Posted on 09/06/2009 6:27:00 PM PDT by smoothsailing
>>Read my posts again, this time for content.
I did — you complete missed the point of the article. Your indignation is misplaced.
The point of the article is that Palin is wrong but there could eventually be death panels anyway. The author is misinformed on this topic.
The article notes:
“And yes, it does call for explanations of orders regarding life sustaining treatments, and why such orders might be beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family, but there is no language in the bill mandating the individual’s death.”
That is all true and is what the bill says. Palin’s point has been that it is clear this counseling, combined with specific decisions to withhold life-sustaining health care to the elderly, constitutes death panels, which is what she meant.
The author agrees with Palin.
No, it doesn’t. Show me the words “death panel” anywhere in any proposed bill.
It is an accurate conclusion, perhaps, but it is still a conclusion.
The bill also states that a tax levied in one of its sections is not a tax. So according to your “logic,” it’s not a tax, even though it it is a tax.
The phrase “death panel” does not need to appear in order for any panel or group created for the purposes of deciding 1) health benefits given to each person, and 2) whether or not to treat a person for a given disease actually is a death panel.
Let me just get this straight: according to you, if the bill doesn’t call something a death panel then it’s not a death panel, but the author of this piece can write that Palin is wrong but in your mind it means that the author is agreeing with Palin.
Yeah, I’m done with you.
>>Let me just get this straight: according to you, if the bill doesn’t call something a death panel then it’s not a death panel, but the author of this piece can write that Palin is wrong but in your mind it means that the author is agreeing with Palin.<<
You still refuse to read the article. He says she is right. Hey, its a free country. Don’t read it if you don’t want to and post ignorant comments until the cows come home.
>>Yeah, I’m done with you
As I am I with you. I prefer to talk to people who actually read and comprehend.
Is this your pupster?
he is darling! Spot has Dick Cheney’s look in that picture of Obozo and Bush and Cheney on the side with his big black Fedora!
Unlike you Mrs. Palin doesn’t advocate pro-life issues because it makes her *look good* in the eyes of others. And, in one terse post at Facebook she has done more than the irrelevant AIP has done since its uneventful inception.
Great picture. Is that your dog?
It is a wonder. The point of the article seemed pretty cut and dry to me. But it is clear that we all see things differently.
Well said, Terpfen. I agree with you. So does Freedumb2003, I think. And as much as you may hate to admit it, the author of this article agrees with you and Palin OR you agree with Palin and the author, which ever make you feel better.
I've never seen ANY of Sarah's supporters suggest that she is.
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.