"Palin's Death Panels" are real.... They are also called Health Insurers, or my pet name for them, The Soul Eating Bastard industry.
For those that are REALLY worried about those Palin Death Panels (and I do think that her name should always proceed "Death Panels") you are late to the fight, see... we are in the fifth round in this health care fight and Palin's Death Panel have been functioning for a long, long time under the name "DENIAL of SERVICE" etc.... Palin's Death Panels have killed, perhaps, tens of thousands of people just like you and me. People that thought they actually had good coverage were finally killed off by Palin's Death Panels because someone at the insurance company decided as a matter of policy to FORCE those sickest of us into appealing the denial of care. And even when the denial of care was overturned on appeal it still led to a delay in getting the life saving care. That delay in getting care has caused the death of far more people than we will ever know. This is why I will forever call Health Insurance companies the Soul Eating Bastard industry, that long ago developed Palin's Death Panels to save shareholders profits.
Does anyone really believe that the big shots of the Soul Eating Bastard industry care for ANYTHING other than their bottom line?
Does it seem wrong to you to that the Soul Eating Bastard Industry also has Palin's Death Panels called post claim underwriting, a practice that actually concentrates on finding a way to deny coverage to sick individuals by canceling their policies RETRO-ACTIVELY, only they wait and let people think they are covered and when the individual policy holder is sick and really needs the insurance the Soul Eating Bastards send out a team (or panel) of investigators to find a way to justify the "retrocancelling" they do to thousands of individuals and policy holders each year.
Then there is AHIP (America's Health Insurance Plans), the term "wolf in sheep's clothing" has never been more accurate. AHIP is probably the single worst actor in the health care debate, they are the Harry and Louise folks, they are the folks running ads today that say they support "bipartisan" reform efforts but they don't define what they consider bipartisan and if the past is any indication it means GOP. Oh I almost forgot... AHIP is the lobbying arm of the Soul Eating Bastard Industry.
On an almost totally different topic... I have heard recently the figure 35%. I have heard this percentage in context to what the Baucus Finance committee says the average American consumer will be required to pay of their total care after the Soul Eating Bastards pay your claim. As I understand it (and I hope I am wrong); you will pay your normal health insurance premiums and then 35% of all your health care costs. Think about that, what it is basically assuring is that health insurance companies will ALWAYS be able to pay 35% of revenue to shareholders in the form of dividends or huge CEO salaries. Perhaps I have gotten this wrong or misread it or something, if someone out there knows more about this please post it so we can make some sense out of it, I have been unable to track down the exact details and would appreciate some help on this Baucus jewel.
Finally, remember that Palin's Death Panels already exist they are just called something else. When you hear the term Post Claim Underwriting think Palin's Death Panel. When you hear the phrase "coverage denied" think Palin's Death Panel. When you hear the term "treatment considered experimental" think Palin's Death Panel. Shoot from now on when we hear of someone dying because the treatment was denied or delayed it should be blamed on PALIN'S DEATH PANELS.
The heat is on folks, time to fight fire with fire, and lies with the truth! It is also time to kick down the door that the "gang of 6" is hiding behind. I also think that we should drop the "ber" from Joe Lieberman's last name, then his last name would be the far more accurate "Lieman". But hey, I could be wrong about all of this.
Could be, but you're not.
August 28, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
CL,
Thanks... and Nice Avatar we are cat people here in my home.
I do have a question what is the begin and end command for that quote block, I know for bold but can never get it to end. If you have the time send a tip my way.
August 28, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Inside the sign you put the word blockquote to begin having that shade behind your words and then /blockquote with those signs again to demarcate the end of the shadow area.
August 28, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I detest even seeing her name in print, this is such a good post.
If ever there was a time when 'the truth shall set us free', it is now.
Always appreciate your insights!
Rec'd.
August 28, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
AS,
THANKS For that. I figure the best way to deal with Palin is to attach her name to DEATH. This might be the way!
August 28, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the things that frustrates me the most about people's opposition to the public option is that they seem to really believe we don't have people deciding our fate already...people who are paid to decide whether we get a certain treatment or not.
Thanks for keeping the dialog going, Face.
August 28, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, I think aligning her with 'death panel' is regarded as a positive for Sarah. It's just another 'catch phrase' and manipulative action that has catapulted her, once again, up in the chatter of the MSM and blogosphere. And that's her real goal.
August 28, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
THERE HE IS.
THERE IS MY FACE. HA
Woke you up did we?
"Does anyone really believe that the big shots of the Soul Eating Bastard industry care for ANYTHING other than their bottom line?"
ANSWER: NO!!!!
This stuff either makes me nauseous or I fall into an uncontrollable laughter.
This is a great post. I shall return!!
August 28, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The blockquote command is (less than sign)blockquote(greater than sign)whatever text you are quoting(less than sign)(slash)blockquote(greater than sign)
August 28, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you read any of the writings of Ezekiel Emmanuel, the top health advisor to Obama,the brother to his chief of staff? He is nothing short of a NAZI, period. His arguments are identical to those used to support eugenics in the 30's, arguing that care should be allocated based on a persons 'worth' to society. He is the one advocating death panels, he would decide who gets care and who does not. He thinks doctors are wrong for working only for the patient and not 'society' as a whole. He thinks the elderly, the infirm, the disabled, are not worth care. Obama himself supported this idea, saying in effect 'just give old people a pain pill' instead of expensive treatment. That's the reason people oppose this, the death panel is real.
August 28, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Wikipedia,
The nonpartisan Politifact.com Web site described this claim as a "ridiculous falsehood."[15][16][17][18] FactCheck.org said, "We agree that Emanuel’s meaning is being twisted. In one article, he was talking about a philosophical trend, and in another, he was writing about how to make the most ethical choices when forced to choose which patients get organ transplants or vaccines when supplies are limited."[19][20] An article on Time.com said that Emanuel "was only addressing extreme cases like organ donation, where there is an absolute scarcity of resources ... 'My quotes were just being taken out of context.'"[21]
A decade ago, when many doctors wanted to legalize euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, Emanuel opposed it. He challenged a common stereotype of patients expressing interest in euthanasia. In most cases, he found, the patients were not in excruciating pain. They were depressed and did not want to be a burden to their loved ones.[4]
August 28, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the Bulldog has, with a highly charged emotional reaction stated, "the death panel is real", and he even put all caps on NAZI. He said they are "identical." He's clever you know. You're just making things confusing with your facts and you have no hands. CleverBulldog says it's real.
You, you, you're nothing but a liberal! I'm putting my hands over my ears now. Go away!
LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!!!!
I can't hear you!!!!
August 28, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is his quote:
"This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason."
Now, refute that.
August 28, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You failed to give a citation to place this in context.
August 28, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
August 28, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
this could be your problem ncpa is a neo con think tank
August 28, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And FactCheck.org is part of the Annenberg center, which despite claiming to be non partisan, is clearly slanted way to the left.
August 28, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
From his paper for the Hastings Center. Now, in what context is it acceptable to espouse these views? Liberals like to argue that they are being quoted 'out of context', ignoring the fact that it is not 'out of context' unless the meaning is being changed. If you say "It would be wrong to say I support killing all Republicans", and I quote you as saying "I support killing all Republicans", then that is being taken out of context. But that is not the case with Dr Death, he supports policies that are indefensible regardless of context.
August 28, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you refuse to supply a link I will have to assume this quote has already been refuted by the sources I list through wikipedia. None the less, I will provide a link showing where the cherry-picked passage you provide is debunked.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/deadly-doctor/
Perhaps the reason you are so ignorant on the facts and show an obvious inability to research is you have never done your homework.
August 28, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I provided at link at 1:54 pm, you responded at 2:14 with a snippy little comment about my inability to do research. It seems you have an inability to read.
August 28, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yyour 1st reply didn't show in browser only saw the 2nd. If you're still confused, maybe you should go ask Mommy to explain the 'big' words
August 28, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that 'yyou' didn't see the post that was there does not make me confused. It just means you rush to insult someone before knowing the facts.
August 28, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I HADN'T INSULTED YOU AT THAT POINT, THE INSULT CAME NEXT. THE FACTS SAY YOU ARE DISINGENUOUS AT BEST. THE ANNENBERG FOUNDATION CRITIQUES LEFTIES JUST THE SAME AS RIGHTIES. IF THERE IS A TILT, IN YOUR EYES, PERHAPS IT'S BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR ILK LIE MORE OFTEN.
August 28, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I think I can refute that. First, it's not policy. It's a philosophical extension of the ideal that "society should be fair", and how it conflicts with the very real considerations regarding the sustaining of said society.
Everyone wants to be treated fairly, right? So what happens when there isn't enough of X or Y to go around? How do you deal with that while attempting to maintain a sense of fairness?
The crux of the above quote is what kinds of health care should be guaranteed to which individuals. Not prohibited. Not outlawed. What, as a society with aims at continuing our way of life, should we make sure happens so we can meet that goal?
It doesn't necessarily mean grandma can't get her hip replacement. It means if grandma also suffers from Alzheimer's, she might have to pay for part of it herself. Or she might have to pay for all of it. Or you might have to pay for it if you really want her to have it. Personal responsibility - what's wrong with that?
Compare that to today, where a young or middle-aged adult might die from pneumonia because they can't afford the health care. But that's ok, grandma can play tennis again. Or, she could, if she could only remember what tennis is.
These aren't easy issues to contemplate or discuss. Crucifying people for attempting to do so does a disservice to us all.
August 28, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Semantic games. Saying it is about what is guaranteed not prohibited is a moot point. If it's not covered, she can't get it. So if older people want medical treatment, they are going to have to have private insurance (if it's still available) because the gov't is going to allocate resources to the young. So why then should they support this plan? Explain that to AARP, see how it plays.
August 28, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to participate in a discussion, you can't dismiss someone's interpretation of quote as 'semantics' just because you read it a different way. You also can't discount the importance of key words because they work against you.
Anyway, the quote doesn't say "old people won't be covered".
What he's saying is that we, as a society, may need to decide what type of care should be guaranteed. He gives some specific examples to reinforce his point - that's it.
If we, as a society, decide that everyone should have full access to any care they want, regardless of cost, then that's our decision. But we need to at least be THINKING about how a situation of scarcity might be handled. We can't just put our heads in the sand and PRAY that it will all work out.
Right now we have NO guarantee of any coverage - noone does. Right now anyone can be dropped from their health insurance for any reason.
Regarding access to care: this is still America. I'm pretty sure it will be for quite awhile, despite what the fear mongers are preaching. And in America, if there is a need, and addressing that need is profitable, then that need will be met. Which is exactly all we have right now. So yeah, if grandma can't get the hip replacement because it's not 'profitable', then she better pray that health care reform DOES happen, otherwise she doesn't have a chance.
Why don't you take a few minutes and pretend that the government doesn't want to murder you and grandma in your sleep? During those few minutes take a fresh look at where we are, and where we're headed if nothing gets done.
I'm willing to do the opposite. I'll assume the government is hell bent on ruling every aspect of my life. When I approach it that way, I can see how you'd be opposed, and how you'd be scared shitless of any change. And I'm telling you that fear is irrational, and you should try and set it aside.
August 28, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, Clever! We have always had "full and active pasrticipation by citizens in public deliberation" with the private sector. It has always been the case that their attorneys provide the public with all the transparency those attorneys feel we deserve. And as far a "socially guaranteed as basic" treatment, except for those folks with pre-existing conditions who are denied any coverage when their insurer drops them, everyone else gets basic treatment, so why ARE we complaining?
Okay, I forgot the meaty part. Here it is:
Not having any bitterness toward liberals and progressives that demand I destroy this guy and any argument he may be making, I look at this and ask, "Was he offering a hypothetical suggestion? Did he say he was giving examples, and not suggesting this actually be the policy? I don't know.
Maybe I'm quoting out of context? Or maybe you are blinded by an emotionally-fueled loathing for people suggesting our gov't, we, the people, help each other without a private firm and it's shareholders helping themselves?
Maybe that's why you chose this paragraph as emblematic of this guy being "identical" to the NAZIS. Or maybe you chose NAZI to characterize this guy in a nice way and I'm quoting you out of context. Maybe you did not intend a highly charged inflammatory description of NAZI in a highly charged inflammatory way, but rather a gentle, "Oh, look at those generous Nazi's giving all those people a free train ride". is that what you meant? Sometimes, you just too clever for my pea-size brain.
August 28, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children" A. Hitler
As part of the Aktion T4 programs euthanisia decree:
"patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment [menschlichem Ermessen] of their state of health, can be granted a mercy death"
So, when I said his policies were in line with the NAZI's, how am I in error? He advocates denying care to the elderly or the disabled based on their 'worth' to society.
August 28, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you hate your country? To distort a fine man's position to a meaning in direct opposition to his philosophy and then invoke Godwin's law is truly un-American. You thoroughly shame the fighting men and women whom have fought so valiantly throughout our history to preserve your right to make such a despicable comparison.
August 28, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Was he offering a hypothetical suggestion? Did he say he was giving examples, and not suggesting this actually be the policy? I don't know.
Clever, ya never addressed the fundamental question whether he was giving an example of something to enhance the discussion, or actually suggesting policy. If he was giving examples of it, then you are quoting him out of context and completely in error. You are going off on a completely contrived position the man never held. He has strenuously objected to these characterizations. If he was in favor of them, which is really not evident, then he would advocate for them now that he has the stage. He is not, which suggests he was giving examples, which is literally what he said, "an obvious example...."
It seems to me you have a predetermined outcome and have shut down any rational discussion. Going back and forth with you is pointless because you are not comprehending what is being said, either by me or Mr. Emanuel. If you did, you wuld have to admit we do make sense which is more then you can manage at this point.
You just went off quoting Hitler, chapter and verse, like you have Mein Kampf on your bedstand right next to your Bible. Does Hitler fascinate you in some way you can so easily reference his drivel? Are his writings just lying around your house or something?
August 28, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a HUGE difference between CONSIDERING the implications of some very hard choices and pressing to implement them.
From what I've seen of his work, they are objective, scientific investigations of the implications of continued health care advancement, and as jonnie quotes above, situations where there is an absolute limit on available resources.
Like it or not, these questions and scenarios have to be at least considered. No, it's not comfortable, and there are some very sticky moral considerations to all this. Given our current trajectory, at some point certain types of care may well need to be rationed, because there will be too many who need it and care will be too expensive.
So which would you rather have? A subjective body of individuals at a health insurance who decide who lives or dies on a case by case basis? Or a completely objective selection process?
Or let's simplify it even further. Say you have a situation where demand for a health care service greatly outstrips supply. How do you decide who gets what they need? Highest bidder? Lottery? What is a good system?
August 28, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recommended before I even read it, just for the title. On a scale of one to ten, I give it a nine. You lost a point for lack of profanity. hehehe
August 28, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you -- why this isn't being said everytime someone says "I don't want the government making my health care decisions!!" Response: "Who the HELL do you think is making those decisions now????"
Do you want the government, which perhaps isn't the most efficient provider of services but is fairly even-handed, or the insurance companies? Do you really prefer to be at the mercy of those folks who came up with the concept of "pre-existing conditions" --------- make 'intelligent' decision like paying for Viagara but not for birth control ------- will happily give better care to those who give them more money and don't care in the least if the people who have no money get no care ... because they have no money --- have a legal, fiduciary duty to maximize the profits for their shareholders and no legal duty (except that imposed by govt. regulations) to care a bit about the consumer (here, the patient) that they affect. Do you really trust these folks more than you trust the government? Really? (And if you do, for some reason, they you have the option of staying with them, continue to get private coverage. Personally, I'd like the option of having my health care provided by the institution I trust more.)
Sorry -- preaching to the choir -- but isn't this the real heart of the whole issue? We aren't talking about doctor-decision vs government-decision --- we're talking about insurer-decision vs. government-decision.
That's why all the fear talk, "death squads," guns at rallies and the rest. In law school there is a piece of basic advice: "If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the law isn't on your side, argue the facts. And if neither the law nor the facts are on your side, take off your shoe and bang it on the table!"*
There's a lot of shoe-banging going on these days.
*(Nikita Khrushchev is rarely credited with the image, but we do owe him for that.)
August 28, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink