Before the usual suspects jump in and once again declare Sarah a 'nothing, of no consequence'. For a 'nothing' she certainly gets an inordinate amount of attention from lefties.

It wasn't so long ago these same individuals were crowing about the 'death of conservatives and the Republican party'. Now all they bitch about is how "obstructionist" we are. Never knew the 'dead' could do so much.

Sarah Palin is a very important voice in this debate. It is because of her that the end of life counciling was dropped, for now at least, from the Democrats' health care plans.

End of life counseling has not been dropped entirely. The 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill contains end of life counseling. Can somebody explain why there is not outcry to remove it?

"an independent panel of experts that would make medical decisions with cost cutting in mind"

In other words the Czars are aligned and your numbers up.

Some might ask, "Why isn't Palin giving the Republican response to Obama's speech?"

A response is just that, a response. Defensive, and weak.

This op-ed from Palin is a pre-emptive attack from a position of strength upon Obama's speech. That speech will now seem like a defensive response to Palin.

Sarah Palin speaks for the American citizen protesters that have been disparaged by the elites in Congress and more importantly by the so called journalists in the press and television. Now that Sarah has freed herself from govt. office she can speak freely without the threat of lawsuits. Palin in 2012.

HMMMMM, if by PUMMELING you mean blatantly lying well, then, Yes, Scarah has done it again.
As governor of Alaska Palin SUPPORTED the end of life couseling she is now calling DEATH PANELS. She was FOR it!
Why doesn´t someone just CALL her on that???
I guess they HAVE, but her rabid supporters aren´t letting it sink in. She´s playing YOU again....like a fiddle!
This is very disingenuous of her.

Sarah Palin-Tonya Harding 2012!

DEO

Advocating someone look at creating a living will.
So in the event of Medial situation where you might not be able to speak for yourself your wishes can be carried out.

Is different from having a government panel try and reduce cost by counseling people at age 65 and greater. This taken with positions that end of life care is too expensive. The advocacy of Cuban Socialize where babies are aborted if they have Down syndrome or other issues. The other argument which will be made is well there Death Panels today in form of HMO etc.
When it private you can appeal to the Government. When the Government is final authority their is no appeal.

hcddbz -

For DEO, there's no difference. He's been told it's the same, he's made no effort to check whether it's the same or not, and he doesn't see WHY he should check since he trusts those who told him it was the same.

After all, isn't an apple the same thing as an orange since they both come from a tree?

Is there no one can explain the lack of an outry to remove end of life counseling that currently exists through the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill?

Apparently the KOS sent out their memo for the day trying to compare apples and oranges. You lefties should at least do some cursory digging into the facts before you spew them. ww

WildWillie,

I did my digging. There are no significant differences between the end of life counseling in the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill and what Obama is proposing.

The govt was out of the way from 2001 to 2007. And NO reform took place. Why was that?

I did not weigh in the debate itself. I SAID when Palin was Governor, before she QUIT....she SUPPORTED what she is now she saying she doesn´t support.
You seem to be missing the point....I have not looked into it thoroughly, I am saying if Palin says TWO things, then one of them is going to be a contradiction.
She SUPPORTED this not 2 years ago, now they are DEATH PANELS and not so good...
It´s called PANDERING. Palin is pandering to a base now, because NOW she knows what to say. Before she was tapped as VP nominee, she weighed in on THIS subject QUITE DIFFERENTLY.

It´s like a series of publicity stunts. They have no basis in what she really believes because she keeps changing her tune. MAYBE YOU SHOULD LOOK INTO WHAT PALIN SAID BEFORE. That was my point.
Pandering, publicity ,palin....

The left created Palin and now they can't get rid of her. If they had treated her as just another VP candidate she would now be a backwater politician as McCain's confession about his ignorance of economics during last fall's economic storm would have sunk him anyway, well that and the foolish move of suspending his campaign. By trying to label Palin as a dunce the left can't ignore her comments even now least she prove that it's the left who are the dunces. As such, it's the left who has given Palin the recognition no other Republican currently has.

I did my digging. There are no significant differences between the end of life counseling in the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill and what Obama is proposing.

The end of life counseling you talk about was in HR3200, which is the house bill. It's not Obama's proposal, at least not yet.

The 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill has a far more limited scope than HR3200, which affects the entire healthcare system in the U.S., not just Medicare. The difference in scope is what's significant.

You seem to be missing the point....I have not looked into it thoroughly, I am saying if Palin says TWO things, then one of them is going to be a contradiction.

You are assuming incorrectly that supporting living wills is the same thing as death panels. They are not. Living wills are produced by the individual, so that in case they become incapacitated their own "will" can be followed. You can say in your living will that you want all possible measurers taken to extend your life at any cost, or you can say let me die. A death panel is other people deciding this for you. They are not anything alike.

If you are so concerned about what Palin said before then what about Obama's prior statements about limiting end-of-life care? He's changed his tune now, so according to you his speeches are "like a series of publicity stunts."

Deo -

"I have not looked into it thoroughly"...

And there's your problem. You're too busy trying to shove out a meme that supports your point of view to actually check whether it's accurate or misstated, or even whether it's relevant or not.

Of course, folks on the right should never be allowed to change their opinions based on what they may learn. Once someone says something, that should be locked in forever and always as their only possible position, correct?

Folks on the left, however, are allowed opinions as malleable as wet clay. If they don't get a good reception on something, then they're allowed to restate, reframe, revise, rework, and if need be go into rehab - after which it's as if they never said anything at all and it's all fresh again!

It's getting predictable, and more than a little boring.

All we must forgive DEO. The MSM says it, then it must be true
.
He most likely delieves Bidden knew what he was saying durring the VP
Debate though we all knew he either lied or has never read our founding docs.

Re: It´s like a series of publicity stunts. They have no basis in what she really believes because she keeps changing her tune. MAYBE YOU SHOULD LOOK INTO WHAT PALIN SAID BEFORE.

I believe Obama has rendered this argument null and void.

Clearly, Sarah Palin did not write that editorial. Obviously someone is ghost writing for her. The grammar and sentence structure is NOT Sarah Palin's

It makes you wonder who's behind her -- who is playing puppeteer...

Palin isn't a person any more - and she isn't a politician - she's a brand. A symbol. A toy. A trinket to hold up and attract the attention of the conservative electorate.

Whose ideas is she espousing? She's still a dunce - now the dunce hides behind someone else's words.

Who is putting words in Sarah Palin's mouth?

Do you notice that she doesn't give these speeches verbally any more? Someone is writing this and putting Sarah Palin's name to it.

Who?

Vic

Clearly, Sarah Palin did not write that editorial. Obviously someone is ghost writing for her. The grammar and sentence structure is NOT Sarah Palin's

Geezus H Christ, Vic. Where the hell did you come up with that little goody? Are you so illiterate, that you have to have someone write for you? Oh, I forgot you came from the pages of the Daily Kos and the Democrat Underground. Of course Sarah Palin wrote that op-ed, unlike the idiot that currently occupies the White House, who can't even string a sentence together without a teleprompter.

Typo (kinda) alert: the link to Palin's article is incorrectly setup as a "mailto:" link

Waiting for the headline - "Congressmen ask schools for air time to rebut President's remarks. Plan to make a case for dropping out and exploring drug use option."

Watch it Stan, you'll hurt VIC's feelings. They don't like to mention the "T" word in the same sentence with Barry's name. Brings up all kinds of You-Tube vignettes of Barry errr...ing and ahhh...ing and uhhhh...ing. Takes away the idea of a 'polished speaker'.

On the other hand, VIC's comment is the usual liberal meme that Sarah is an idiot who cannot read, much less string 3 or 4 multi-syllabic words together in a coherent sentence.

The reason that you can't find traces of 'Death Panels' in the section of HR3200 that references end-of-life counseling is because it isn't there. But the Liberals want the American Public to think that is what we are referencing.

No 'Death Panels' is a combination of everything Obama has said in reference to his views on end of life care and cost-saving measures. 'Death Panels' are about the references to boards being set up in the Stimulus Package to come up with Best Solutions in regard to cost expenditure on Health Care relating to individuals in certain demographics.

End-of-Life counseling is what most people who went to look at the bill after hearing Palin's statement found and rallied around. There is nothing wrong with letting people know their options when it comes to a living will. However when you have a Govt run health system, and the Govt is looking at where it can cut costs. Subtly leading people to end their lives rather than hope for a cure if they are unable to make their own decisions is certainly a way to cut costs.

This is typical Progressive/Liberal argument, lets not attack the problem, lets attack the person who is causing the problem.

Think Progress, the Democratic policy and media-watch group, has come up with an amazing discovery. Sarah Palin was in favor of voluntary, private counseling so that people could put their end-of-life affairs in order, before she was against government bureaucrats getting involved in a mandatory process as part of health care restructuring cost savings efforts.

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/faux-anti-palin.html

the original verbiage in HR3200, since dropped, called for re-curring and essentially mandatory "end of life counseling".

"essentially mandatory" because the original lanaguage suggested (and left fuzzy) conditions where refusal to accept the counseling could lead to the withholding of treatment. Further, this "counseling" was not something the patient would request, but rather something that EVERY 5 YEARS the Doctor would "incentivized" to "offer".

This isn't a "slippery slope"...it's a cliff. Every 5 years, like clock-work, elderly patients would have had the "pleasure" of being reminded they could end it all at any time...relieving society and their families of the burden they had become...and leaving behind all thjos ahces and pains of old age! What fun anniversaries to look forward to, eh?

Then, of course, there are the "cost effectivness panels"...where accountants and beurocrats would happily calculate how much could be spent on those older patients, based on cold hard actuarial tables!!

Oh boy! If my name was Logan, I'd start running now!

Geezus H Christ, Vic. Where the hell did you come up with that little goody?

Heh. The left has a tremendous amount of capital invested in the "Sarah Palin is crazy" and "Sarah Palin is a dummy" myths, and so what you see here is Vic desperately spinning to keep his investment from going down the drain.

Which is why Mrs. Palin is so much fun. With every word she utters, she drives the left into a pants-wetting frenzy.

Here's one of Palin's ghostwriters -- Lynn Vincent.

Who is Lynn Vincent? To start with, she's a Christian conservative with quite an axe to grind.

Vincent is the Features Editor at WORLD Magazine (tagline: Today's News | Christian Views) where she also keeps a gag-inducing blog of inspiration quotes worth of any small town newspaper. Her editor, Marvin Olasky, is no stranger to gag-worthy quotes.[...]

She's ghost-written two man-finds-God books: The Prodigal Comes Home: My Story of Failure and God's Story of Redemption, about a Christian gospel singer than knocked up his mistress, was divorced by his wife, fxxxed around a lot, did some drugs and wrote a book about how much God loves him; and Never Surrender: A Soldier's Journey to the Crossroads of Faith and Freedom about finding God through escaping death, killing other people and "overseeing the gathering and exploitation of intelligence during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq." Exploitation is right...

Oh God... "they" (whoever "they" is) have decided to use religion and God to control the masses.

Well, it worked for Karl Rove and George Bush - and look how far the nation progressed under those 8 years of neo-con puppeteering.

I wish conservatives had enough intelligence to see through these manipulators. Using God to pick their pockets and get their votes is such an obvious ploy.

But if it didn't work they wouldn't do it.

Vic

Oh, and this is an outright lie.

"the original verbiage in HR3200, since dropped, called for re-curring and essentially mandatory "end of life counseling".

"essentially mandatory" because the original lanaguage suggested (and left fuzzy) conditions where refusal to accept the counseling could lead to the withholding of treatment. "

Come on you puppets, grow up and be human.

Vic

"Using God to pick their pockets"

I'd rather have God pick My pockets than have some Chicago thugoonery types stick up My kids futures You idiot.

DEO

Sarah Palin was in favor of voluntary, private counseling so that people could put their end-of-life affairs in order, before she was against government bureaucrats getting involved in a mandatory process as part of health care restructuring cost savings efforts.

Did you read and understand the GLARING differences, motivations and outcomes of the two positions?

Why did HR3200 target 65?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_PU6S0iok2FbS368B7d7mAM

With her Salon column, Camille has given notice to Bambam and his handlers: You will be whipped until the stench of rendering is past.

Let the litigation begin.

It's funny how dopey libtards come over here and write how "illiterate" and "dumb" Sarah Palin is. Meanwhile, as they sit in a puddle in their double-wides or hybrid vehicles in their underwear hosting yeast infections or scrotum-osis they ALL know in their tiny brains that they will never aspire to her heights.

an interesting analysis of the ORIGINAL language regarding end of life counseling:
http://doctorrw.blogspot.com/2009/08/hr-3200-end-of-life-counseling.html

bottom line: the meaning of "Shall" in several sections, and the impact it has on phrases regarding "in the past 5 yeras" is where the serious questions arise.

One lawyer in the piece suggess Congress could have easily clarified this (and provides easy to understand langauge they COULD have used)...and that their deliberate decision NOT to is itself troubling. I agree.

Vic:

"Clearly, Sarah Palin did not write that editorial. Obviously someone is ghost writing for her. The grammar and sentence structure is NOT Sarah Palin's".

I've heard this sentiment from Palin haters ever since she started writing op-eds in newspapers and documented essays on Facebook. Since its so clear to you, can you produce any links to writings by Palin that show the "grammar and sentence structure" of the "real" Palin.

WONDER WOMAN has given the memeber of the legion of doom a trashing YYYEEEHHHHAAAWWW

"Scrotum-osis? Is it catchy like hemoritis? Or even worse liberalitis?

"Clearly Sara Palin did not write that article. Obviously someone is ghostwriting for Her."

Yes VIC, the teleprompter was so bored teaching the idiot to speak, that he grew a set and went courtin Sarah.

Makes about as much sense as You do.

"talk with one another, and not over one another"

Wait just a minute. I thought we were supposed to get in each others faces. He keeps changing the rules.

And Vic: "Someone is writing this and putting Sarah Palin's name to it.

Who?"

Who is writing Obama's op eds and speeches? Who?! On the other hand, we all know who writes your drivel.

"Someone is writing this and putting Sarah Palin's name to it.
Who"-ViO

I would guess John Fund, the dumbed-down, striped-pants Pologgio of our time, who seems almost smart when compared to the newer batches of conveyor belt claxonheads he might be seen with from time to time.

Fund wrote all of Rush Limbaugh's...tomes, for example, and he's a known troubleshooter and mouthpiece for News Corporation and Wall Street in the public realm of "ideas". The board of directors of the Wall Street Journal and News Corporation (Fox) are identical, of course.

"The board of Directors of the Wall Street Journal and News Corporation (FOX) are identical of course."

Of course. How nefarious of them. Given Your best guesstimate, how do You not conclude its Rupert Murdoch or Pat Roberts or some other rightwing Nazi zealot?

If this were Golf You Trolls would be kicking ass judging by the handicaps.

"Sarah Palin pummels Obama and the Democrats Once again!

Well, if You have to take out the trash, You may as well look good while doing it!

Fund wrote all of Rush Limbaugh's...tomes, for example

Hee hee hee, this is pretty funny. Got any evidence for this, or is this another bryanD factoid you pulled out of your ass?

BryanD,
Citations. AS I said the last time you brought up the claim that Fund wrote Limbaughs books, where's the evidence? I don't recall Fund ever stating he did. They collaborated on one, that they've both said.
Or did you read that in Jack Chick?

Here's one of Palin's ghostwriters -- Lynn Vincent.

Uh, no, actually, Lynn Vincent has yet to ghostwrite anything for Mrs. Palin. Certainly not the WSJ article.

Got anything else, or are you going to just continue to make stuff up?

VIC - "Here's one of Palin's ghostwriters"

And here is one of obama's, but I'm sure that won't be a problem for you as he doesn't have an "R" behind his name.

And BTW, show me one President, Senator or Rep of either political persuasion had hasn't used a "ghost writer" at some point.

And while you're pondering that puzzle perchance you can find out who will be writing Palin's speech to be given during the CLSA Investors Forum, a well-known annual conference of global investment managers, in Kong Kong.

Previous speakers there have been Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Alan Greenspan so... go ahead and tell me the people behind CLSA Investors Forum are just as dumb as Palin and is why she was chosen.

As is I said in Post #1, for a 'nothing', Sarah sure gets lefties' panties all twisted up.

Van Jones, Rev. Wright, and other notables are Obama's speech writers and puppet masters. The fool is sinking. Throw him an anchor. ww

Sarah P says: "The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem."

Hey, it works for Canada, and just about all the other advanced industrialized nations. Let's look at the Canada - U.S. comparison, shall we?

Canadian infant mortality rate per 1,000: under 5
U.S.: about 7

Canadian life expectancy: around 80 years
U.S.: about 77

Canadian per capita expenditure on health care: under $3,000
U.S.: around $5,800

source: http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/health-care-for-all/1503

More money spent for insurance industry profits and overhead, as well as for worse results -- hey, that's the conservative way!

The 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill has a far more limited scope than HR3200, which affects the entire healthcare system in the U.S., not just Medicare. The difference in scope is what's significant.

Mac Lorry,

Why is the scope significant?

There were 6 million jews killed in concentration camps. If the nazis reduced there scope and only killed one million jews would that make it acceptable?

As of January 30, 2007 there was nearly 24 million individuals exposed to death panels through the prescription drug bill. That is 4 times as many as were killed in nazi concentrtion camps. How can you find that acceptable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D#Number_of_participants

highlander - "More money spent for insurance industry profits and overhead, as well as for worse results -- hey, that's the conservative way!"

Psst.... Profit Margins by Industry shows, the industry "Health Care Plans" ranks #86 by profit margin (profits/revenue) at 3.3%. Measured by profit margin, there are 85 industries more profitable than Health Care Plans (included Cigna, Aetna, WellPoint, HealthSpring, etc.).

To paraphrase you: Hey, that's the libturds way demonize an industry over making less than 4 percent return on their investment.

Tina S:

Where have you been hiding? Do you not know that the conservatives HATE that Bush got that Prescription Drug Bill passed?

Tina S,

There were 6 million jews killed in concentration camps. If the nazis reduced there scope and only killed one million jews would that make it acceptable?

The fallacy of your argument is that no one is limited to only Medicare and most people 65 and over also have supplemental insurance. In Healthcare systems like Canada and Sweden, both of which have been held up as examples by the left, you can't opt for additional care even if you are willing and able to pay for it, at least not unless you have the means to leave the country and come to a place like the U.S. for treatment. HR3200 is a takeover of the entire healthcare system, the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill covers only an optional government program. The difference is not only one of size, but between choice and no choice.

And there is a difference between 6 million people being killed and 1 million people being killed: 5 million lives saved. Around 40,000 people are killed every year on U.S. roads and the public accepts it. If there were 240,000 deaths a year the public's reaction would be much different. Yes, size matters.

Mac Lorry,

The fallacy of your argument is your comparing apples and oranges. No one is proposing the same system as Canada or Sweden.

Are you aware that Canada spends less than half of what we do (per person) on health care?

Perhaps the reason that health care is so bad in Canada is that it is under funded.

Do you not know that the conservatives HATE that Bush got that Prescription Drug Bill passed?

So. How come there is no out cry to remove the death panels from it?

Tina S,

The fallacy of your argument is your comparing apples and oranges. No one is proposing the same system as Canada or Sweden.

The fallacy in your argument is that the left holds up Canada and Sweden as models to justify a public option, knowing full well that over time it will result in a single payer system just like Canada and Sweden.

Are you aware that Canada spends less than half of what we do (per person) on health care?

That's because Canada and Sweden ration care by imposing long lines and long delays in getting treatment. Medical treatment delayed is treatment denied.

So. How come there is no out cry to remove the death panels from it?

With 40,000 deaths a year why is there no outcry to close all roads? Well, to answer my own question, it's a matter of numbers. Subjecting recipients of an optional government program to death panels is not the same as subjecting everyone to death panels. I know you don't want to see the difference, but it's real.

Hey, it works for Canada, and just about all the other advanced industrialized nations. Let's look at the Canada - U.S. comparison, shall we?

The WHO numbers were supposed to be used to tell developing countries where to spend dollars. It breaks on developing countries.
It includes murder. So inner city violence where young men do not leave past 25 pulls down the life expectancy rate. Which is not indicative of health care but of violence.

Birth and date rates. However what about actual Health Care
USA has the Highest Cancer Survival Rates in the World.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html

In the USA the average person who does not receive prenatal care is 3.5% .
With AMerican Indians women at 5.5%

While in Single Payer Canada the rate is 8.1%
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2393/8/15

Let have MA healthcare and increase the wait time
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-06-03-waittimes_N.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705

Tina is right, the model that Obama seems to be proposing is most similar to the Swiss model:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html

Now whether that's scalable to the United States is a separate question, but be honest, Mac. Nobody is talking about a single payer system, much as the left wing of the Democratic party would love it. It's not viable in the current political climate. So debate what they're proposing, not a misrepresentation of it.

hyperbolist,

Nobody is talking about a single payer system, much as the left wing of the Democratic party would love it. It's not viable in the current political climate. So debate what they're proposing, not a misrepresentation of it.

That's the point, Democrats are talking about putting us on the road to a single payer system with the public option. Once the left gets it's foot in the door only a fool thinks they will stop "reforming" healthcare until the U.S. ends up with a single payer system.

Ultimately, healthcare has to be rationed; it's just a matter of how do we want to do it. Rather than adapting the "long lines long delays" rationing system that Canada uses, I proposed the individually managed lifetime maximum credit rationing system for it's many advantages. Once we have a rational and planned rationing system then it doesn't matter much if we have a single payer system as it's only function is to collect and pay money. You folks up in Canada might want to change from your "long lines long delays" rationing system to the individually managed lifetime maximum credit rationing system. It will lower costs while providing better care.

Yes Mac, but then some Republicans talk about a "flat tax" and other totally regressive schemes, but then they never try to foist that on the public because the ideas are politically unviable.

Here's the issue for you: you need to worry that people might be persuaded to demand a single payer system, once they've witnessed first-hand how much better a system guaranteeing universal access truly is. What you can't do, however, is conflate a model that is similar to Switzerland's, with what is currently offered in Canada. That's a false equivalency, and you're trying to convince stupid people to accept your argument based on false grounds. Disingenuous. If single payer does follow from universal access, then argue against universal access. Don't lie about what people are talking about now, though.

I do give you full credit for producing an idea that is much, much more compelling than anything put forth by any of the GOP insurance company sycophants. Healthcare will always be rationed, you're correct. However, it's better to have a disinterested party ration it on a first-come, first-serve basis, than an insurance company that is forced by its shareholders to give more weight to profits than considerations of fairness and justice. Unfortunately for the GOP, lots of people do care about fairness and justice when it comes to the general welfare of the citizenry.

A rich person has no more right not to get cancer than a poor person. Any system that is deaf to that moral tautology ought to be scrapped. That's what you're seeing right now. Progress!

Hyperbole,
Either you're staring in the mirror calling
others stupid, from want of your own image,
or you're smearing people you do not know.
So now, who is stupid?