-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 105 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Turning on Obama
May 7, 2013 | 228 comments
Special Report
Death Panel Malpractice
Problem is, Republicans are themselves culpable, though not in the way you may think.
On Wednesday, a House of Representatives Energy and Commerce subcommittee voted to approve, and send to the full committee, H.R. 452, the Medicare Decisions Accountability Act of 2011, which “repeal[s] the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act providing for the Independent Payment Advisory Board.”
In short, 15 Republicans and two Democrats voted to stop the implementation of the Obamacare bureaucracy that Sarah Palin famously termed “death panels.” The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) would recommend reductions in Medicare payments needed to keep the system within budgetary restrictions. Conservatives such as House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan say it represents nothing less than health care rationing while Obamacare supporters say that IPAB offers needed cost controls and that Congress can override IPAB recommendations or suggest other cuts to keep Medicare solvent. They are both right.
Prior to the vote, the Obama propaganda machine argued in favor of IPAB, claiming (to nobody’s surprise) that Republicans want to “shift costs to seniors and empower insurance companies.” The next ad of Paul Ryan pushing wheel chair–bound Granny off the cliff can’t be far behind. (Isn’t it preferable for reasons both economic and ethical to “shift costs” to those actually using the medical care rather than to their grandchildren? Isn’t what we’re doing now the true cost-shifting? And isn’t it wiser to “empower insurance companies” who have to compete for business rather than empowering the already power-mad Kathleen Sebelius and her officious successors?)
Conservative and free-market organizations are cheering Wednesday’s vote. On Tuesday, the National Right to Life Committee “called for quick approval” of the IPAB repeal. Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson’s press release following the subcommittee’s action said that “In the end IPAB will decide who lives and who dies; that is why it must be repealed and receive full committee and House floor votes as soon as possible. This provision always has been an abomination.”
The idea of unaccountable government bureaucrats deciding whether your family member should get needed medicine, or whether in their wisdom it’s just not worth it, is truly frightening. The implications for our liberty — and for our very lives — are far beyond any power that our Founding Fathers could have imagined being placed in the hands of the federal government.
But is the political right making a mistake by voting to repeal IPAB? Are Democrats’ crocodile tears masking secret smiles, with their plaintive “please don’t kill the death panels” (if perhaps not in exactly those words), the political equivalent of Br’er Rabbit’s pleas not to be thrown into the briar patch?
By removing one of the most objectionable provisions of Obamacare, one of the most effective “bumper sticker” arguments against it — especially among the critical voting group of senior citizens — opponents of the Democrats’ de facto takeover of our nation’s health insurance industry leave a marginally less detestable law than we have now.
President Obama and Congressional Democrats could hardly ask for a better election year gift.
A wise friend who serves in the Colorado State Senate says that he doesn’t believe in “trying to make bad bills better” because the usual impact is to ensure that only slightly less bad bills become or remain law.
But this is just what H.R. 452 does. Making Obamacare “better” will boost Democrats’ arguments that the law can and should be “fixed” or “modified” or “tweaked” rather than repealed, a position which benefits their electoral prospects by cooling voters’ simmering hatred of Obamacare — while cementing in place one of the most egregious power grabs in American history.
Obamacare is a cancer on our economy and our political future. When a cancer is diagnosed, a doctor goes to every effort to remove all of it, recognizing that removing only the currently visible or painful part means just a slightly slower progression toward death. If a doctor treated cancer the way Republicans are treating Obamacare, by working to eliminate just the most visible portion and suggesting that the body (politic) will then be healthier, he would rightly be sued for malpractice.
The problem with IPAB is not that bureaucrats will be making Medicare spending recommendations. It is that such an organization is an inevitable, even sensible, outcome of government-run medicine. After all, what is the alternative to cost containment, especially in the context of a population that through demographics and legislation is increasingly dependent on government for provision of health care? After all, nothing is as expensive as something everyone thinks they’re getting for free.
If IPAB is eliminated, where will cost control come from? Voters will stand neither for bankrupting our children nor for any reduction of benefits — but if they have to accept one, it will be the former. Knowing this, members of Congress are more afraid of short-term electoral punishment if they try to curtail the cost of Medicare than they are of immorally loading future generations with ever more massive debt.
Republicans have been less than uniformly helpful on this score, with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s rhetoric being Exhibit A. During the Arizona Republican Presidential Debate last week, when explaining why he wants to repeal Obamacare, Romney said, “I don’t believe the federal government should cut Medicare by some $500 billion.” It’s not the first time he’s offered this reasoning.
Obamacare used $500 billion of theoretical cuts to Medicare Advantage, which the president and his supporters have zero intention of allowing to come to pass, to claim that the total cost of the bill would be less than $1 trillion in its first decade. (The Advantage program, while not without its flaws and critics, is one of the only places where Medicare allows competition and the use of private insurance to supplement Medicare. It is thus no surprise that this is the part of the entitlement system that Democrats chose to gut.)
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (80) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/02/death-panel-malpractice
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
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.2.12 @ 6:15AM
The new American Dream.
Die before circumstances force you in front of the IAPB.
Timothy L. Pennell| 3.2.12 @ 9:51AM
Firstly, I would like to state for the record: I'm impressed. (I know how much that means to you. Consider it a belated Wedding Present.) Nice job. Good article, right up until the word: ROMNEY.
You gotta lose that word. He is the EPITOME of the guy you don't want going up against the Muslim on "Government Health Care". Nobody want Crispy Cream Christie, out on the stump, telling everybody that: "My opponent is too Fat! I'm against Fat People!" It's just not a winner.
We're not Stupid. (At least, not all of us.) We KNOW that Romney is a Train Wreck waiting to happen. HIS Government Health Care Plan. HIS mandates on Religious Institutions. HIS people, taking HIS Plan to Obama, so he could use it as a Blueprint, for his own Cuban Style Health Care Scam. HIS Vote for Tsongas. HIS denunciations of Conservatism. HIS assurances to 10 and 12 year old girls, that they will get their abortions, and their parents can GO TO HELL.
It's time for an Epiphany, Ross.
The reason that we can't FIX Social Security, Medicare, and Health Care, is because everybody goes at it, not in a way to help the American people, but in a way that will not kill THEM, politically. With them, it always has to be 10,000 pages, so no-one will read it, and it has to go in to effect AFTER the next Election.
Is that any way to run an Airline?
Paul Ryan had it right, and they Crucified him. Even his own people went after him. Not because his Plan was no good, but because it left them open for ATTACK.
See how far HONOUR has fallen, since the days of our Founding Fathers, who pledged their Lives, their Property, and their Sacred Honour, to the cause of Freedom. These guys won't even Pass a Budget. (Too risky.)
I'll do it. I'll fix everything.
I like Paul Ryan's Medicare Plan. I wouldn't change a thing with that.
On Health Care? I would put the Insurance out to bid. I would cut the Bullsh*t that you can only get a Policy from a Company that resides in your State. We can buy every other Insurance Policy, we want, from wherever we want. I would set up "Exchanges" where people can get their Health Insurance in Groups, thereby cutting their Costs. On Pre-Existing/Catastrophic Care, I would give those cases over to Medicare.
Social Security? Newt Gingrich was right. It has to be allowed to wither on the vine. We gave them our money, and they STOLE it. They TOOK our money through Force of Arm, and Penalty of Prison, with their WORD (Think: Sacred Honour) that they would keep it SAFE, so that it would be there, when we needed it, the most.
Like Paul Ryan's Medicare Plan, there needs to be a Cutoff Age. We can use the same system that's used, right now, for taking money out, and putting it in to the Imaginary Social Security System, and have it put in to Private Sector 401k's instead. The SCUM in Congress won't be able to touch it, and you'll be getting a helluva lot more than the 0% Interest, that you're getting, now.
Thomas F. Williams | 3.2.12 @ 12:22PM
Man, how did people in the 17-1800's live without all these sweet government programs looking out for them? How did people retire back then without good ole' Social Security? How did they go to the Dr. without insurance, no matter where it came from?
We are being reduced to dogs. Dogs taught to beg for everything. Well, not we, but many. Mr. Pennell, I am glad you mentioned honour. I freely admit I am grossly uninformed, though trying to rectify my ignorance. Your responses are helping. Anyway, I find it sad that, as limited as my knowledge is, I'm virtually a seasoned statesman compared to coworkers and peers.
They think I am "sooooo weird" because; I vote, speak my mind, don't bow down or apologize when I'm not wrong, take the right,but harder path, joined the military, stayed in the military, care about my country and hold elected officials accountable. Shame on me for caring and being able to provide for myself.
Occam's Tool| 3.2.12 @ 12:48PM
I worked in an NHS system in New Zealand. Man, you do NOT want PHARMAC or NICE determining things. You DON'T.
Inurance companies should have to compete for covered lives across state lines. Capitalism is good for people.
Christopher C| 3.2.12 @ 3:36PM
Occam's Tool - I'm a New Zealander and know that the only reason collectivized health care sort of works here is that NZ is so small that there are only two to two-and-a-half degrees of separation between any two people in the country. In the US? The bureaucracy that will come into existence just to fail in delivering healthcare utterly miserably will be stupendously large. There won't be enough money in the country to pay for it all, and then, of course, there won't be anything left to pay for actual health care. Obamacare cannot be anything else than an employment scheme for government workers. For the good of your great country, Obamacare delenda est.
Simon Templar| 3.3.12 @ 12:02PM
Christopher, how easy is it for Americans to immigrate to New Zealand? What do they think of America and Americans?
Just curious.
Louis Jenkins| 3.2.12 @ 12:58PM
The anniversary of the Alamo is coming up next week on March 6th. Forgive my poor mind, but approximately 150 defended that spot of ground against 4,000 or more Mexicans. That's about 7.5 men to one. Not bad odds, but they were a bit discouraging. They knew they were condemned to death and they stood and fought to the last. No choices, no alternatives. Travis, Bowie, Crocket are all the best of the best. But so were the men who remain un-named. Those were men of honor even though, most likely, a good many couldn't read or write. Their word was their bond. Thank you for your service to this country, Mr. Williams.
VBMax| 3.2.12 @ 2:30PM
I don't usually pick nits, but my math comes to about 26.5 men to one, which only supports the point you are making.
Louis Jenkins| 3.2.12 @ 4:40PM
I think you're right. Like I said, my mind is getting a little weak.
Ross Kaminsky | 3.2.12 @ 2:51PM
Tim, didn't you notice that my mention of Romney was a strong criticism?
Timothy L. Pennell| 3.2.12 @ 3:29PM
I did, sort of.
Truce?
Timothy L. Pennell| 3.2.12 @ 3:31PM
Wait a minute.
What about my plan?
Ross Kaminsky | 3.4.12 @ 10:26AM
Truce it is.
As for your plan, I'm on board with most of it except that I don't like the use of the word "exchanges" which at this point has been come to mean a government-mandated or government-controlled entity. I do agree with your intended use for it, i.e. to allow people to form groups to buy insurance.
The three biggest things that need to happen to insurance are (1) to allow interstate purchase, (2) to eliminate federal mandates for what must be covered, so that coverages are the subject of negotiation between insured and insurer, and (3) increasing co-pays so that people stop thinking health care is free (though this too should be subject of negotiation.)
jcrew| 3.3.12 @ 5:19PM
You are way off base. The weakness of your argument is only matched by the simplicity of your thought process. Good luck at Harvard commaphile.
Teaghan| 3.2.12 @ 7:15AM
I fear we will be stuck with obamacare and the likes of Sebelius, the angel of death.
You know all of this is to save Mother Earth. We parasites are a detrement to her.
jcrew| 3.3.12 @ 6:25PM
What's this "we" stuff? You're the only parasite we talk about at our weekly Sebelius meetings. That reminds me, I'm supposed to bring drinks and cups.
nathan| 3.2.12 @ 8:02AM
Let's start with a fundamental problem. As Madison said, oh so clearly, "benevolence spending" at the federal level is unconstitutional, full stop. Any and all acts that involves the federal government engaging in "doing good", however noble the purpose is flat out wrong. If the states want to do it, fine, private sector, fine but the federal government is, if we are following the Constitution, strictly prohibited from playing Robin Hood.
The next problem is this. We know that roughly a third of all health care spending is end of life spending, health care that occurs in the final six months to a year of a person's life. As technology improves the costs increase.
As a moral/ethical society are we obligated to use all the technology available to extend a person's life one/two/three months? We're not talking euthanasia here. We know that Dachau started off as a legal euthanasia center. That's a place no one wants to go. But if a person is terminally ill with cancer, how much should we spend on prolonging his/her life? And remember, except for Gates and others, we're talking money that really isn't theirs.
Beyond ensuring that they are comfortable and pain free, what are our obligations here? It's a serious question. Two Sundays ago I asked the campus minister to raise with the senior minister of the church my wife and I attend to consider doing a sermon on this giving spiritual guidance on this. We as Christians need this. Do not resusitate? Why not? If a baby boomer in their late 70's/early 80's has a history of heart disease but also has dementia should they ever see a cardiologist again? Ever have another stent? Or bypass surgery? And some may call this "death panels". Is it?
With the baby boomers aging out and looking at maybe 20 percent with memory disorders, there are going to have to be tough decisions made. In many cases they are going to be divorced with no kids. (Roughly a third are childless.)
Like it or not folks, funds are not unlimited. I'm not giving answers here, but I'm asking questions. And I do want that senior pastor to preach that sermon, give guidance to the congregation on what we as Christians should do with our elderly population as they face that last six months to a year of life. Do we have a moral/ethical obligation to spend say a million dollars to prolong someone's life by one/two months. Or do we simply say, make them comfortable pain free and let God act? Tough decisions, no easy answers.
I throw the floor open for discussion. And be polite and don't feed the trolls.
THKrupp| 3.2.12 @ 9:22AM
In my opinion the reasonable approach is that families must have a conversation much sooner than the last 6 months of life. Its irresponsible to let your family members take the burden of deciding if you should live or die with out some prior guidence from you. One way to do this would be to require some sort of end of life planning with everyone who has insurance. I would guess that most people do not want to linger on in the hopes that they can gain a few more hours or days of life that are filled with pain and no hope. Perhaps I am wrong in this but most people I know do not want to kept alive at all costs. I have discussed this with my parents as well as with my siblings. I am not anywhere near the age that this should be an immediate concern but one never knows what can happen. My parents have laid this out in their wills as well as let their wishes be known to my siblings and I. Its not pleasant to think about but its something that is imperative to think about long before it is needed.
THKrupp| 3.2.12 @ 9:28AM
Having said what I said above. I do not believe that euthanasia is morally acceptable. There is a difference between letting nature take its course and actively ending someones life.
Occam's Tool| 3.2.12 @ 12:52PM
Nathan, no trolling here, but you have obviously not heard of the term "slippery slope."
Most people have advanced directives when they go in the hospital. And surprisingly, I have seen very few horribly demented patients whose families want to do "full court press" on them. And I was a psychiatrist for 30 nursing homes in Alabama, doing dozens of competency evaluations for medical decision making for many patients.
Wait until it happens to you. It has already happened to me in my life, with my grandparents, where my folks turned to their psychiatrist son for guidance.
THKrupp| 3.2.12 @ 1:59PM
Occam,
Out of curiosity, in the case of a person with severe dimentia or other mental illness, where there is no family and no prior guidence to medical staff. Who makes the decisions about care on behalf of the patient?
Mike Hawk| 3.3.12 @ 8:54AM
A guardian.
jcrew| 3.3.12 @ 5:23PM
I think they flip for it. My question is who cares, if they don't have family they obviously weren't nice to begin with.
VBMax| 3.2.12 @ 3:04PM
Re: "slippery slopes"
Aside from abortion on demand recognized as legal for decades, Obama also voted as a senator to deny babies born during botched abortions to receive medical care and to die unaided.
His "signature" health law, Obamacare, sets up death panels to decide life or death for the elderly.
So, that covers the newborns and the elderly.
A recent newspaper article by two so-called "medical ethicists" is now touting the killing of babies, their justification being that babies are not persons any more than fetuses are and we are aborting those. These people are obsessed with killing and we need to put a stop to it.
jcrew| 3.3.12 @ 5:21PM
I have never heard "slippery slope", what a great and original thought. Any minute now junior league journalists and pundits will be using that one. Mark my words, I was right about button fly jeans too.
Dai Alanye | 3.2.12 @ 1:08PM
Health Savings Accounts. Let the customer decide how to spend his own money.
jcrew| 3.3.12 @ 5:25PM
Health Savings Accounts is an incomplete sentence. Try out some verbs, nouns and maybe even some prepositions to liven things up a bit. You are welcome miss.
jstwndring| 3.6.12 @ 12:31AM
Are all these comments by you your sad attempt at wit? You never argue the merit of an ideal. I know why this is true, however. It is because you are so far in over your depth here, that you cannot possibly begin to put together a response that would intelligently engage the one you are targeting with your nonsense. I noticed, for example, that Dai Alayne's comment on Health Savings Accounts grabbed your attention. You, being a political leftist, are instinctively opposed to anything that would give a citizen more control over their own future. Because of this, any mention of Health Savings Accounts frightens you. But, rather than making an attempt at a reasoned counter-argument, you try your hand at what you think sounds like a clever jab at their grammatical skills. Wow. Let me catch my breath, while I marvel at your command of the English language!
One if...| 3.2.12 @ 6:48PM
Just let them go. No need to spend your life savings or take out loans. It's like buying a used car at new its new car price knowing it will only last a month or so. You can not legislate morailty at any level of goverment, state or federal.
jcrew| 3.3.12 @ 7:48PM
I believe it is important to note that Madison also firmly believed in Instant Replay for the NFL. Now look how long a game takes, it's ridiculous. As far as your comment, you are absolutely right. Except for the stuff having to do with healthcare. You couldn't be more wrong there my friend.
WRTolkas| 3.2.12 @ 8:28AM
Dear Nathan,
I am copying your elegant and thoughtful comments for my preacher to read. Just to let you know, I have been in one instance instrumental and another peripherally involved with end of life decisions. In both cases the monetary costs of prolonging life were not part of the decision; but quality of life. In my way I was a bringer of death. And in both instances, for an old man and a young man, to this day I know I made the correct decisions. I let G_d take over.
One if...| 3.2.12 @ 6:50PM
o - Go ahead and spell it out. HE deserves to have HIS name spelled fully without fear of stupid censorship or comments from others.
Clint| 3.2.12 @ 8:36AM
What Does This Have To Do With Ron Paul?
Asshats.
Dai Alanye | 3.2.12 @ 1:10PM
Whenever Clint sees the word "troll" he assumes it refers to RonPaul.
Clint| 3.2.12 @ 6:14PM
That Was The Israel Firster Smear Bund Poseur Poster, Dumb Ass Israel Firster Smear Bund Buffoon, Dai Job.
Call Your Mancrush, Bibi.
Clint| 3.2.12 @ 8:56AM
Uh Oh !
The Israel Firster Smear Bund Poseur Poster Coward Is In The Building.
Call Your Mancrush, Bibi.
DRed| 3.2.12 @ 9:00AM
All overturning the IPAB will accomplish is making us spend more money on healthcare. Insurance companies want this gone so they can get more money out of the government. Having the government involved in health care but preventing the government from imposing cost controls is the worst of both worlds. Either repeal 'Obamacare' or let the IPAB stand. Hollering about Death Panels is useless demagoguery.
JJ| 3.2.12 @ 1:49PM
No its not just repeal Obamacare. There is no other choice.
jcrew| 3.3.12 @ 5:27PM
Actually you do have another choice. Just go along with it and spend more time with the grandkids.
Nite| 3.2.12 @ 7:35PM
How would you like 15 unelected unconfirmed individuals (the biggest part of the group is financial) holding the power of life or death over you? If you have not read the different parts of his Board and additional regulations, then you do not know what you are talking about.
Mimi| 3.2.12 @ 9:03AM
Ross .....How the HECK old are you ?.....If you get in your 70's you gotta be concerned when the Government starts going anywhere near what kind of care you deserve, desire, can pay for, what you look like, on and on...This does not MATCH with a FREE country.
I like to feel that me, myself , my doctor , my loved ones in case I'm not with it...do the deciding....NOT what-ever , future president or government person, or money counter, a GOP or darn Democrat deciding these kind of things.
We all know this mess of a OBAMA-CARE has to go....God only knows where this will lead....
We still have work to do to weed out ALL the culprits ...The creators and the ones who put it into effect!!!
Linda| 3.2.12 @ 9:42AM
Another of Obiwans's Notzy idea's shoot down. Keep your eyes out for what-ever else he can play Hitler with!
jcrew| 3.3.12 @ 5:30PM
You are really making a good argument for euthanasia every time you make a comment. Let's not forget abortion too, you deserve a gold star for your helmet. Don't worry, you'll figure out how to use that fork with the cork on the end of it. Persistence is the American way young fella.
Naturalborn Texicanette| 3.2.12 @ 10:30AM
I think many people look at death as THE END. And it's not!
I am not afraid to die...I just don't WANT to die. I know where I'm going when I DO die and so have an assurance, a promise that gives me confidence concerning my well-being in the after life.
All because of my faith.
I have compassion for those don't have the assurance that I do...especially those who believe that when they die it is the end of life, of everything, and that there is nothing but aa empty void left.
There IS an after life for all....the choice you make determines which afterlife you will have.
JESUS IS!!!!!!
Mimi| 3.2.12 @ 12:01PM
When you get a certain age, know the goodness and accomplishment of a life well lived....you are more proned to have that acceptance....but I demand one thing...that GOD decides not some darn Sebelius-LIKE Government official!!!
Dave Williams| 3.2.12 @ 1:40PM
Oh, for Pete's sake....there is NO evidence of ANY sort (let alone anything resembling PROOF) that there is any survival of any sort. Smash a light bulb, and where does the light go? It's GONE -- duh -- and I defy anyone to show me that this analogy to the human body and soul is in any way flawed. Yes, the thought of eternal oblivion is quite terrifying, but adults FACE their fears, rather than hiding behind hopeful fantasies of eternal life. Grow up, please.
VBMax| 3.2.12 @ 2:42PM
Dave,
Your analogy is fatally (pun intended) flawed. I'm sorry that you see yourself as nothing more than an inanimate object. There are thousands of years of contemplation, study and reflection on the subject of the human soul. Maybe, you ought to study some of it yourself. There exist some who remember their own past lives in stunning detail. Just because YOU can't perceive it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Brian Mc| 3.2.12 @ 2:48PM
So, an individual who happens to be 'religious' is, in your estimation, not...mature? It is nice to finally find a person on this site who is omniscient. Now I can confidently come to you for all the answers that I've been searching for all these years...!
Thomas F. Williams | 3.2.12 @ 3:34PM
Would rather believe all my life and be wrong than not and be wrong.
jcrew| 3.3.12 @ 5:31PM
I guess you'd rather be simple all your life too. Good on ya mate.
Simon Templar| 3.3.12 @ 12:11PM
DW, what is it about faith and religion do you not get. Please explain to me just why you have to take the man's faith as an insult to you and a matter of immaturity.
People believe all sorts of things in this world, somethings less benevolent, others rather innocuous, and some things rather very strange. So what? Is it harming you as Jefferson said? What do you not get about the first ammendment?
I think it is you that needs to grow up and drop that axe you are grinding? Learn some respect, class, and tolerance.
jcrew| 3.3.12 @ 5:39PM
Simone,
The part I don't get is the whole molest little boys thing. Speaking of respect, class and tolerance is there anything besides those things the conservatives seriously lack? Besides a halfway competent Presidential candidate of course. Oh and intellect, nearly forgot that one.
loulou| 3.2.12 @ 11:01AM
What is that medication that the FDA refused to approve for the treatment of breast cancer because its effectiveness wasn't quite good enough for the Death Panel?
JJ| 3.2.12 @ 1:47PM
The FDA is already a death panel.
Louis Jenkins| 3.2.12 @ 1:01PM
Cyanide wouldn't be good enough for the death panels. They'd prefer a long rope and a short drop. Quicker by a bit.
jcrew| 3.3.12 @ 5:41PM
If you had a long rope wouldn't that make for a longer drop? I mean I'm not into lynching like you guys but that would seem to make sense.
JJ| 3.2.12 @ 1:46PM
Sounds to me Ross would rather keep the death panel. We could have Romney lose in November and still have the death panel with his logic.
robert derrick| 3.2.12 @ 2:18PM
Yes, but you can also be to politically astute by far... afteral you have to consider two basic things: 1) the DUTY of good American leaders to be rid of such a ready-made atrocity of death panels. And depending on the next election, this may be their only real chance. 2) Remember the Liberals: they hate ANY loss of GVT power, as well as admitting they were 'wrong'. So why would they go against their own nature and pass it in the senate? Much less Obama signs it. So, voila, the Death Panel grenade now with the pin pulled in their own laps...
Mimi| 3.2.12 @ 3:46PM
Ameritopia....start reading it...Take in a little of Locke....he knew the difference between Gov't power ( Kings ) ruling with lack of permission and how by nature , man deserves to live free.! All will realize the stark difference between the Obama's of this world and Liberty.
The man is anathema to America....most of us will never " fit" the RULED he erroneously thinks we are!
jcrew| 3.3.12 @ 5:33PM
Take in a little Locke....I bet that's what he said to all the buys back in the day. It's spelled government, it's really not that much more work to type it all out. You are just another lazy liberal, how disappointing.
jcrew| 3.3.12 @ 5:35PM
I meant boys sorry, I got a little worked up and had to type one-handed.
Your Inner Voice| 3.2.12 @ 3:34PM
Short version of the above: The Dead Elephant Zombie Party has both enabled and aquiesced to the expansion of the federal government's power over individuals and states, in direct contravention to the Constitution, and have acted like Marxists when in power themselves.
Our representatives get elected on promises to uphold the Constitution, and enforce its authority, and then turn into Marxists as soon as they finish "solemnly swear"-ing to uphold it.
Once Romney gets installed as the titular head representative of the Dead Elephant Party for his mythical run against our present dictator, we will begin to see the final dissolution of Republican Party, as Juan Amnesty McVain (the Other Soros Candidate) was the last straw for millions of true conservatives.
Laura Rose| 3.2.12 @ 3:48PM
After reading an article the other night about how medical ethicists have concluded that killing a newborn infant is no different than an abortion, I had a nightmare that Kathleen Sebelius came into the delivery room after I gave birth and took my baby from my arms as she said "I'm sorry you have not been approved for a birth certificate, we are going to have to euthenize". This is the kind of terror these people strike in my heart. It may have just been a bad dream, but it is just not a comfortable feeling with these people having so much power. Maybe I should write a dystopian novel with the creepy inspiration I get from an overbearing government.
Laura Rose| 3.2.12 @ 3:55PM
Bush annoyed me with his you are with us or against us attitude, Obama's you are ours to control whether you are with us or against us attitude terrifies me.
Yipppee K| 3.2.12 @ 4:09PM
I sometimes think of freedoms other eras of humanity enjoyed that we lost to creeping socialism so long ago as to not remember them at all any more (hunting rights come to mind). Those people would look as us with horror and pity and wonder how we can stand to live as such slaves. I wish we could reverse the decay and actually progress back to a healthier, freer, less putrid social and economic political consensus.
Yipppee K| 3.2.12 @ 4:05PM
So we should leave death panels in place, gambling that Boehner will move on to greener pastures and somehow, miraculously, a leader with real brass ones will come along and suddenly the Republican Party will actually follow through on the promises it continually makes and breaks? I don't see the logic of that play. It's like gambling on fourth and goal with three quarters of football ahead and the score even. Why wouldn't we take the field goal? Not taking it makes no sense.
David| 3.2.12 @ 5:59PM
THKrupp, the problem with Living Wills and other Directives to Physicians about end-of-life matters, is that the documents are signed sometime decades before they are confronted with such decisions about life and death, and quality of life and pain, etc..
Many people who said 20 years ago that they would not want to live in pain, change their minds when they are face to face with death. They often choose to accept a lesser quality of life to continue living.
TrueBlue | 3.2.12 @ 6:26PM
Simply put, people in this country would not want government run healthcare if they had a clue how it actually works out for those who currently have it and aren't part of the political elite.
I have a friend of mine that is on a government health insurance policy (he's a civil service employee). He has been waiting for TWO WEEKS just to get authorization for an MRI on his busted hand that HIS DOCTOR REQUESTED.
THAT is how government healthcare looks folks. Something as simple as an MRI on an obviously damaged hand (the thing is half again its normal size right now) takes over two weeks just to be approved, let alone fit into a schedule afterwards.
shipley130| 3.3.12 @ 5:01PM
I have a question about Medicare concerning all. Where any of you ever briefed by any government official that you may or may not receive certain medical care? I know I wasn't. We were just forced to pay into a system with no questions asked. Government Tyranny always seems to start with the democrats. The Republicans continue it.
jcrew| 3.3.12 @ 5:44PM
I think you mean were not where. Dig difference there Mr. Webster. As far as your point well if you had one it would probably not make sense anyways. Happy Holidays Richard!
shipley130| 3.3.12 @ 7:26PM
Are you having a bad comment day?
jcrew| 3.3.12 @ 7:39PM
Yes I am, just got some welfare money so I've had a few 40's and some Vicodin. Throws me off my game but you got to get your swerve on am I right?
shipley130| 3.3.12 @ 5:09PM
Some of us will remember is was Obamacare that had the death panels in place in the first place. You can't go around advocating a middle man with a kill switch and then realize suddenly that the kill switch really worked.
jcrew| 3.3.12 @ 7:42PM
I just upgraded to the Kill Switch on my Halo game. Since I get unemployment I'm a professional video game player. Don't hate me cause you ain't me there John Travolta.
WM| 3.3.12 @ 5:37PM
While this is an intriguing argument, I would make two counterpoints.
1. There is the moral argument. Since IPAB basically rations care, it is an extra atrociously degree of wrong. Therefore, we should put any political advantage considerations aside and oppose it. When you fail to oppose something so evil, you really do open the door to greater evils and dangers. For example, if we don't show resistance to IPAB, then we are sending a signal to the SCOTUS that we are not that inflamed about the consequences of Obamacare.
2. The argument of the column is basically to keep things going, prevent the system from falling apart. But sometimes, you just have to tell Atlas to Shrug. This really is one of those times. Instead of trying to save people from the long-term consequences of a ponzi scheme, it's time to let them have it. When costs spiral out of control, people will have to have the discussion about the illegitimacy of social programs and abolish Medicare.
Ross Kaminsky | 3.4.12 @ 10:28AM
WM,
My son's middle name is Rand.
I want this system dismantled. The best chance of doing it is keeping it as terrible as possible while it lasts and removing the Dem argument that it can be modified and then be OK.
JJ| 3.4.12 @ 1:29PM
Do you have the same view on the economy?
Mike Hawk| 3.3.12 @ 9:11PM
Obamacare's next step?? Dispatched by the Death Panels?? Are mobile death squads coming under O-care?? THink about it.
"Dutch mobile euthanasia units to make house calls"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl.....asia-units
Merlin| 3.5.12 @ 3:47AM
This article shows why we do not want Romney or any other RINO. Compromise with bad legislation is still bad legislation.
jstwndring| 3.6.12 @ 12:51AM
I agree that it is dangerous to play the game of dismantling Obamacare piece by piece. If we leave any of it in, the Democrats will just be able to quickly rebuild it whenever they get the chance. Strip it out in its entirety and force the Democrats to make the enormously unpopular move of trying to implement it again. Of course, if Romney gets the nod and eventually wins, the framework that is Obamacare is here to stay.