Sarah Palin doubles down on "Death Panels".

[MCWAY]

FROM HER FACEBOOK PAGE (YES I AM A FRIEND).


Concerning the "Death Panels"Share
 Yesterday at 11:55pm

Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore....It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]

As Lane also points out:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]

Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]

So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives.... It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen ... should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “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.” [11]

President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.

[1] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/president-obama-addresses-sarah-palin-death-panels-wild-representations.html.
[2] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[3] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1); Sec. 1233 (hhh)(3)(B)(1), above.
[4] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1)(E), above.
[5] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[6] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html].
[7] Id.
[8] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html].
[9] See http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/letter-congressman-henry-waxman-re-section-1233-hr-3200.
[10] See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
[11] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions.

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ______ 

Where is Palin factually incorrect in this???

Based on how the liberals are scrambling, I'd say nowhere. She was right on the money, about exposing the "Bust-a-cap-in-Granny" clause of ObamaCare.

Again, now you see why Obama was breaking his neck, trying to ram this through Congress and the Senate, prior to the August break.

[Soul Crusher]

Notice how these punks attack me personally, attack Sarah personally, but cant refute factually what she said?

They also ignore the fact that the Senate announced that no matter what bill is put forth that those provisions will be left out. 

If it wasnt there, than why are they taking it out? 

And as for Andre - he is completely FOS.

Obama already said that they are going to cut 300 billion from medicare and cut reimbursements to doctors. 


If defies logic, physics, common sense, and any reasoning whatsoever to think that you will not have massive rationing while trying to cut costs and bring 45 million new people to a system at the same time while the number of providers remains constant. 

[Decker]

Not to break up this little make out session between you two, but the fact is that there will be rationing and Obama is lying about it. 

The fact that the evil insurance companies may do it does not make Obama's lies go away.  Aditionally, people always have the choice to go to anoher carrier.  When the gov is the only game in town and says no, you are done.   

More libertarian crap that 333 pulls out of thin air.

[Decker]

Based on how the liberals are scrambling, I'd say nowhere. She was right on the money, about exposing the "Bust-a-cap-in-Granny" clause of ObamaCare.

Again, now you see why Obama was breaking his neck, trying to ram this through Congress and the Senate, prior to the August break.

There is no death panel or bust a cap in granny.

She was lying and you are passing her lies off as truth.

What  shock.

What is the legal basis and explanation of "Death Panel" again?

Palin is lying dolt saying what the unchristian rightwing wants to hear.  So she must be right!  hahahaha

[andreisdaman]

Notice how these punks attack me personally, attack Sarah personally, but cant refute factually what she said?

They also ignore the fact that the Senate announced that no matter what bill is put forth that those provisions will be left out. 

If it wasnt there, than why are they taking it out? 

And as for Andre - he is completely FOS.

Obama already said that they are going to cut 300 billion from medicare and cut reimbursements to doctors. 


If defies logic, physics, common sense, and any reasoning whatsoever to think that you will not have massive rationing while trying to cut costs and bring 45 million new people to a system at the same time while the number of providers remains constant. 

3333... I think you're just angry because you know if Obamacare comes to pass there will be less bills out there for you to collect

[Soul Crusher]

3333... I think you're just angry because you know if Obamacare comes to pass there will be less bills out there for you to collect

I dont to credit card or medical bill claims.  i only do business to business matters.

[MM2K]

actually you are right about this....someone has to make the decision sometimes whether to end a life....but usually if's the family.....when my mother had a stroke and was in the hospital, two doctors explained to us that there was no hope for recovery.....they could keep her alive on machines but she would never wake up and talk and move around...that was a death panel so to speak...after consulting with them my family decided to pull the plug....the doctors felt that there was hope for recovery and we made the decision.....also the insurance companies are already "death panels" since they decide what they are going to pay for and what they aren't going to pay for.....Sarah Palins argument is stupid

Sarah Palin's argument is correct. I just dont know if its wise to be using that type of rhetoric. Her point is that the government will do the rationing in the least efficient way. Which is correct.

[MM2K]

I am so fucking sick of everything being quantified by what the last guy did, Obama is the POTUS he is the man now. Why don't you explain to me how spending more when you in debt up to your eyeballs is a smart move? I don't have any party alegence, I think all politicians are equally worthless. What I find completely insane is you will defend what Obama does not matter how stupid it is.

Yeah Im really sick of that too. The economy was good for most of Bush's two terms anyhow. He inherited a recession when it was extremely young and what followed was an expansion in which we had historically low unemployment, record highs in the dow, and historically low deficits for most of the years. This was in spite of 9/11, two wars, high oil prices, one of the greatest natural disasters in US history, the rising age of babyboomers. But when the economy gooes into a recession as nature requires it to, and this happens to be in Bush's last year, we're going to blame him for that? That doesnt make a whole lot of sense.  You Obama supporters somehow think it is illogical to blame Obama for the economy after six months. But when this recession ends, Obama will have presided over it almost as long as Bush did. That is in spite of the fact that he inherited it when it was 13 months old, which is the average length of a recession. If you blame Bush for the economy crashing in his last year, shouldnt you blame Obama for continueing to crash and staying crashed in his first year?

[andreisdaman]

Yeah Im really sick of that too. The economy was good for most of Bush's two terms anyhow. He inherited a recession when it was extremely young and what followed was an expansion in which we had historically low unemployment, record highs in the dow, and historically low deficits for most of the years. This was in spite of 9/11, two wars, high oil prices, one of the greatest natural disasters in US history, the rising age of babyboomers. But when the economy gooes into a recession as nature requires it to, and this happens to be in Bush's last year, we're going to blame him for that? That doesnt make a whole lot of sense.  You Obama supporters somehow think it is illogical to blame Obama for the economy after six months. But when this recession ends, Obama will have presided over it almost as long as Bush did. That is in spite of the fact that he inherited it when it was 13 months old, which is the average length of a recession. If you blame Bush for the economy crashing in his last year, shouldnt you blame Obama for continueing to crash and staying crashed in his first year?

I am a Bush supporter...not too many people blame Bush for the recession..they blame him for the high deficits which he contributed mightily to with all the borrowing from china and the tax cut he gave in his first term which wasn't needed.....this caused the start of the deficits....clinton gave him a huge surplus and all he had to do was leave things alone...instead  he pushed through a huge tax cut and gave out rebates which we didn't need....then he had a war which dragged out much longer than even he thought it would and this also contributed mightily to the deficit as well.....don't even try to deny the above.....

[MM2K]

I am a Bush supporter...not too many people blame Bush for the recession..they blame him for the high deficits which he contributed mightily to with all the borrowing from china and the tax cut he gave in his first term which wasn't needed.....this caused the start of the deficits....clinton gave him a huge surplus and all he had to do was leave things alone...instead  he pushed through a huge tax cut and gave out rebates which we didn't need....then he had a war which dragged out much longer than even he thought it would and this also contributed mightily to the deficit as well.....don't even try to deny the above.....

I beleieve the latest Rasmussen poll (which typicallly poses the most optimistic view for Republicans ) shows that atleast 45% of respondents STILL blame Bush for the recession.

The deficits were mainly caused by the recession of 2001, higher domestic spending, and higher defense spending. When the economy goes into a recession, the government almost by definition will go into deficit spending because it legally has to spend more money in unemployment benefits and is taking in less revenue becuase those same people arent working to be able to pay revenue. When the economy came back, the government took in plenty of revenue for most of the decade, so you cant blame the tax cuts. I can guarantee you that we would have had a deficit if he had done nothing.  Besides, Until we passed TARP in his last year, deficits were still at historically low levels.

This economy DEOS need tax cuts. We pay way too many taxes in this country, and Bush didnt cut income taxes enough. Besides, the only way to stop spending in the long run is to cut taxes.

[andreisdaman]

I beleieve the latest Rasmussen poll (which typicallly poses the most optimistic view for Republicans ) shows that atleast 45% of respondents STILL blame Bush for the recession.

The deficits were mainly caused by the recession of 2001, higher domestic spending, and higher defense spending. When the economy goes into a recession, the government almost by definition will go into deficit spending because it legally has to spend more money in unemployment benefits and is taking in less revenue becuase those same people arent working to be able to pay revenue. When the economy came back, the government took in plenty of revenue for most of the decade, so you cant blame the tax cuts. I can guarantee you that we would have had a deficit if he had done nothing.  Besides, Until we passed TARP in his last year, deficits were still at historically low levels.

This economy DEOS need tax cuts. We pay way too many taxes in this country, and Bush didnt cut income taxes enough. Besides, the only way to stop spending in the long run is to cut taxes.

dude..you're dead wrong when you say we are taxed too much..the problem is we aren't taxed enough....and the rich do not pay their fair share...many corporations pay absolutely no income  taxes whatsoever....Republican s and by extension, the white rich and middle class, don't want to pay for ANYTHING.....they want super low taxes and to make up for this, we have had to borrow up to our asses from china to pay for our way of living....

Rebulicans recklessly cut taxes tremendously, then watch us go into hock and then blame the democrats for wanting to raise taxes.....democrats are right...we have to be able to pay as we go,,I'd much rather tax and spend than borrow and spend and then taxes go up anyway

there is this myth out there that we spend too much on social programs.....actually as a share of GDP, the U.S. is dead last among industrial countries in terms of social spending...also we provide huge subsidies to rich farmers, the dairy industry, sugar industry, corn, and tax breaks for corporations that don't need them...

George Bush did not cause the recession..but he contributed largely to the deficits....

[Soul Crusher]

dude..you're dead wrong when you say we are taxed too much..the problem is we aren't taxed enough....and the rich do not pay their fair share...many corporations pay absolutely no income  taxes whatsoever....Republican s and by extension, the white rich and middle class, don't want to pay for ANYTHING.....they want super low taxes and to make up for this, we have had to borrow up to our asses from china to pay for our way of living....

Rebulicans recklessly cut taxes tremendously, then watch us go into hock and then blame the democrats for wanting to raise taxes.....democrats are right...we have to be able to pay as we go,,I'd much rather tax and spend than borrow and spend and then taxes go up anyway

there is this myth out there that we spend too much on social programs.....actually as a share of GDP, the U.S. is dead last among industrial countries in terms of social spending...also we provide huge subsidies to rich farmers, the dairy industry, sugar industry, corn, and tax breaks for corporations that don't need them...

George Bush did not cause the recession..but he contributed largely to the deficits....

Oh lord, we are not taxed too much?

Do you realize the taxes people pay in Westchester, Nassau, Suffolk, NJ, NYC   Its insane. 

[andreisdaman]

Oh lord, we are not taxed too much?

Do you realize the taxes people pay in Westchester, Nassau, Suffolk, NJ, NYC   Its insane. 

your point is true....but i'm really talking about the federal government, not the localities....the taxes imposed by the local governments are obscene......however..yo u have to admit that the areas you are talking about are mostly affluent.....except maybe NYC, but we get a lot of services provided to us in NYC that others in the U.S. don't get....like 24 hour bus and train service....

the feds should just impose a 2 or three cent sales tax and that would wipe out our deficits immediately

[BM OUT]

Once again,she said it,the libs and the media killed her for it THEN the senate pulled it from its bill.She won,the libs lost!!!!

By the way,I love it when people call her a liar but believe Obama never heard any of Wrights racial rants in 20 years.Talk about nut swinging idiots with heads in the sand.

[MM2K]

dude..you're dead wrong when you say we are taxed too much..the problem is we aren't taxed enough....and the rich do not pay their fair share...many corporations pay absolutely no income  taxes whatsoever....Republican s and by extension, the white rich and middle class, don't want to pay for ANYTHING.....they want super low taxes and to make up for this, we have had to borrow up to our asses from china to pay for our way of living....

Rebulicans recklessly cut taxes tremendously, then watch us go into hock and then blame the democrats for wanting to raise taxes.....democrats are right...we have to be able to pay as we go,,I'd much rather tax and spend than borrow and spend and then taxes go up anyway

there is this myth out there that we spend too much on social programs.....actually as a share of GDP, the U.S. is dead last among industrial countries in terms of social spending...also we provide huge subsidies to rich farmers, the dairy industry, sugar industry, corn, and tax breaks for corporations that don't need them...

George Bush did not cause the recession..but he contributed largely to the deficits....

No, we pay way too many taxes. Like I said, the federal government AND the states took in plenty of revenue for most of the decade. The tax cuts were not the problem. Spending was the problem. But the deficits were MANAGABLE.

What do you mean that rich people dont pay thier fair share? Are you telling me that a person who makes $250000 who is paying 35% of his income in federal taxes, not to mention any additional state taxes that he is paying, is not paying ENOUGH? These people are what most of the "rich" are made of, and they are not rich. They may be financially comfartable, but that is only after decades of climbing the economic ladder, and they will be retiring soon. It is very likely that a lot of them have kids in college.

Besides, have you ever been employed by a poor person? I havent. It is immoral for rich people to pay more taxes. More importantly, it doesnt work. That's becuase a tax on rich people is a tax on you and me. That's because our income relies on thier spending and thier investing. If they have less income to spend and invest, that is less jobs and less income created for other people.
People dont seem to be concious of the fact that the economy is dynamic, not static. THings are constantly changing. As Im typing these words, resources are moving in and out of industries and companies, and moving in to others. Wealth is not just some physical piece of matter that falls from trees. Actual people create this stuff, and if given the wrong incentives, they will stop creating it. The government does not create the wealth. The people do.

As far as corporations not paying taxes, if corporations arent paying taxes, that's because they have no profits to pay taxes off of. If they arent paying taxes then that is great. The corporate tax is too high anyway. YOu and I pay that tax. Not just rich executives. That's because a corporation isnt a person. Cutting the coporate tax should be a no brainer. It is the second highest in the world second only to Japan, and it is no doubt hurting our global competitiveness.

Low taxes and low spending is what is best, but low taxes and borrwoing is preferable to high taxes and high spending. That is becuase if taxes are low and borrowing is high, politicians will eventually have to cut spending, and the people's wealth is preserved. But with high taxes and high spending, the government has the people's wealth locked in quick sand and the wealth sinks through the quick sand. There is no incentive for the government to stop spending.

The average American works six months before he is finished giving his wealth to the government for the year. That is too much.

[andreisdaman]

No, we pay way too many taxes. Like I said, the federal government AND the states took in plenty of revenue for most of the decade. The tax cuts were not the problem. Spending was the problem. But the deficits were MANAGABLE.

What do you mean that rich people dont pay thier fair share? Are you telling me that a person who makes $250000 who is paying 35% of his income in federal taxes, not to mention any additional state taxes that he is paying, is not paying ENOUGH? These people are what most of the "rich" are made of, and they are not rich. They may be financially comfartable, but that is only after decades of climbing the economic ladder, and they will be retiring soon. It is very likely that a lot of them have kids in college.

Besides, have you ever been employed by a poor person? I havent. It is immoral for rich people to pay more taxes. More importantly, it doesnt work. That's becuase a tax on rich people is a tax on you and me. That's because our income relies on thier spending and thier investing. If they have less income to spend and invest, that is less jobs and less income created for other people.
People dont seem to be concious of the fact that the economy is dynamic, not static. THings are constantly changing. As Im typing these words, resources are moving in and out of industries and companies, and moving in to others. Wealth is not just some physical piece of matter that falls from trees. Actual people create this stuff, and if given the wrong incentives, they will stop creating it. The government does not create the wealth. The people do.

As far as corporations not paying taxes, if corporations arent paying taxes, that's because they have no profits to pay taxes off of. If they arent paying taxes then that is great. The corporate tax is too high anyway. YOu and I pay that tax. Not just rich executives. That's because a corporation isnt a person. Cutting the coporate tax should be a no brainer. It is the second highest in the world second only to Japan, and it is no doubt hurting our global competitiveness.

Low taxes and low spending is what is best, but low taxes and borrwoing is preferable to high taxes and high spending. That is becuase if taxes are low and borrowing is high, politicians will eventually have to cut spending, and the people's wealth is preserved. But with high taxes and high spending, the government has the people's wealth locked in quick sand and the wealth sinks through the quick sand. There is no incentive for the government to stop spending.

The average American works six months before he is finished giving his wealth to the government for the year. That is too much.

Ha...you're out of your mind.,....so you mean to tell me that General Electric, which paid no taxes is a MONEY LOSER???..come on..you are an apologist for the rich and corporations.....higher taxes MUST be paid by the rich.....they get a lot of services as well....and a lot of services that are provided to them HELP THEM TO BECOME RICH.. for example...If I have a trucking company, taxes paid mostly by the poor and middle class go to building , fixing and maintaining roads....which in turn help my company to deliver goods thereby helping me to earn a living.....I don't pay fees for the use of the roads......and the better the roads are the less I have to fix my trucks....just an example.....you act as if only the poor receive services...the rich get many services as well....often free......and I can't belive that you say it is better to borrow..tel our grandchildren that...after they have to pay off the interest in that debt..and that interest is wasted money which is not being used to build or buy things....