Not really it is simple.
The First Million Mom March
Posted on 08/23/2009 10:53:25 AM PDT by Williamsburg
Senator McCain in an interview with George Stephanopolis this morning supported Sarah Panel's concern over the end of life provisions in the Democratic health bills.
McCain “tried” to defend her but he could have done a much better job. George is an Obama kiss ass. It’s in the damn bill, geez can’t people read. Not only is it in the bill but now the VA hospitals have “Death Books”
The end of life provision was only a small aspect of what Sarah Palin meant by Death Panels. Sarah was talking about the government rationing health care based on dollar and cents considerations. Of course that is not spelled out in the bill, but it is just the reality of the situation. Why does the media and the left have such a hard time understanding her points. Sarah is usually very clear on her position, but the media finds a way to distort it.
Oh, NOW he tries to stand up and show a spine. Too little, too late. John McCain, STFU.
It’s unfortunate that the furor over this issue prevents any rational discussion of a really serious concern.
As our technical ability to keep people alive longer continues to grow, at some point it is likely to outstrip the ability of society to pay for it. It seems probable that our ability to provide state of the art life extension to all will become increasingly less, not greater.
Which means restriction on care, or rationing, or whatever you want to call it. Whether by price, by lottery, by “connections,” by waiting lists, or by some other means. Some will get it and some will not.
But we can’t have a rational discussion of how we will make these decisions. Unfortunate.
I think that is a given. The issue is whether we’re going to empower the government to make those kind of decisions.
So who do you think should make the decisions?
Some are going to get state of art treatment and others aren’t. Who decides?
Doctors, insurance companies?
The media is like a cheater in a crap game. In the case of Louis M. Cohn, to avoid losing his money, kicked over a lanturn in the barn where they were playing. The barned burned down and so did Chicago in 1871. The state run media is continually kicking over the lantern to obscure the truth. Someday, America is going to burn as a result.
I am continually amazed at so many FReepers who try to contend that it is a lie, they are not proposed regardless the language of the bill isn't specific in term. As you say, OF COURSE the legislation is not going to use the term, it's called a euphemism -- as I've written in other posts, a group of appointed persons (panel) which will determine who shall receive what care when under a government-run system, those denied ultimately end up dying when they might not have had they received the care/treatment necessary (death), what else would you call it? Why is this "hyperbole"??
Did the legislation authorizing the Income Tax use the term "wealth confiscation"?
I was watching a program on the History channel last evening, (forgive me, I did not make note of its title specifically nor this historian to which I will refer, it did not occur to me that it might be necessary soon), the historian discussing the drafting of the Constitution made note that the words "slave" and "slavery" do/did not appear in the document, no matter EVERYONE knew what was being discussed, at this point in the program, he was talking about the three-fifths persons portion.
In a way, this is the same thing, irrelevant the words "death panel" do not appear in the language, EVERYONE (well, everyone with an intellect and the ability to see what has gone on in every country where socialized medicine is the system) knows what it means.
Doctors can be influenced. So can insurance companies (didn't you hear about the raving liberal woman who was denied coverage for her pregnancy because she was pregnant when she got the policy? Like having a car wreck and THEN buying collision coverage. But she is a columnist for the Village Voice and New Republic inter alia and threatened to attack the insurer -- they paid up.) Your church can even have a fundraiser to pay for treatment.
All that goes away with the government in charge . . . the government cannot be influenced, shamed, or threatened into providing care -- and they will make sure that private doctors are outlawed and will be prosecuted (along with their patients) for giving treatment "off the Health".
So no, not the government. Better an insurance company or a doctor with an eye to the bottom line and marketing, than a faceless bureaucrat with no bottom line.
Oh, so now McLame weakly jumps on the bandwagon? GTH, McLame.
PS Same to you and you bots, Mitcare Romney.
Money decides - the money people earned over their lifetime. Many state of the art doctors have actually removed themselves from the insurance system entirely. You want to see them? Pay cash.
If the government had to make a rationing decision, then perhaps go based on obesity, smoking history, etc. What worries me is that the government would use affirmative action in health care rationing decisions. For example, blacks have shorter life spans... so we have to deny life saving health care to an otherwise healthy white person in order to save an obese black with high blood pressure - all in the name of affirmative action and diversity.
McCain is up for reelection in 2010. That’s why he’s acting like a Republican lately.
That’s nice McCain. Now please tell me, where were you 2+ weeks ago when Palin jumped into this fire?
Go fishing John, politics is over for you..... and PLEASE, take that brat daughter of yours with you.
Some are going to get state of art treatment and others aren’t. Who decides?
The decision is solely on the part of the receiver of the treatment needed, it is up to HIM to determine how he will obtain it, what his means shall be. We are in this mess because government got into the insurance business in the first place, under the guise of helping out older folks, Medicare, SS, the giant ponzi scheme, is at the root of the whole thing.
I speak theoretically, this is AMERICA. In this country, if you want something legally obtainable, it is up to you to figure out how to get it. There is no rationing necessary, there is no thought to one more deserving than another, age, status, connections, *quality of life* or any of the rest.
It is a sad, sorry state we are in when we are to the point of discussing who will get and who will not this way. The Founders would be as heartsick as I am.
So by your plan health care will be rationed by price.
That’s a perfectly valid approach, but one that sounds remarkably heartless to many people.
Politically a hard sell.
I'd love to know where this idea that people are entitled to whatever regardless has come from -- do you not pay for your food? Water? (Public utility, unless you happen to live on a well system) Clothing? Shelter? Heating? Power? Transportation? Telephone service? Television? Etc., etc., etc. Why is it the need for medical care ought to be provided you at the taxpayers' expense? Why not food and water, since those needs are more urgent than medical care, you will most certainly die if they are not met, when you may not ever need a physician's care in your lifetime??
you have a static view of the world. I believe in encouraging more innovation and growth
I do not disagree with you, merely pointing out that we are in a very small minority. Which generally lose a political argument.
What do you disagree with?
That our ability to extend life through technology will grow faster than our ability to pay for it?
That seems pretty unchallengeable, to me, and innovation is exactly what causes it.
We’re not doing enough to encourage more economic growth.
Can you name a time or place where it was NOT so?
You can't. It's alwasy been so, it's just a matter of HOW the rationing occurs.
The free market system, as cruel as it is, is the most compassionate way to ration care.
My main point exactly.
A subsidiary point is that this is not politically viable. It may be logical, it may be compassionate, but it ain't gonna fly.
I'm not follwing you, what is 'this'?
A purely free-market health care system, with those who cannot pay left untreated, is not politically viable.
Thus the final point on the WHole Foods CEO list of reforms, tax deductable contributions which go to those who can’t can’t pay.
Capitalism is most compassionate.
Read the English Text of the “Wansee Protocol”
I have provided the Link below.
There is No talk of “Death Camps”.
“Wansee Protocol” is an Innocuous term.
So Is “Final Solution”, although a bit ambiguous.
There is only Talk of Emigration and Evacuation,
All designed to follow existing German Law.
There is some talk of potential Deaths, due to natural Causes, among people assigned to work camps.
See, We need have No fear of “Death Panels”,
Its not in the Bill.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/wannsee.asp
Headline should read: “McCain makes another desperate feint to the right in effort to save his skin”.
You can make your decision today, after all you probably have a large carbon footprint.
Not really it is simple.
The First Million Mom March
As you say. Palin tried to keep it short and sharp and clear, and succeeded, because she knew they would try to take it out of context.
All they have to do is read it for 5 mins to understand it. Never expected Dems or MSM to give it a fair shake, but Republicans too?
At least many Americans understand it, and that is her audience.
You know one could argue that McCain has been voting a bit more to the right than he was before. We’ve seen some liberals in the media inda noting this. May I suggest that perhaps Sarah Palin had a rightward effect on McCain. (Of course Palin suddenly became super “unethical” after hanging out with McCain-sarcasm). So perhaps in the future the media will blame Palin for McCain’s more conservative voting record.
As more people age, more advancements will take place to keep up with demand.
In a truly free market, this wouldn't be an issue.
Some are going to get state of art treatment and others aren’t. Who decides?
Definitely not bureaucrats.
Remove the taxation and regulations and these people will have the funds to pay for their own healthcare. Remove the insurance mandates and law that ERs have to treat everyone that walks in the door and people will be more careful with their health. Private and religious charities will take care of the rest, although I do support some gov't help for those who were born with rare or terminal illnesses
Exactly. And those treatments will cost money.
Have you seen any indication whatsoever that future medical advancements will result in less money being spent in total, or are all indications that costs will continue to go up?
Plus, as long as "someone else" is paying for it the customer, and therefore the care provider, has no incentive to locate a less expensive option.
Lovely ideas, and they might even work.
My contention is not that they wouldn’t be effective, only that most Americans will not support them and therefore they cannot become law.
Costs always come down in a free market.
Have you seen any indication whatsoever that future medical advancements will result in less money being spent in total, or are all indications that costs will continue to go up?
See first response.
Plus, as long as "someone else" is paying for it the customer
If Medicare and Medicaid were phased out the market will develop plans so everybody can afford it.
"Die, Infidels!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
