made you think you had some godgiven right to other people's money? And what was it, again, that made simply denying you access to their money for treatments they never contracted to buy you equivalent to the government saying, "You're too old. You should just die instead of consuming healthcare to extend your life"?

 

[Sinatra]

Insurance companies answer to the legislative demands put upon them within each state. If you are unhappy with those demands, you direct that unhappiness to your state legislature.

Obama wishes to circumvent that more direct approach - answer to the Federal goverment? If you thought your state government was unresponsive, well good luck at the federal level.

It is fascinating that the same liberal mindset that so opposed the government - was so consumed by a belief of wrongdoing, is now so willing to allow it governance over the most intimate powers - those involving one's health, and all the inherent life choices contained therein.

Such dangerous foolishness...

 

[DiveCon]

Because I can higher a lawyer to challenge the insurance companies ruling. The governments say so is final and cannot be legally challenged.

thats not true
you can challenge medicare decissions

 

[DiveCon]

Every country that has so-called universal health care has a board that determines who gets treated and who doesn't which, aside from the fact that it makes a mockery of the term universal healthcare, puts the government in charge of who lives and who dies and that usually boils down to how much money they expect to make off the chump if they decide to keep him alive.

Which is different from the boards at the Health Insurance Companies.....HOW?

you can challenge them too
and if its a procedure that you purchased coverage for, you would win that challenge
but with a federal program, they will tell you what you get for coverage, you dont get to choose

 

[editec]

What are her credentials to speak to anyone about this issue?

Does she have any at all?

 

[Care4all]

Because I can higher a lawyer to challenge the insurance companies ruling. The governments say so is final and cannot be legally challenged.

Why can't it be challenged if it is the government?

Don't you have a constitutional RIGHT to redress grievances?

The insurance company and all the money behind their lawyers, WIIL NOT LET YOU WIN, the case against them....

I just went to battle with them over a 2 grand bill that they unjustly and unrightfully refused to pay because of a clerical error of the hospital filing code...2 years of battle over it and they still refused....too small of a bill to hire a lwayer over it, but you can bet if i had, I still would have lost, against their HIRED GUNS....

so good luck with your thoughts on you being able to challenge them and WIN on anything major...

care

 

[VaYank5150]

Insurance companies just contract to pay for certain treatments, and refuse to pay for treatments not in the contract. Doesn't mean you can't still go get those treatments on your own dime. They don't make value judgements about your life.

And the Healthcare reform currently being debated will keep citizens from doing this same thing, HOW?