Well, it has been pointed out that there are nonsense spouting right-wing crazies that are officials with an 18 million-strong Baptist Church organization. And that Fox news sponsored and assisted the “tea party” rallies. And that mainstream Republican officials have gone on record talking shite about “death panels” and “doubt about Obama’s birthplace”, and have supported rallys with questionable signs that imply violence against the state…
And on the other hand, Chessic Sense contrasts these examples with groups like ELF or protesters at the G8 or WTO… NONE OF WHICH are supported in ANY WAY by the mainstream left.
That’s the point, which has been made repeatedly. The right wing crazies ARE a part of the mainstream republicans, with access to media, politicians, and religious leaders. The left wing crazies are marginalized groups, who are regularly ignored or at best criticized by the mainstream left politicians and leaders.
I see. So now we’re conflating violence with what you choose to see as crazy. Or are we defining very understandable concerns about death panels under single-payer (whose proper place has even been defended by posters on this very board) as “violence”? This is getting to be confusing.
That’s not a point, it’s a steaming pile of particularly pungent bullshit. Mainstream Republicans are not bombing abortion clinics, shooting doctors, blowing up federal buildings, or playing militia in the woods. People that do that are on the lunatic fringe.
But Mainscream Republicans are hoping to tap into that energy source and mold it to their advantage. Which they cannot do if they publicly renounce, denounce, and condemn. Leastwise, not as easily.
The got the same problem they’ve had for years, how to exploit ignorant people without them catching on.
“Palin’s” death panels aren’t the subject. What are in effect “death panels” is the inevitable result of single-payer health care. It’s unavoidable. Many posters to the very board have acknowledged this. Where have you been?
Yes, and when it’s obvious to anyone that if you have some sort of universal health care (payed for by the people) you also need some checks and balances to prevent millions of dollars per patient going to people only to keep them alive for a few days - unless they’re willing to pay for it themselves - of course it’s not inflammatory or suggestive at all to call groups of trained physicians who make those kinds of decisions “death panels”. Much better if you have a single clerk at an insurance corp making those decisions out of the public view.
But hey, for all I care, you Americans can go back to the old testament rules. I’m not there.
I’ve been looking at the many, many examples of bean counters from private insurance companies in the USA refusing to pay for needed treatment. I’ve been looking at the increased use of Rescission in the USA to cancel policies. I’ve been trying to understand why a pre-existing back problem means that a private insurer can refuse to cover a thyroid treatment. I’ve been looking at the complete lack of anything remotely resembling a “death panel” in any country with UHC.
A waiting list for a knee replacement is not a “death panel”
No insurance coverage in the USA can, however, be a death sentence.
From this I have not gotten that death panels are “unavoidable”
Have you also been counting whether those people were forced to pay into those companies whether they wanted to or not? And have you counted where the denials were legitimate and not covered by the policy in the first place, or are doing like many posters here do and simply assuming that every policy should cover every ailment no matter what the patient is paying for? Sure, there are times when insurance companies don’t play fair, but there are also a lot of times when people are just being unrealistic in expecting more than they are paying for. Does your grocer give you more food than you paid for simply because you need it?
In the case of insurance companies it’s because you have options and contracts, and you can choose not to participate. With government run single-payer you have none of these. Why is this so hard to grasp?
Very few Democrats have any faith in the ability of their party (or Pelosi) to get anything done, but you do? What a twist.
Anyway: the words “death panels” came from Palin. She was not talking about any kind of ultimate UHC system, she was talking about a bill similar to the current one. And there was no honest way to represent the type of counseling she was discussing as a death panel. Even from her, it was a shockingly bold lie. (Not only that, she had the nerve to bring her child into it.) If you’re going to defend that as a sensible concern, you’re welcome to it. But it would invovle a huge shifting of the goal posts, because you and she are talking about different things entirely. Concerns about how those decisions would be made under a UHC system could be legit. What she was talking about was not legitimate concerns. They were absurd lies designed to provoke the ignorant.
Either you participate and support the private company multimillionaire run death panels you have no influence over at all, or you don’t participate and die from lack of health care.
Why do you support privately run death panels over which you have no influence whatsoever, Starving Artist?
What a twist.