She deserves it in my opinion. Whether or not Sarah Palin is a good conservative, she is a divisive, polemic populist that has no place in our national leadership. IMHO, we need leaders who are calm, rational, and can win their arguments by convincing others they have the best policy, allaying fears of the opposition, and compromising where appropriate and/or necessary. Her fear mongering and stirring up hatred to the point where violence seems possible, even probable, by using lies and distortions is reprehensible and has no place in our national politics. Unfortunately, it now seems to be the rule rather than the exception, but I for one am glad that this type of political maneuver is recognized and kept center stage so we can all see what type of person she really is.
(bolding mine)
Okay, continuing to beat the dead horse: the US government is currently paying for the health care of 43million seniors (2006 numbers), many of whom are or will be terminally ill. The US government has been doing that since 1965. Were you not aware of that? Right now they do it for people over 65, what would change if they were doing that for people over 60? Or over 50?
Your statement gives the impression that under UHC the government will be in charge of health care and will want to deny care, even though right now, under what ever it is you have now, the government is in charge of health care but doesn’t want to deny care.
The truth is that from my experience with UHC the government has zero incentive for wanting you to die. Why? Because they are elected and held accountable to the electorate. A candidate running on a “death to old people” platform will lose to the other guy.
The other truth about UHC is that the government doesn’t actually have any real involvement with end of life decisions. There isn’t a bureaucrat in a suit hanging around the hospital. Under UHC, end of life decisions are made by the patient, family, and doctor.
Can you tell me who makes those decisions under your current system?
I realize that as a Canadian with a weak military I shouldn’t be lecturing. But seriously? Do you really trust Palin and Brock Lesnar more?
I agree that there was no death panel in the bill. But I do believe that Americans had a fear of how the government would handle end of life care, and this fear went largely unaddressed by Democrats in their efforts to get a bill passed.
This is why republicans were able to go nuts with the death panel myth.
Unaddressed? The Democrats specifically included end of life counselling in the bill. That is what started the whole thing, when conservatives deliberately misinterpreted the the Democrats’ addressing end of life issues. If anything, I would interpret that as conservatives not wanting to address end of life issues, and attacking anyone who does.
Well, sure. Everything linear has two ends, you know. Once in a while, they’re bound to screw up and apply it to the front end instead of the back end…
Expecially when they happens to be the gummint.
:rolleyes:
You may be unaware of this, but we have UHC for the people this would most likely impact. It is called Medicare. If there were going to be death panels, we’d have them already.
The reason the Republicans were able to go nuts is that they were appealing to gullible buffoons. It is unfortunate that the Big Lie still works, especially on Fox News.
The end of life counseling section in the bill addresses the odd fact that you usually discuss this with your lawyer while drawing up medical directives, but not with your doctor ahead of time. Palin and her ilk made it harder for Americans to get their end of life wishes carried out. Do you think this is a good thing?
So the fact that Democrats specifically included end of life counselling in the health care bill means Democrats addressed end of life issues?
Very often, at the end of life, there are options which could extend the persons life. These options can be very expensive. It might not be cost effective for the government to fit the bill for these options. At what point does the government stop paying?
This is a discussion much bigger than whether or not the government will pay for end of life counselling.
The Republicans don’t have to address end of life issues. This isn’t their bill. They sat this one out so that Democrats could get stuck with the tough questions usually reserved for insurance companies.
So now your problem is that the government wasn’t meddling enough?
It seems like this is where our difference of opinion lies. I believe Republicans were able to go nuts because the bill was not explained well. You believe Republicans were able to go nuts because people the death panel myth worked on were gullible buffoons.
Interestingly enough, nobody I have spoken to in person regarding this bill has any idea what’s in it.
Even aside from the question of whether the counseling is mandatory (or encouraged, or whatever), the bigger issue is that it’s just counseling. End of life counseling means that you talk with your doctor about what’ll happen when you’re dying. Talk, that’s all. Nobody ever died from counseling.
The government has already addressed these issues with the 45 million people on Medicare, the overwhelming majority of whom will die while under its coverage. This is not a new issue that has suddenly reared its head with the Democrat’s bill.
Someone who has no idea of what is in the bill is not trying. There are plenty of places which explain it, in quite some detail.
The clause that stirred the death panel controversy wasn’t explained well because the person proposing it had no idea that anyone would object to paying for you to talk to your doctor about your wishes. Do you think Palin and Fox News has some obligation to not lie about what was in the bill? You are putting the blame on the wrong set of people.
The bill itself is complicated, but it must cover all the bases. Bills are legal documents, and don’t have to be written to be understood by those who read at the sixth grade level.
Palin and Fox are targeting an audience who has no desire or can’t go and understand the issues directly, or are so convinced that Obama is an evil Kenyan Socialist that they won’t listen to any evidence to the contrary. Calling them buffoons is a compliment - cretins is more like it. Did you hear they guy on Social Security refusing to believe it is a Federal program?
True, however right now in the United states, for people lucky enough to have insurance, that decision about whether or not to continue treatment for this little preemie is made by a claims adjustor from a private insurance company, in order to maximize profit for his company.
Actually the Democrats explained the Death Panel portion of the bill very well by not mentioning something that doesn’t exist. They also didn’t mention care for Martians, what happens if you get gored by a unicorn, and how to treat a sudden outbreak of truthfulness by Republicans.
The bill was long enough without adding an exhaustive list of things not in it.
I believe it means different things to different people. As noted older folks who are approaching end of life, sooner or later will be told by a doctor that nothing more can be done and they should get their affairs in order.
Someone else may be told that due to their age in conjunction with having a smoking habit might be told that they are so far down on the list of transplants, that nature will run its course well before any procedure will be administered.
An expectant couple might be told that their child has a high probabiliity of being born with downs or something else, do they wish to terminate the pregnancy at this time. Due to the media , I cant see a child at this time being denied some sort of coverage, despite what the death panels are all about, cute kids in newspaper pictures tend to make politicians squirm, but I have no doubt that abortion would be heavily pushed despite the religious preferences of the family.
As its been said elseware on this thread, we already have death panels of some sort presently, its just a media spin on an existing situation.
Declan
The term “Death panels” is a function of rationing which has been and continues to be a problem in a number of NHS countries. Whether rationing is a deliberate act or a result of insufficient equipment and personal it is something that Americans don’t want.
Is rationing a problem with private insurance companies in the US?
Yes.
Really? I did not know that.
I had heard that once you had insurance, there were no limits on your health care expenses. If you were sick, the insurance company would look after you no matter what, with no limit to your care at all.
Otherwise, why would people even bring up “rationing” with UHC examples?
<sarcasm off>
Not on a national level, no. It’s also better to sue a corporation than a government agency. Better to regulate from outside then from within.