I’ll grant you that Palin may have been talking about the current bill, as she used the term “Obama’s plan”. Yet so many things have been put forth, and so little was known at the time about what would actually transpire, that she may have honestly envisioned a single-payer system as what we were going to wind up with. And it’s hair-splitting really, when you consider that Obama himself as well as other members of Congress have all expressed the desire for a single-payer system. The current plan is only a foot in the door to what many hope will eventually become a single-payer system, and a single-payer system will inevitably result in “death panels” (although in reality they’ll likely be nothing more than bureaucrats sitting in a cubicle somewhere) and denials of other treatments such as hip replacements and so forth because the government deems them not worth the expense.
There is an option to pick an insurance company that doesn’t have a death panel? Please tell us which company that might be.
The words honestly and death panels do not belong in the same sentence.
Dude. What the hell do you think you had before, with the insurance companies freely rescinding coverage on any policy that looked like it was going to cost them bigtime? With lifetime caps on payments preventing care from being provided to the most serious cases? What did you call the corporate committees that decided those things?
Limitations on coverage is an inevitable consequence of limitations on assets. That’s rationing in any system. The issue was whether expensive care should be rationed to the sickest or to the richest.
And this differs from how privately run insurance companies operate how?
Other than the fact that you have no say-so whatsoever about the policies and/or the people that make them when it comes to private companies, of course.
Sure they do. Look around this board a little and you’ll find support for the notion and justifications for it being voiced already.
Still true, I think. Maybe not quite as much.
You’re completely wrong, and since the idiot’s entire statement is online, we can see exactly what she meant.
Well, okay, maybe that’s a general statement about the reform, so you may be right. Unless maybe she made a follow up statement a few days later and made it clear she was talking about a particular provision, and then named that provision.
It’s not. Her statement was a flagrant lie.
Obama has said that if he was creating a health care system from the ground up, it would be single payer. That’s not the same as expressing the desire for one and he’s taken no steps to create one, as the reforms are going to make plenty of money for the private health insurance companies that already exist.
I’m not objecting to the concept of rationing of care. There is no system at all that avoids that - not even the current US one. What I object to is calling a publicly accountable system of rationing death panels, with the clear insinuation that there’s nothing remotely comparable (not even a better system) working at the moment in the US.
And you do now?
Look, I was for this legislation, warts and all. But I don’t look through rose-colored glasses. The reality of the situation is that this law will accomplish absolutely nothing whatsoever if you let people have “say-so” and allow them to make the kind of determination you seem to be implying. Give them half a chance to vote their interests and the costs will be even more out of control than before. You have to know that.
The same decisions are going to be made and the same people are going to die as a result. Hence the idea of “death panels”. The rhetoric was bullshit, but the concept, the idea that someone has to make the determination, still exists, and we can’t legislate that away.
Please, Palin was just talking out of her ass.
Here’s a thread I started on how the death panels might operate.
That’s an interesting future bogey-man that you imagine. Here’s an alternative, reality based idea, that does not include bureaucrats “sitting in cubicles”. In British Columbia, decisions about what medical care is provided is not done on a case by case basis by non-experts in cubicles, as this would be stupid. Rather, it is done by the Medical Services Commission, which is
The Commission’s decisions about medical care and management (which apply to all residents of BC) are public, open, accountable, and include provision for exceptional circumstances of patients.
“…all of which I will now perform, using my shoe box full of finger puppets.”
I can only think, Sam, that you don’t get Fox News, CNN and what ever radio station is broadcasting Limbaugh up there in the Great White North. The level of vitriol coming from the Republican Party, its allies, wholly own subsidiaries, and general noise machine is more than anything I have ever experienced and I’ve been politically aware since Truman’s election.
A coup? No, but an awful lot of noise.
With regard to filling one’s pants at the prospect of being shot at, and Glen Beck’s pants in particular, the experience does tend to loosen the bowels.
Like I said in a previous post on this thread, for all their blustering most of these baggers are just giant pussies. Any hopes they may have of staging a civil war will disappear as soon as they find out that getting shot at hurts and, more importantly, that liberals in fact do know how to defend themselves.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/23/slaughter-threats/
The link describes an organized effort to vandalize Democrats’ offices and a threat to kill the children of lawmakers who supported the bill.
Cool. So just define “violence” however you like, and you’re golden!
Voila! No violence here! Just honest debate (with bricks)
Perhaps we need only explain the benefits of the Soylent Grey program. 
Like I said, these guys are giant pussies. Threatening kids, yeah that’s real tough right there. Real badasses :rolleyes:.
I thought the conservative line was that liberals loved government spending and were against cutting expenses. So why would liberals deny anyone medical services? It’s not like they’re insurance companies that have to worry about profits or conservatives who are against government spending on principle. The liberals will just go ahead and give everyone who wants one a hip replacement at taxpayer expense.
For the same reason that liberals would deny people a new Mercedes (or, considering liberals, perhaps everyone a new Prius ;)). Or everyone a new single family house with big screen TV. Reality rears it’s ugly head. Medical services, just like everything else, is a limited resource. There is only so much to go around…and only so much money available to spend on it. So decisions will have to be made and trade-offs weighed. Does little Jimmy get a new million dollar heart, or do we try and treat him with conventional medications and make his passing as painless (and inexpensive) as possible? Where is the cut off? If little Jimmy has a 50/50 chance? 40/60? 10%? What if little Jimmy is old man McGruff? Do we get him a new liver, or do we treat him instead with conventional drugs and kindness?
There has to be some way to parcel out this limited resource, some way to determine who gets what treatment, how much is spent and under what conditions. That’s the reality of ‘death panels’…it just shifts from some corporations bottom line (or how much care a person can afford or get support for) to some bureaucrats ledger sheet.
Well, it’s not like liberals need to worry about reality, ehe? 
Unfortunately, and irony aside, liberals will have to worry about reality…in a similar way that conservatives have to review their principles. And whether it’s all about an insurance companies profits (a dirty word, to be sure) or the government about it’s bottom line, health care is still a limited resource, and will still have to be rationed and parceled out in some fashion. With more people looking to get health care in the future (something that, FTR, I approve of, at least in theory), that means our current health care resource is going to be stretched even further, until the total amount of the health care pie can be increased (IF it can be substantially increased). I get the impression that people think that there is a tremendous amount of slack in our health care system, that large parts of it are running idle (which the insurance companies are raking in the PROFITS!!). I don’t think this is really the case, unfortunately.
Not sure if this is tongue in cheek or not, but assuming not, let me ask you…how? Sure, they COULD give everyone a hip replacement…but then, what about all the other health care needs? At some point there just isn’t the funds for it. Again, it’s like saying that liberals are in favor of housing for everyone, so they will just give everyone a single family house. That’s great, in theory…but in practice there is simply no way we could do that AND do anything else. Something has to give somewhere…you simply can’t have everything. Even liberals should understand that…
-XT