Streetcar Line
Death Panels by Proxy
Yes, Obamacare tips scales toward death.
Let’s posit that Sarah Palin overstated the case when she warned about “death panels” in the House version of Obamacare. Obviously, there are no specific provisions in the legislation that create all-powerful boards whose members give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on whether or not one person receives life-saving care while another one is left to die or even “assisted” in dying. But that doesn’t mean that fears of government-prompted premature deaths are unwarranted. Call it “death by proxy,” or DBP. Obamacare encourages DBP in multiple ways — and it’s not at all unfair to suggest that President Obama himself doesn’t really mind that prospect.
First, consider the context. We have a president who has such extreme, sickening disregard for inconvenient life that he opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois, thus refusing to require hospitals to care for babies who survive an attempted abortion. And regarding the other end of life, this is the same president who told the New York Times’ David Leonhardt that because “the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here,” therefore “I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance.”
So this president wants a “conversation” that is “guided by” supposed experts who are apart from the “normal political channels” but that is nevertheless influenced by “a very difficult democratic conversation.” Is it any wonder that some people interpreted this “independent group” as a “death panel”???
This same president surrounds himself with people who aren’t — shall we say — particularly bashful about considering the possibility of rationing care so that young adults get priority ahead of their grandparents and their would-be children. Yes, the president’s chief medical policy advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, is personally opposed to euthanasia. But the Washington Post editorial board protests entirely too much when it absolves him — without much proof — of approving the rationing of care that disfavors the old and infirm. Frankly, the Washington Times editorial on August 16 blows the Post’s editorial out of the water, because there is no way to explain away Dr. Emanuel’s statement that “allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age.” From the executive summary of his piece published just this past January, this could not be more clear: “We recommend an alternative system — the complete lives system — which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life….”
Then a president who won’t save infants born alive but who does want the government to be involved (a “democratic conversation”) in deciding end-of-life treatment — and whose medical policy adviser would “prioritise” young people — hires as his chief science adviser a man, John P. Holdren, who first gained notoriety pushing eugenics ideas such as coerced abortions, forced sterilizations through the water supply, and other notions so outrageous that the man should never be accepted in polite company again, much less have the ear of the President of the United States. Again, the Washington Times summed it up, with a hat tip being appropriate for Internet journalist “Zombie” via Michelle Malkin.
It is in that context that Section 1233 of the main House health care bill started catalyzing fears of “death panels.” The section provides for end-of-life counseling, and it lays out in specific form exactly what should be included in that counseling. Significantly, the substance of that counseling is not negotiable: It “shall” — not “may” but “shall” — include all of the possibilities that so raised people’s fears. As Betsy McCaughey noted at this site, the provision also effectively imposes sanctions against doctors whose results aren’t up to… uh… snuff.
This is precisely where the “death by proxy” really comes in. If medical personnel are rated on how effective they are at getting patients to create living wills and the like, and if independent boards are deciding that patients will not be reimbursed for their payments for certain forms of care, then the effect is that death becomes the default option. DBP, indeed.
Anybody who doubts that such provisions inevitably lead to rationing care in a way that subtly favors death need only consider that this is exactly what already is happening at the state level, not just in “assisted suicide” states like Oregon but also in Georgia, as approved by a federal court.
Even without the now-infamous Section 1233, rationing does occur, frequently, in government-run and government-mandated systems. And even without any health care bill, the camel’s nose already is under the tent in the form of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.
Despite what Mr. Obama keeps saying about how extreme right-wingers are “distorting” his plans with tales of death panels and the like, the truth is that these concerns come from all parts of the political spectrum, and that they are valid. The Washington Post’s own Charles Lane, formerly editor of the liberal flagship the New Republic, wrote as much a few weeks ago. Lane is worth quoting extensively:
Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they’re just trying to facilitate choice — even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: 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? 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.
Lane continues:
Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party — the government — recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.
Noted civil libertarian Nat Hentoff, nobody’s example of a right winger, goes even further than Lane did, pronouncing himself “scared” of Obamacare — which he says could amount to a “chilling climax of the Obama presidency.” The Hentoff column, linked here, is well worth reading in full. “No matter what Congress does when it returns from its recess,” Hentoff accurately writes, “rationing is a basic part of Obama’s eventual master health care plan.” Without using the words, what Hentoff describes, and warns against, is exactly DBP.
And I dare say the president knows it.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (108) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/24/death-panels-by-proxy2
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
twculver| 8.24.09 @ 6:57AM
Mr. Quinn, I agree with the thrust of your argument, but don't understand why you feel the need to attack Sarah Palin's terminology.
I understand you like the term "rationing", which frankly doesn't resonate with many people, while Governor Palin coined the term "death panel", which perfectly captures the intent and eventual result of the proposed legislation.
It's disheartening to see some conservatives trying to capitalize on Sarah's name by posing as her intellectual superiors. That's not a winning strategy in my opinion.
jmaness| 8.24.09 @ 7:05AM
What's with all these wordsmiths who apparently don't understand how a metaphor is used? Did this writer bother to read her original article, as well as her follow-up?
"Death Panel" was used as a descriptive, an accurate descriptive of a collective of various parts of the legislation.
When Reagan used the term "The Evil Empire", did we expect to see a big sign at their borders that said "The Evil Empire"? Of course not. He used the term because it succinctly described the USSR.
Sarah Palin did the same in describing ObamaCare. I'm not a man of letters, but even I could understand exactly what she meant.
Nobama| 8.24.09 @ 7:24AM
twculver and jmaness--great posts! I'm also sick and tired of repub elitists like Charles Krauthammer showing disrespect to Sarah Palin. YOU leave the room, Charles!
These simpering Washington DC insiders sell their souls just to impress their liberal buddies.
Nauseating.
Appleby| 8.24.09 @ 7:30AM
This is a policy made by The Kids (using the hippie terminology of the Sixties/Seventies) including the Kid In Chief, who believe that (1) it is the duty of their parents to die and get out of the way, incidentally leaving all their money to TheKids instead of spending it wantonly on themselves, and (2) they themselves will never be old.
These are the same Kids who believe that there will always be a critical mass of adults to keep the wheels turning while they personally continue to pursue what adults used to call wine, women and songs -- and The Kids call sex, drugs and rock&roll;, totally free of responsibility and/or consequences.
We adults are watching with interest to see how The Kids can pursue these mutually exclusive objectives without causing heads to explode.
daddy| 8.24.09 @ 7:32AM
"Let's posit that Sarah Palin overstated the case when she warned about "death panels."
How 'bout let's not.
Dave Lincoln| 8.24.09 @ 7:52AM
It may be slightly off topic, but it's good to have some people on your side even when they are really not on your side for the right reasons. I don't speak of Sarah Palin here (that's why I said this is a bit off topic). I'm referring to our senior citizens, some (no, not nearly all, maybe not a majority even) of who could be called the "useful idiots" for our side.
I don't truly think many of the seniors who have raised cain (we call it hell, but they are more polite) care one bit about the limits to Fedzilla's power by the 10th Amendment or the huge rise in socialism/beauracracy that this monster will entail. Many are not worried about an eventual $50,000,000,000,000 US debt to other nations. They just don't want anyone to touch their (government boondoggles called:) Medicare and Medicaid. A famous man named Abraham Simpson said it best when he stated "I'm old, gimme, gimme!" Of course, they don't want a death panel to convene on their behalf either, and it doesn't take an idiot to be against that.
I, for one, appreciate the help from the seniors (some for good reasons and understanding and others not.) We should make sure that all of these townhall meetings start around 2 in the afternoon, so these folks can get through to their congressmen first, then still have time to get to the early bird special by 4 O'clock to gum down that creamed corn and applesause.
jeremias| 8.24.09 @ 7:57AM
Stop the mush mouth. Obama is Hitler. He enjoys killing and he wants to kill more. It's that simple. Anything less is pulling punches. The dhimmicrats are traitors and weaklings. No other message can be uttered.
Michael| 8.24.09 @ 7:58AM
Quin,
So lacking nuts, you start by positing; Sarah Palin overstated against Obamacare, yet zip right into; "We have a president who has such extreme, sickening disregard for inconvenient life that he opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois, thus refusing to require hospitals to care for babies who survive an attempted abortion."
Leave the room, join Krauthammer and sulk. "Death Panels", nuance, metaphor, succinct... you just don't get it. She wins.
Your words numb we stupid people, while they cheer the left.
Maybe once you leave the room you'll get lost.
Etiquette Man| 8.24.09 @ 8:28AM
LEAPING LIZARDS, QUIN AND ALL FELLOW-TRAVELING RINOS, LAY OFF SARAH ALREADY!!!
Is Amspec going the way of the RINO???
We have a popular, telegenic figure who can help revitalize conservatism and Amspec is cutting her off at the knees, all the while stealing her thunder!
I've had it with this creeping RINOism. The only reason for anyone to attack Palin is that they put the interests of the GOP ahead of the Conservative Movement.
I truly hope that Amspec does not go that way.
EM
Steve| 8.24.09 @ 8:29AM
RE: Dave Lincoln:
Right on, my brother. Sometimes (rarely for conservatives) the cards just fall your way. Oldsters agitating for the wrong reasons is a (in this instance) wonderful sight to behold.
Militant| 8.24.09 @ 8:50AM
A good article Quin, thank you.
Unfortunately you spoil it, as others have pointed out, by being condescending and failing to acknowledge the effectiveness of the term "death panel".
The term and the short article in which it was first raised by Palin encompasses rationing, government intervention, as well government mandates via "panels".
I am certain most others are clever enough to see the implications, so why can't you and others acknowledge it?
Robert Rosencrans| 8.24.09 @ 8:51AM
Another brilliant piece by Quin Hillyer.
Perhaps it's not the death panels we should fear, but the death of the individual and individual freedom.
Soon, if any of this passes, you will be reduced to nothing more then a number, who will have to cajole your way to health care. Disney queues will become the norm as you waft your way through anonymous bureaucrats who resent the fact they have to wait on you.
The survivors in our society may thwart Darwin's theory in the sense that those who desire individualism may be so turned off by the public option they ignore their health care, and those who desire statism will thrive.
Robert Rosencrans| 8.24.09 @ 8:51AM
Another brilliant piece by Quin Hillyer.
Perhaps it's not the death panels we should fear, but the death of the individual and individual freedom.
Soon, if any of this passes, you will be reduced to nothing more then a number, who will have to cajole your way to health care. Disney queues will become the norm as you waft your way through anonymous bureaucrats who resent the fact they have to wait on you.
The survivors in our society may thwart Darwin's theory in the sense that those who desire individualism may be so turned off by the public option they ignore their health care, and those who desire statism will thrive.
1Freeman| 8.24.09 @ 9:03AM
Mr. Quin Hillyer,
Sara Palin got it exactly right and you have missed the boat. Yes, there is a pannel who makes policy for denial of health care. No, as you pointed out, they won't single people out by name but they will single them out by class, age and potential economic indicators. Yup... "Death Pannels". Policy will eb and flow with the funding from the GOV.
Suggesting Sara Palin missed the boat, or even overstated it, does not make you either intelligent or popular. If you want to claim to write for the conservative cause of justice, freedom and faith you may want to reconsider your line of attack. Idiot.
JP| 8.24.09 @ 9:19AM
What amazes me is the extent that the President not misread the electorate, but all his agenda to be mishandled to this extent. To compound matters, the President gives the impression that he enjoys the viscious political hardball fights more than he does being Chief Executive. Last weeks "rally to the troops (Acorn, union activists, and community organizers), as well as his comments to "hit back opponents even harder than they hit you" is downright unpresidential, let alone wierd. Many commentators such as Peggy Noonan (who is now "shocked" at the President's behavior) noted that this President knows all about getting elected and nothing about governing. His rapid partisanship, which is in lock step with Pelosi and Reid, has done more to undermine his agenda than anything the GOP can muster.
Some adult in the Democratic Party, such an elderstatesman (if one could be found) needs to have a heart to heart with the President. Even if he gets his way and forces victories on ObamaCare and Cap and Trade, his administration will have spent 4 years of his political capital before Christmas. The effects of these 2 bills will certainly be a disaster for his party not to mention the nation (he could conveivably lose majorities in both houses), as instead of unifying the nation he will rip it apart. If one considers the foreign threats brewing in all parts of the world, this is not the time for the US to be totally preoccupied with a President whose political competncy is questioned.
Someone needs to clean house with the WH staff (Emmanual, Axelrod et als must go). The President could be a lame duck by next Feb. Does anyone have Dick Morris's phone number?
Mary Louise| 8.24.09 @ 9:35AM
With a decent respect, you're wrong.
I like Palin, and I have done my share of criticizing her. You have criticized her fairly too from time to time. She's done the initial heavy lifting here, and your column amply illustrates that. You're not even grateful. Is it class? Offended taste?
I like Nat a lot, but he doesn't have much power to influence. And if you think you can come up against the fanaticism of this administration without hitting back in kind, you're dangerously mistaken. What should we call the group/committee assigned to ration, maybe a panel? Rationing panel?
Krauthammer was wrong about the TH attendees. You didn't go as far as he did but you were worried too. Both of you were wrong.
Maybe we can look at the bright side though: when the health care tyranny is in place you can regale us with your account of how the conservative movement may not have been able to preserve liberty, but did save its integrity by always looking for "nuance."
This isn't a fight like any other you've been in, QH. I thought you realized that. My mistake, I guess.
cybercorrespondent | 8.24.09 @ 9:39AM
Obamacare is just another push for global currency and the destruction of the dollar
BANGKOK- Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz is telling us that the U.S. dollar-based system is flawed and risky and that the "dollar now is yielding almost zero return. The question is do we go to a new system in an orderly or disorderly way." Stiglitz urged rich nations to provide funds to help poorer countries avoid a steep crash during the financial crisis.
The group has called for global coordination to avoid competition to cut taxes, and for a worldwide increase in tax on high earners. Dubbing itself the "Shadow GN", the group has urged governments to opt for bank nationalizations rather than bailouts in order to drive the pace of fresh lending.
Don’t fall for it. Watch these two videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
cybercorrespondent
Anthony| 8.24.09 @ 10:05AM
Ah, Mr. Hillyer, may I suggest we posit the notion that Gov. Palin was more on the mark with her observation about "death panels," than you and Krauthammer are with your obligatory cheap shot at Gov. Palin.
Frankly, I'm sick of conservatives who just love to show off their noble ability to be above the frey. Gov. Palin was smack on with her comments about the intent of the totalitarian Left, unlike the D.C. eunuchs of conservative punditry. She understands where these folks are headed and has no illusions about who and what they are. So perhaps, both you and Krauthammer should "leave the room" to quote King Charles, and let a real woman take the lead.
Keith| 8.24.09 @ 10:10AM
It's time for elitist republicans to take a back seat and let true conservatives take the wheel. Sarah Palin's choice of words hits the nail on the head, and describes exactly what Obama and the party of death have in store for us. Stand back failed elitists and let those unafraid of democrats lead the charge.
Quin | 8.24.09 @ 10:14AM
You people REALLY need to take a chill pill. I did NOT go out of my way to criticize Sarah Palin. I explained PRECISELY where she "overstated the case" withOUT saying, as the left did, that she lied. The point, if you would care to read it, is that EVEN if Palin "overstated" the case, the essence of what she said IS still valid. That's what "let's posit" means: It means that FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION, let us make a certain assumption. The assumption sets up the discussion. One does NOT need to actually accept or deny the assumption in itself; one merely needs to accept that the assumption describes the parameters of the discussion. In this case, it IS true that the words Palin used were not literally correct. The establishment media has had a field day pointing that out, and therefore using that literal incorrectness to try to blow apart the ESSENCE of her point. I therefore was fighting back, saying that even if she is not literally correct about "death panels," Obamacare DOES, in effect, have the same likely result. Already a mainstream organ, Politico, is treating my column as being WITHIN the pale of discussion even after having dismissed Palin. In other words, I have kept the central argument alive, not buried it. For the second straight week, if some of you would stop being so defensive, you would see that I am advancing the cause, not weakening it. Jeesh.
Michael| 8.24.09 @ 10:30AM
Posit it this way:
Figuratively Obamacare leads to "Death Panels".
Houston Rao| 8.24.09 @ 10:32AM
What you fail to mention in your article is that doctors will be penalized not only if patients don't create end-of-life wills and 'orders' but also for failing to 'adhere' to it. In other words, change your mind after agreeing to an end-of-life order and it puts the doctor at a financial penalty to agree to it.
Houston Rao| 8.24.09 @ 10:35AM
'Death panels' will be kinda obvious (like in the UK) or very subtle. Vancouver just announced that they will cut 6000+ surgeries this year because of cost issues. These are neurosurgery, treatment for vascular diseases and other medically necessary procedures.
How is this decision by the Vancouver Health Authority not a 'death panel' sentence for the 6000+ people who are waiting for these surgeries?
Dave Lincoln| 8.24.09 @ 10:48AM
"... if some of you would stop being so defensive....."
Actually, Quinn, it's the commenter's wanting real Americans to stay on the OFFENSIVE. Your words and Peggy Noonan's words put together don't have a fraction of a percent of effect of a few words by Sarah Palin. I'm not saying she's smarter than you (Quinn, I don't mean P. Noonan - she's become a whack job). It's just that she keeps up her effort and doesn't back down.
If you rest for a few weeks in rejecting the arguments and legislation of the socialists, they will slip something by that can't be reversed. Socialism cannot be reversed without a revolution - I hope you know that.
Otherwise, good article - keep em coming.
(just stay off of the comments.... it's our domain... you're just dicking it up.... ;-)
Robert Rosencrans| 8.24.09 @ 10:49AM
When advancing causes, facts are handy. The fact is the whole Obama plan is nothing but a death trap for the entire country, because all government health care plans lead to the same result, rationing.
Rationing by it's very nature leads to less. In some cases it would be hard to argue that will lead to success. The lack of success in small or large measures in health care has only one outcome, failure.
Failure in health care is most likely death or diminished living standards, which in some cases will be a vegetative state or substandard living in terms of personal health.
The policies of collectivism are all about destroying the individual or individual freedoms. So it isn't a question of whether death camps are specified, it's a question of whether health care will be delivered.
It's a fact that collectivism leads to rationing in just about every field. With health care that rationing will only lead to poor health care, which in fact, will lead to death.
So, in essence, if you embrace falsehoods about health care, you embrace inefficiency in the form of poorer health for the masses. Isn't this just the Holocaust lite?
Etiquette Man| 8.24.09 @ 10:54AM
No, Quin, we do not need to take a chill pill.
You need to get better at reading tea leaves, and stop eating your young.
Are you a republican first or a conservative? Your gratuitous jab at Palin was completely tasteless and showed profound ingratitude toward a woman who has galvanized conservatives, and who is a lot better at reading political tea leaves than you are.
You adopted Palin's position. Why not credit her? Why the now-seemingly-obligatory cheap shot?
If you can't smell what conservatism is brewing, maybe you're writing on the wrong website.
Sincerely,
EM
Etiquette Man| 8.24.09 @ 11:03AM
Forgot to mention, Quin, that you don't make yourself a lot of friends here by referring to Politico as "mainstream."
(Side note, Quin: "mainstream" means "liberal" these days, and has since at least the mid to late 90's. How can you not know that? Seriously. By I digress.)
If by "mainstream" you mean "lib," then you have cited an inappropriate source in this venue.
If (as I suspect) by "mainstream" you mean "solidly centrist," you are either out of touch or are dissembling. Politico flacked for Hillary! during the campaign, made gratuitous attacks on McCain (whom I loathe, by the nonce), and is--in fine--decidedly left of center.
You would have had a fine article here, if you had been able to suppress your jealousy/desire for an invite to Krauthammer's pad/whatever else ails you long enough to give Palin the credit she was due without the gratuitous and condescending "well, of course she went too far but" attitude--as if her comments needs you or other Krauthammer types to explain them to the hoi polloi and "clean them up" for public consumption.
The slap at Palin contributed nothing to the piece and (as you can see) raised the ire of people who otherwise wholeheartedly support you.
Sincerely,
EM
Dave Lincoln| 8.24.09 @ 11:13AM
You bring up a good question, Etiquette Man, is the Spectator (the magazine too, not just the site) a "Republican" publication, or a "Conservative" publication. I am not really sure. They should take a stand, or else they will become like the National Review (which decided on the former, it seems).
You gotta stand for something, Quinn, or you're gonna fall for anything (taken from John Cougar who I'm sure stole if from someone else, as he's too stupid to have made it up - good musician though)
Etiquette Man| 8.24.09 @ 11:22AM
Hi Dave Lincoln,
Interesting that you should mention NR. I used to spend a lot of time over at NRO, and started spending more time over here when NR and NRO got taken over by fauxcon wonks like David Frum (who is long gone, but the stench remains). I enjoy John Derbyshire, the cranky resident paleocon/Anglican atheist, and a few others, but they've gone establishment; Buckley's brainchild is no longer truly conservative. Strange and sad days, indeed.
There have been a few ugly shoots of fauxcon/RINOism emerging from Amspec over the past year or so. Like weeds, they must be quickly and ruthlessly pulled out by the roots . . .
Best,
EM
Anthony| 8.24.09 @ 11:26AM
Sorry Quin, "WE PEOPLE" do not need to take a chill pill, which is precisely what the Obama folks would love for us to take, in addition to something a bit stronger.
We "get" the essence of your article, afterall, we're not stupid, we do read YOU. It is, for the most part, a fair defense of Gov. Palin, so don't compound your thin skinned attitude with a dose of Krauthammerian condescension.
What YOU don't get is that we conservatives are just about fed up with our side always attempting to be the rational voice in the discussion. In addition, we're fed up with conservative elites, who love to demonstrate their "objective" bonafides, by slapping Gov. Palin upside the head at every opportunity. We're not impressed. While you nit pick that Gov. Palin was not "literally correct", the Left, meanwhile, and its allies, are free to state the most contemptable lies and distortions, with their usual smarmy glibness, with narry a dissent from the D.C. intelligencia. The other side is not listening and doesn't give a DAMN. WE ARE SICK OF IT, get it, or am I a bit too nuianced for you?
Steve Gobis| 8.24.09 @ 11:33AM
she knew what she was saying, perfectly!
JP| 8.24.09 @ 11:42AM
For those on the Palin bandwagon, I can understand your desire to prop her up. The conservative cupbaord is mighty thin. Personally, I am no fan of Palin for reasons that have nothing to do with politics and more to do with being a parent of small children. She allowed her family to be pulled into that pit of guttersnipes (aka The Left) because it was a good career move for her. As a mother of an infant with Downes, Palin should have politely turned McCain down.
But that aside, Govenor Palin is not quite the conservative that many think of her. I look at how a person has governed as much as what they say (that is why I do not trust Pawlenty, Romney, nor Huckabee). Palin may be a reformer of sorts, but her popularity in Alaska has more to do with redistributing oil profits to Alaskans than anything else. She may be at heart a populist, but so was Bill Clinton. She is a gifted politican and may have a distinguished career in national politics someday. But like the current President, Palin is not ready to sit in the Oval Office.
However, I do give all the credit for getting HR1233 off the books. It's too bad none of the establishment Republicans showed the same kind of courage.
In the meantime it is wise not put too much emotional committment to one person. If you want the truth, Sarah Palin in 2009 reminds me of another Govenor from the year 1998 -Geroge W Bush. He too was thought to be a savior to conservatives way back then. And look how that turned out.
Palin in 2024!
Kerochee| 8.24.09 @ 11:47AM
Quin, really. You people? Would that be the people who see through your pale imitation of Sarah Palin's argument after a quasi-slap to the woman herself? A quasi-slap only so you'd have something to fall back on in the comments. Apparently "you people" and Sarah Palin need to leave the room so you can single-handedly "keep the central argument alive". For the second week in a row, you say? Wow, bully for you. Clapping with one hand. Can you hear me now?
Quin| 8.24.09 @ 11:55AM
To Etiquette Man: You have this backwards: "You adopted Palin's position. Why not credit her? Why the now-seemingly-obligatory cheap shot?"
Actually, SHE adopted MY position. Both the New York Times and MoveOn.org blamed (I take it as credit, not blame) the Washington Times editorialists for first mainstreaming the potential for "euthanasia." I was the one who drafted the key editorials referred to by MoveOn. The first was back in May. The second was July 29. It was our editorials, I believe, that brought the issue to the fore, AFTER which Palin jumped in -- which also was AFTER Gingrich jumped in, by the way. Yes, Palin raised the stakes substantially, both for good and for some ill (because her formulation of the issue did allow establishment types to successfully belittle the whole idea). But people were raising hell about end-of-life provisions in the bill, at the town hall meetings, BEFORE Palin spoke up. Therefore, she did NOT create the issue or even make it a big deal. She made it a BIGGER deal, yes, but she was not the first one to the party, so to speak. I was well out in advance.
Etiquette Man| 8.24.09 @ 12:04PM
Hi JP,
With respect, it's not about being on the "Palin Bandwagon" (whatever that is--a set from a Dick Clark production, perhaps?).
She surely has her faults (like everyone else ever born--except for a certain Nazarene Carpenter), but we are sick and tired of hearing about them.
The left eats weak-kneed fauxcons for lunch. It is drooling over the prospect of taking out Palin, and peole like Quin and Krauthammer are helping the left in that effort.
Quin and his Krauthammerian ilk need to stop bending over backwards to make friends on the DC circuit by eating their young, viz. up and comers like Palin and Jindal.
I really think that's ALL there is to it. We're just sick and tired of having promising folks on our side, whatever their faults, criticized by self-annointed elitist "conservatives."
As a great Patriot, inventor, and Farmer's Almanac publisher put it long ago: "We must all hang together or we will surely all hang separately."
Best,
EM
Jeremiah| 8.24.09 @ 12:04PM
New bumper sticker:
"Stop EasyKill!"
Dave Lincoln| 8.24.09 @ 12:10PM
JP, she has the courage. She likes guns and God. True, she doesn't have the conservative education and skill in public speaking of a Ronald Reagan. Reagain spent some years speaking day in and day out, as a trainer/spokesman for GE (back before they were the left-wing corporate hacks they are now).
It's too bad we can't get Sarah Palin into some kind of crash "Reaganizing" program.
Note to self: "Develop a Reaganizing curriculum, prontomundo"
Etiquette Man| 8.24.09 @ 12:12PM
Dear Quin,
Ah, I see, so it was YOUR idea all along.
In a similar vein, if you'll forgive me for playing the wiseass for a moment, did you know that I invented toothpaste? And the aeroplane? You can look it up on Wikipedia. (Just edited the entries meself, I did . . .)
Anyway, you're missing the point, and I can only think deliberately--so clear and simple is it.
STOP EATING OUR YOUNG.
Whoever's idea it was, enough with the condescending smarm. Just stop it. Leave Sarah and other people on our side alone. Don't accept the premises of the left. Attack the libs, use your smarm on THEM.
Observe Reagan's 11th Commandment.
If you still can't see that you were condescending toward Palin in this otherwise excellent piece, then there's no point in discussing anything else. That's the crux of it.
Sincerely,
EM
P.S. Dave Lincoln was right, by the way. You really are "dicking it up" as he put it by crashing our little pool party here. You have your next article to bash us back. This is OUR venue.
Mike in Bama| 8.24.09 @ 12:32PM
Both liberals and conservatives are having a very difficult time accepting the fact that Sarah Palin bypassed all typical journalistic channels by using Facebook to express her views. Those journalists and talking heads have gone to great lengths to demean Sarah Palin, while using double speak to reach the same conclusion about “Death Panels.” It’s almost comical, except that it is so insulting to Sarah Palin.
On Facebook with two little words she brought complete focus on sections and sub-sections within a “health care” bill that has stirred up a nation. It hit home so solidly that the language was removed from the senate version of this fiasco.
The east coast elitists just don’t get it and they never will. The things they detest about Sarah Palin are the very things that make her resonate with average folk all across this country!
John| 8.24.09 @ 12:51PM
+1 for Palin. Encouraging to see many coming to her defense.
Etiquette Man| 8.24.09 @ 1:00PM
Mike in Bama,
You provided the best summary of what is wrong with Quin's otherwise sound article when you wrote, "Those journalists and talking heads have gone to great lengths to demean Sarah Palin, while using double speak to reach the same conclusion about “Death Panels.” It’s almost comical, except that it is so insulting to Sarah Palin."
If he can wrap his head around that succinct and dead-on analysis, he may recover from his incipient fauxconism, stop worrying and learn to love "Da Bomb" (aka Sarah).
Cheers!
EM
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com| 8.24.09 @ 1:17PM
To toot my own horn, I’ve been shouting for over a year now that it was a huge mistake to place anyone in charge of reforming healthcare who voted to kill newborn American Citizens simply because they had the audacity to survive attempted murder on the part of their mothers and their abortionists. I was specifically referencing obumassiah who as Hillyer reminds us, did so vote when a mere illinois senator. On top of that, I hold in my formerly sugar coated fingers a document my boss brought home from her work and titled, “The Death Book for Veterans.” This is an opinion piece by Jim Towey which appeared in the ‘Wall Street Journal” on the 19th. Everyone who disagrees with Mrs. Palin’s description of death panels should google that article and be very afraid. In brief, the article references a Veterans Administration pamphlet named ‘Your Life, Your Choices’ which was written by Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the VA’s National Center for Ethics in Health Care. In 1996 Pearlman “advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco vs. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.” The 52 page booklet “was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA’s preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under (hes-not-my) President (obumah), the VA has now resuscitated “Your Life, Your Choices.”” On page 21 of the booklet is a worksheet designed to push American Warriors into basically deciding that since they were too uncooperative to die of their wounds in battle, they should now do us all the favor of making the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Excuse me, it’s good health care to kill the most defenseless of us, pre-born children and wounded soldiers? I don’t thank so. What the golden calf really means is it’s good medical practice to kill everyone his homeland security czar thinks is a terrorist or leads an inconvenient-according-to-him life so that his union thugs and acorn minions can move to the head of the queue. If this bill passes, I will be condemned to death. That means I have nothing to lose.
Those who have read my previous rants are aware that I offered to have a contest for the biggest lie ever told by the liar-in-chief. The deadline for emailing me an entry is September 1, 2009. To date I have a grand total of zero entries. Not even one entry. I guess shelly’s boy toy never lies, either that or y’awl distrust emailing me any personal information. I totally sympathize. After all, I have openly confessed that Gill O’Teen is a ‘nom de blog’, so for all anyone knows I sit at my computer in the lush offices of flag@whitehouse.gov. Holy Cow! El Rushbo is at this very moment discussing “Your Life, Your Choices.” So, you can visit his website for any information posted there, www.rushlimbaugh.com.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Don’t Tread on Me!!
Geo| 8.24.09 @ 1:52PM
You people who support Palin and believe a word she says are truly ignorant!
Pingback| 8.24.09 @ 1:53PM
Karen De Coster » Look Who is Advising Your President links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
William| 8.24.09 @ 2:18PM
Sarah Palin is now the most prominent conservative bulwark against tyranny in our country. Her extraordinary courage and resolve demand our support, not our censure.
The media's attack on Sarah Palin's figurative use of the term "death panels" is no doubt anticipated given their overwhelming bias in favor of Universal health care. It has been amusing to hear and read of their literal reading of the healthcare bill ("there is no mention of 'death panels'"). But as you have demonstrated in this column, Sarah Palin, ahead of everyone else, was onto something important and sinister about Obama's plans. It has now been revealed that the VA has provided similar death preparedness documents to veterans.
I recently cancelled my subscription to NRO for essentially doing the same thing you did in this piece, to wit, throwing Sarah Palin under the bus while simultaneously agreeing with her concerns about the "death panels." Perhaps if she had been more nuanced in her facebook comments, RINOs and liberals might like her more and we wouldn't have needed this inconvenient conversation about Obama's creepy Orwellian healthcare vision.
The fact of the matter is that Citizen Sarah single-handedly accomplished what no other American could have accomplished, she derailed the wholesale government takeover of the American health care system. As conservative Americans who believe in less government intrusion, free market capitalism, self-reliance and fiscal responsibility, Sarah Palin deserves our thanks and appreciation.
Anthony| 8.24.09 @ 3:11PM
Ah JP, with all due respect, your anger and outrage is seriously misplaced when it comes to Gov. Palin. Listen to yourself!! You blame Gov. Palin for exposing her family to the "guttersnipes" of the Left, simply because, as a public figure, she had a Down syndrome child. Might I suggest that if the Left had any shred of human decency and decorum, that Gov. Palin's child would never have been brought up, other than in admiring and flattering ways. Substitute Hillary Clinton with a Down child and imagine the fawning praise of the Left for a woman with such courage who can still do it all, and with such heavy burdens!! The very essense of what NOW has held up as THE female role model. Oh, but we're talking conservative here, so the NOW gang flips its morality like cheap whores.
And WHY exactly should Gov. Palin have turned McCain down? Should the same apply to a male pol with a special needs child? Funny, I don't hear from the dispicable Left any ridicule directed towards "Two Americas" John Edwards and how he should abandon the political arena, given his bi-costal family structure.
Gov. Palin, for precisely who and what she is as a woman and leader, has captured the hearts of true conservatives. She is, as I've said ad nauseam, the real deal. What the Left HATES about her, we conservatives LOVE. So JP, best wishes, and I hope to see you on the campaign trail.... in 2012!!
JP| 8.24.09 @ 4:01PM
Anthony,
Dick Cheney in 2012!
Fionnagh| 8.24.09 @ 4:14PM
To William at 2:18 p.m.
Absolutely wonderful, right-on-the-mark response.
Palin's got more guts than the entirety of the rest of the GOP put together.
SHE DARED TO CALL IT FOR WHAT IT IS .
Anthony| 8.24.09 @ 4:34PM
JP, Can't argue with you on that one, for sure. Dick Cheney is a great American, and history will note this man's superior intellect and measured statesmanship and demeanor, especially compared to the intellectual munchkins on the Left, who proclaim their own greatness on a daily basis, as they look in the mirror.
Ah, if only it was Cheney/Bush for 8 years. How different things would have been!! No leftist crap from the likes of Plame and Wilson, and Scooter Libby would have remained an innocent man. No "new tone" and "doing the jobs Americans won't do".
Oh well, but Palin/Cheney 2012 sounds pretty good, and I'm talking Elizabeth Cheney here. Another woman with remarkable poise, grace and smarts, who GETS IT!!!
Daisy| 8.24.09 @ 4:35PM
D. Lincoln, thanks so much for exercising restraint and not throwing the P-Word around.
You're pretty mean (and hilarious) to old folks, though. You make me laugh out loud.
Big J| 8.24.09 @ 4:44PM
Hey guys. My two cents:
Honestly, I didn't see any signs of an attack on Sarah. The way I read the article, Mr. Hillyer was putting up a hypothetical situation.
"Let's posit that Sarah Palin overstated the case when she warned about "death panels" in the House version of Obamacare. Obviously, there are no specific provisions in the legislation that create all-powerful boards whose members give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on whether or not one person receives life-saving care while another one is left to die or even "assisted" in dying. But that doesn't mean that fears of government-prompted premature deaths are unwarranted."
I thought he was pretty much agreeing with her.
Believe me, when someone attacks my girl, I am the first to come to her rescue. Just didn't see it here.
NationalDebt &growing; per sec| 8.24.09 @ 5:08PM
National Debt Clocks and Savings Clocks
Why Borrow and Spend for Economic Stimulus?
July 11, 2009. Money flows in circles: you get paid you spend it, and the store pays someone else, who spends at another store. But what if everyone spent 90% and saved 10% in the bank? The circle of money would dwindle away to nothing, all the money would be in the bank, the stores would shut and we'd all be out of work. ... more >>
Check this graph.Learn from History
Most Republicans would rather not see their country crushed by a depression just to prove an ideological point, even if it was correct. But extreme conservatives fought recovery in the last depression, and Roosevelt did not spend enough from 1933-41 to get us out of it. Only World War II provided the excuse for the enormous deficits that finally jolted the economy out of depression and into overdrive. (#1 villain)
Accumulated Debt/Savings
In the last
758 secs.
Borrowed by the General Fund – $ 11,906,513,692,387* $ 72,134,798
Income: Income taxes. Outgo: Defense 30%, Interest 19%, ...
Saved by the Social Security Trust + $ 2,489,286,451,806 $ 4,147,750
Income: FICA Payroll taxes. Outgo: Benefits and disability
Saved by other Gov. Trust Funds + $ 5,749,232,192,418 $ 62,526,443
Debt Held by the Public (net debt) – $ 6,157,281,499,968† $ 9,608,355
* Gross National Debt † Debt Held by the Public Debt Clock Source Data
How Do the General and Trust Funds Get their Money?
For The General Fund: All personal and corporate income tax.
For Social Security Trust Fund: Payroll taxes on wages up to $102,000 (2008).
For Medicare: Payroll taxes on all wages. (Medicare is the big part of "other.")
American Collapse| 8.24.09 @ 5:11PM
Debt growning at 15 Million per minute, American recovery, is the biggest lie in history.
jr| 8.24.09 @ 5:14PM
No doubt that the medical panel or death panel will be housed in the WH, similar to the group HIG he just formed to torture prisoners in lieu of the CIA. Hussein's Interrogation Gestapo? When will Congress wake up to the fact that Hussein is creating a shadow goobermint?
The Cheerful Oncologist| 8.24.09 @ 5:30PM
I am a cancer specialist who interacts with dying patients every day. Every day I counsel these wonderful people on what I can do to help them live their lives with as little suffering as possible, for as long as possible. I earn my salary concentrating on life, not death, and when death is imminent I help the dying avoid exposing themselves to gratuituous treatments that have no chance to help. It would be an abomination for me to accept money for this service, and a conflict of interest in my oath to serve the ill. Who do they think I am, Josef Mengele?
Quin| 8.24.09 @ 5:53PM
Big J.,
Thanks much. You got it right. I was not attacking Palin. I was pretty much agreeing with her central message. Thanks again.
Sue| 8.24.09 @ 6:24PM
The Cheerful Oncologist: You are exactly right. I don't see how a physician can resort to encouraging anyone to end living. My thoughts the other day while walking in the beautiful weather were, "I so much like living, how an I ever going to like dying?"
To David Lincoln: Not all of us old geezers gum our food to death and not all of us old geezers wanted any of the Great Society. The politicos did it to us so be careful of alienating the very ones who are in a position to clean up the "mess" as Obama says. I just wish we have elected one who was of the generational era to be affected by this legislation. Reading between your lines, I almost think you are gleeful about the whole damn situation.
As far as death panels go, I believe that when a person actually reads the bill the ideals and ideas coalesce into a thought process identifying the basic fact that 27 people appointed by the president and the Comptroller will control the distribution/delivery of health care services. This is in addition to a "health commissioner" who will have the exclusive authority (not subject to any court reviews) to implement his directives.
I would like to see someone, anyone, contact Mr. David Walker (former Comptroller) and Mr. Peter Peterson of the Peterson Foundation about their views on this whole health care legislation.
They are the ones who started the ball rolling with their documentary I. O. U. S. A. and the dissemination that SOMETHING has to be done and done now. I wonder what they are thinking and I wonder just how much input they had into this bill.
I think the appointment of the "comptroller of the U.S." to a position of power to determine what benefits are covered for Americans pretty much says it all.
Angel| 8.24.09 @ 6:30PM
Quin, you're PATRONIZING Sarah Palin and you don't even see it. We do.
We're tired of you imperious pundits and your condescension. I thought you were on OUR side.
Heather| 8.24.09 @ 6:35PM
Dear Cheerful Oncologist, God bless you and the thousands of wonderful doctors who believe as you do.
You do the Lord's work.
Pingback| 8.24.09 @ 6:35PM
Sarah Palin Was Right | links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Dave Lincoln| 8.24.09 @ 7:00PM
"Reading between your lines, I almost think you are gleeful about the whole damn situation. "
Sue, no, I am not gleeful, but my point was I am glad we have many seniors helping out who (along with the seniors who DO know what's what politically) only care about their fed. gov't supplied benefits - ironically!
Really, I know that you all don't all go to the early-bird special and don't all like creamed corn. Tapioca, anyone? ;-)
Angel| 8.24.09 @ 7:10PM
JP, you're wrong: Palin is not a squish like George W. It was immediately obvious to me that Bush was a RINO when he peddled his offensive "Compassionate Conservative" garbage in 2000. I don't get that mushy vibe from Sarah--at all. I don't know what you're smokin'.
Only a ridiculous fool would blame Sarah for the Drive by Media's abusive treatment of her children.
The leftist MSM double standard regarding the treatment of Repub and Demo candidates' children is outrageously unfair. If we continue to stupidly blame this media injustice on our Republican candidates, it will only worsen; and it will not end at the Palin family.
We're not called the STUPID PARTY for nothin'!
Wise up.
Angel| 8.24.09 @ 7:12PM
Nice clean up effort, Dave.
Dave Lincoln| 8.24.09 @ 7:15PM
Just a re-iteration of my first post for those who didn't understand on the 1st try... and I wanted to reach out and be inclusive to the non-denture wearers.
Angel| 8.24.09 @ 7:24PM
I think Ms. Sue quite clearly understood your first post and that's what got you in trouble.
William 5| 8.24.09 @ 7:59PM
If indeed, Mr. Hillyer is patronizing Ms. Palin, this is very good news.
She actually insults the lot of you with her dumbing down the discourse.
Death Panels. Nice polticial buzz word.
If you want to talk about Death Panels, try addressing the ones we already have. They wear suits, for the most part, work for the claims department of each and every health care provider in the land, and make the exact same choices outlined the government plan.
An every day example, something almost each and every one of us has probably had to grapple with (or very well may). Granny has an individual health care policy and has a horrible disease which is nearing the end stages. There is an horrifically expensive (as they all seem to be) experimental drug which could help her out but it isn't covered by her current policy. She has two choices, come up with the money herself, or not get the treatment. Are any of you naive enough to think her insurance company is going to pony up for it? No, you're not. And I'm not either.
Insurance companies are in business to make money, and they can't make money spending every last available cent seeking out every last treatment for each and every infirm person under their tutelage.
The government program wouldn't be any different.
That said, I do agree that ANYTHING government run, usually runs quite poorly. Therefore, I'm not sure I like the idea of a National Health Care system.
But don't let the absurd rhetoric blind you to the current system's limitations.
There are currently a finite amount of resources and our population increases and gets older by the minute.
I'm not sure we have time to talk about Death Panels when we could be having a proper discussion about what can/can't should/shouldn't happen with health care.
PCP Smoker| 8.24.09 @ 8:03PM
Oh look at this. After screwing up and seeing lawmakers remove the Death Panel provisions, now we get analysis from this creep and the NYT, that ahh...maybe, there could have been provisions that would have been interpreted as death panel.
You are behind the curve asshole.
Nobama| 8.24.09 @ 8:21PM
Nice, PCP! Poor old Willie5 must be reeling from your gut punch.
Josie| 8.24.09 @ 8:29PM
Makes sense to me: Screw up the good health care coverage of 85% of Americans to help the 15% of Americans who need it.
Sounds more like fascist liberal lust for power and control to me.
Screw you, W5.
Militant| 8.24.09 @ 8:42PM
Quin, as I stated in my first post, I enjoyed your article, and it is a fine analysis. "Death By Proxy" is quite a good phrase, and I hope one that also resonates with the American people.
Gov. Palin in her articles has clearly identified the sources for her view, she has not pretended to have been the first or even 10th to become concerned - you are as you say both on the same side.
But, although you as a political journalist may not use or like the term for whatever reason, Gov. Palin is a politician, and one who knows how to effectively focus public attention on "govt control->bending the cost curve->rationing-=death panels." Isn't distilling a message to its simplest form what a good politician should do? The fact that the MSM and the WH are upset about the term, and are having trouble refuting it according to several polls, is a major victory in itself.
Mary Louise| 8.24.09 @ 8:47PM
The government program wouldn't be any different.
That said, I do agree that ANYTHING government run, usually runs quite poorly. Therefore, I'm not sure I like the idea of a National Health Care system.
I think you just proved that it is different.
Etiquette Man| 8.24.09 @ 9:56PM
Let me take one final stab at this. Apparently, it is not possible to make this simple point simply enough for Quin to understand.
Let's say that Quin had changed JUST the first sentence.
Rather than the smarmy, "Let's posit that Sarah Palin overstated the case when she warned about "death panels" in the House version of Obamacare," let's "posit" that he had written, "Sarah Palin has taken a great deal of heat for her coining of the term 'Death Panels,' but even a cursory analysis of the relevant provisions in the House bill bear out her use of the term." (He could even have added, "As I pointed out in my scintillating editorial . . ." if that would have been balm for his bruised ego.)
The second version would have been fully consistent with Quin's piece.
Let's also "posit" that Quin really DID come up with the idea that Sarah ran with.
It would also have given SUPPORT to the
"misunderestimated" (to use a Bushism) politician who has amplified the underlying point that we'll assume was really Quin's brainchild, and in the process would have made Quin look even more prescient and brilliant than the already thinks he is.
THAT is what makes Quin's "positing" offensive, gratuitous, and obviously condescending. He was so intent on bringing Sarah down a peg that he was willing to go down one two.
That's not exactly being a "team player," Quin old boy.
Why grant ANY point, even for the sake of argument, that makes our side even slightly weaker? What possible reason could any true conservative have for doing that?
Why would a real conservative, with his eyes on the prize (rather than on a Krauthammerian sinecure as the "reasonable" conservative on MSNBC and state controlled media generally) refuse to give someone making THE EXACT SAME POINT HE IS an "attagirl" rather than a smarmy backhand?
With friends like Quin . . .
Quin still doesn't get it, though, which marks him as a GOP loyalist/RINO/fauxcon to me.
Dave Lincoln| 8.24.09 @ 10:54PM
I agree with you Etiquette man. It seems like so many conservatives in media have this urge to kiss a__ once in a while. They may call it "being civil", but 2 things: 1) That is not what being civil means - granting the opposing side some points unilaterally and 2) The other side never does this.
By saying something that is sort of down on Sarah Palin in the beginning, Quinn can get his bonafides, if you will. It makes him feel part of the club and smarter than some simple housewife (and, uhhh, former governor) in Alaska. As I said, Quinn may be indeed smarter than Mrs. Palin, but, see, Mrs. Palin is in a position to do something, that is get people motivated, raise money, etc. She is on the right track, and she may know that to put the term "death panels" in it's more policy-wonk terms would slow down the message, and call it what you want, it is no lie (you state that in your article, so no problem there).
The pundits that you don't see do this sort of thing are Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and Pat Buchanan. Maybe there are others, but I think many are just bucking for another job, and when that job comes around, they may do a 180 and they could then be hell-bent for socialism. "Hey, it's just my job; nobody said I have to believe in it." I say, get a real job in that case. (not talking to Quinn here.)
Stand for something.
Nobama| 8.24.09 @ 11:23PM
Dave, how do you know Quin is more intelligent than Sarah Palin? Sarah--not Quin--has driven the national health care debate recently.
Proof is in the pudding.
Dave Lincoln| 8.24.09 @ 11:27PM
Hmmmm... no answer from Quinn since ~ 6P, ... I wonder what time the early bird special is finished in his time zone,... getting so sleepy from the creamed corn, mashed potatoes and,...
... jello.... what?? Who said something? ...., why that young whipersnapper, Kennedy, ... oh, he looks fatter and less sober,,.... is on the, ...zzzzz....
zzzzz,... television,... oh, in that darn technicolor again,... what's wrong with the young people, ... are they too good to watch it, ... in two colors,... black and white,... no good, spoiled, long-haired ,... rock and roll listening...., zzzzzz....
....zzzzzz punk kids, .... maybe Quinn's turned in for the night, ... already past 8, .... I'd swear that guy doesn't like me, ... or my name, ....
.... is not Jack Kerouack,.... lost now on the country miles in my Cadillac, .... I can tell by the way she smiles, he's rolling back, .... come ... wash the night time clean, .... come... grow the scorched ground green,... what you are and what you're meant to be, .... speaks his name though you were born to be, ... born to be, .... Cassidy. ... (apologies to the Dead here)......
.... zzzzzzzzzzzz.....
Dave Lincoln| 8.24.09 @ 11:32PM
" Dave, how do you know Quin is more intelligent than Sarah Palin? Sarah--not Quin--has driven the national health care debate recently.
Proof is in the pudding. "
zzzzz ... WHAT THE ???, .... Oh, it's you, Nobama,... you said time to make the pudding ....
no,... no no zzzzzzzzz.....
zzzzz... we had supper at 4, no more tapioca,.... it's made in China these days,.... full of .... zzzzzz
zzzzz... and all sorts of ...... naaahhhh, don't know... I'll just take Quinn's word for it,.... gotta get up early tomorrow,... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
William 5| 8.25.09 @ 12:02AM
PCP Smoker, your comment merely reiterates my point, the rhetoric does nothing to futher the discussion.
If the American people choose to keep the system as it is, that is fine with me. As I said, I doubt the Feds could run an efficient health care system.
Also, I am, thankfully, gainfully employed, which I thank my lucky stars for in this economic climate. I have good coverage.
That said, my folks a few years back, retired a few years early (and worked their arses off in order to be able to do so), and their combined, individual monthly health care payments were more than my mortgage at the time. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with middle class Americans working the better part of their lives in order to turn around and pay a good chunk of it to insurance companies. That's rubbish.
Can the system be tweaked? Sure. Can we figure out a way to get more people insured? I hope so, 'cos the unpaid bills of those without coverage are already landing in our, the taxpayers, lap.
Death Panels is just utter sillyness. Everybody and their grandmother has a story about being screwed by insurance companies, but to listen to you guys, they're the second coming.
I'm not for government run health care, but you'll have to forgive me if I don't wish to feed at the trough of the almighty insurance company.
Yosemite Sam| 8.25.09 @ 12:20AM
Ha, ha - isn't it rich: voters elected a campaigning
Dr. Jekyll and got Mr. Hyde.
Nobama| 8.25.09 @ 12:36AM
You're a fool if you think ObamaCare "Death Panels" are just silliness, and even stupider still if you trust big government.
Obama and his minions are an ugly group of folks and no good will come of their governance. They don't give a damn about people; it's power they're after.
If politicians won't join this ObamaCare plan, how can they make us? By force. Hell no!
Nobama| 8.25.09 @ 12:37AM
YSam--the Bamster always looked like Hyde to me. Too many stupids in this country.
Sue| 8.25.09 @ 2:56AM
William 5: Sorry, get a clue about the "evil insurance companies." They are in the business of being in the business. And that means "profits." Some of them operate as cooperatives, and the profits part isn't as evil as the ones who operate strictly on "profit" for ROI to their shareholders.
Why just today, in the Wall Street, big article about another "law" to mandate coverages for mental health on parity with "physical" health. How's that for driving up your premiums? You get to pay for something, again, that you may never use, but because the government demands it, you lose in the long run.
The government has attempted time and time again to "regulate" the medical insurance industry until it has choked off any resemblance to a "free enterprise" system. So, I guess you'll just have to turn your anger against them, to, let's say, the legislators (Congress).
How many times do we hear the "evil" this and that when they're running for reelection? Then, they get into office and continue making laws that affect our bottom line and blame the "evil" corporations.
This "circle of love" for their constituents must stop at some time.
Maybe the mental coverage for schizophrenia can help them.
I sure don't need it though, I know where the answers lie, and it's with Congress' ineptitude.
Sue| 8.25.09 @ 3:04AM
To Geo: You people who support Obama and believes anything HE says are truly "ignorant," sheep being led to the slaughter.
Let's hope that government job works out for you whether it be "union" inspired or just plain "bureaucrat" for life.
"When I grow up I want to be a government bureaucrat, Mommy."
Pingback| 8.25.09 @ 5:59AM
AARP Losing Memberships: Seniors and Military Vets Oppose Socialized ObamaCare, Glen links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Marc Jeric| 8.25.09 @ 6:15AM
Until I was 24 I lived under communism - the operative word here is "under". We had two parallel health care systems - one for the people and one for the communist elite. Exceptions were possible - like my dying father with cancer had to obtain morphium for pain; he got it through a friendly doctor and with money bribes. Otherwise it was reserved for the ruling elite. The same went for complex operations (limited again for the top communists), visits to special clinics abroad (the same), etc.
William 5| 8.25.09 @ 11:41AM
Hello Sue...I have a clue about insurance companies (I left out 'evil', that was your word).
My initial post indicates that insurance companies are in business to make money. They therefore cannot be profitable while at the same time exhausting every single treatment option for every single person under their tutelage.
As I've also mentioned many times in my comments, I am not for a nationalized health care system.
I would merely like the rhetoric, from both sides, to be raised a few levels. I think there are limitations our current system faces which could be addressed. It's quite difficult to get into the nuts and bolts when people are running around yelling "no Death Panels no Death Panels".
Further, I'm merely pointing out that "Death Panels", the words of the right, as described by all the pundits, already exist. I think the insurance industry would rather you call them the Claims Department, but that is neither here nor there. Either way, ultimately, be it a government run, or a private health care industry, costs vs. life benefits come into the equation. That's what an insurance company has to do to stay in business.
To think otherwise is horribly naive. And I don't think the folks on here, including you, are that naive.
Nobama| 8.25.09 @ 2:53PM
You don't get it, William. If I don't like my insurance company I can look for another; once the government is involved I have NO recourse.
ObamaCare is one big Death Panel due to rationing. I've read that many of the very ill elderly and mentally handicapped are left to starve in Britain's hospitals. This is routine.
I believe YOU are very naive if you think health care will improve if the government takes over.
Richard Baker| 8.25.09 @ 5:50PM
It's amazing the pre-occupation that the Obamaites have with Death and its care and feeding. Can you imagine the hue and cry if Bush or Reagan had advocated such a "possibility"? Death Panel is a quick encapsulation of the effect of these death-style proposals.
Richard Baker| 8.25.09 @ 5:50PM
It's amazing the pre-occupation that the Obamaites have with Death and its care and feeding. Can you imagine the hue and cry if Bush or Reagan had advocated such a "possibility"? Death Panel is a quick encapsulation of the effect of these death-style proposals.
Pingback| 8.28.09 @ 5:52AM
Death (and Sterilization) By Government « LewRockwell.com Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 8.31.09 @ 3:54AM
Charles Lane Washington Post links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
123123| 9.15.09 @ 6:29AM
wedding dress factory
wedding dress shops
Pingback| 9.25.09 @ 3:01PM
Rush Limbaugh on Jay Leno Show: His Weight Loss, Obama, Health Care, Capitalism, Rac links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: