Healthcare Reform ‘Fact-Checking’

Steve Benen heaps praise on ABC News‘ new Fact Check segment for “actually informing the public about a controversy in a fair and accurate way.”

Kate Snow tackled the vile right-wing demagoguery on end-of-life care, and while she refrained from calling Palin and her ilk “liars,” she made it very clear that the accusations about euthanasia are completely wrong. It wasn’t a he-said/she-said report; it was just reality.

But Snow’s “fact check” is idiotic.  She checks an absurd straw man and finds that, sure enough, it’s made of straw.

The business about “death boards” is over-the-top nonsense and is indeed being presented in a dishonest, unhelpful manner.  But nobody* — not even Sarah Palin — is arguing that the Democrats actually put a measure into writing that requires offing granny when she gets too sick to be worth the cost of healing her.  Rather — as Snow finally admits two minutes into the piece — the argument is that a natural consequence of having government involved in these decisions while trying to keep costs low is rationing of care and encouraging people away from expensive, extraordinary measures.  The fact that the law, as written, puts the final decision in the hands of the patient doesn’t dispose of that fear.

A more useful “fact check” would have acknowledged the actual basis of the opposition argument and a look at how systems similar to those proposed, such as those in France and elsewhere, actually operate.  Or even to note that Granny’s healthcare is already provided by the government and has been since the Johnson Administration.

*UPDATE:  John Cole says I should have written “nobody sane.” He points to some lunatic called Mike Sola making this argument on some Fox News show of which I’d never heard.  Fair enough.

FILED UNDER: Health, Media, US Politics, , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Tlaloc says:

    But nobody — not even Sarah Palin — is arguing that the Democrats actually put a measure into writing that requires offing granny when she gets too sick to be worth the cost of healing her.

    Actually wasn’t that EXACTLY what Palin said and what her followers have been repeating- that the dems are knowingly putting in place euthenasia controls on the elderly?

    Seems like it. The problem is you look at the absurdity and assume that there was womething else to it rather than seeing that it was just an absurdity. That’s because you aren’t batshit crazy. But they are. And yes they really seem to believe all the idiocy they are spouting. You read the IBD editorial that claimed Hawking wouldn’t have survived in England, right?

    They’re just that stupid. And they hope to convince the rest of us of their stupid views by repeating their inane claims over and over again. From that perspective a news org that actually does their job is sort of refreshing.

  2. Dave says:

    I don’t understand. If the government killing my grandmother is clearly not a part of what the government is proposing to do, then when should I still be afraid that the government might kill my grandmother?

  3. triumph says:

    Facts:

    -Obama’s plan has a death panel which will be used to involuntary euthanize the disabled, Christians, and gun owners.

    – Obama’s plan also has a transplant panel. You will have to pass a loyalty test to Obama administered by the transplant panel in order to get a kidney or liver transplant. If the supply is inadequate, see above.

    – Obama’s plan requires that only Moselms and immigrants get access to health care. If you are a real American, you go to the back of the list and pay twice as much for the same care. File under “empathy.”

    -Obama’s plan requires that you get a bureaucrat’s approval before you take ANY medication–even over-the-counter.

    – Rahm Emmanuel has been floating the names of people who will serve on the death and transplant panels. These names include: Jocelyn Elders, Barry Bonds, Conrad Murray, Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, and Janet Reno.

  4. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Emmanuel’s brother who is an adviser to the White House has said doctors take their oath too seriously. Many of these folks has espoused population control. Some very radically. I do not expect them to tell the truth about their plans just like Obama would not have gotten elected if the majority of people really knew about his background. His mother was not some Conservative white girl from Kansas. All of Obama’s associates are on the radical left. You can sugar coat the BS all you wish, but when the truth is revealed, try not to act surprised.

  5. An Interested Party says:

    Ahh, the irony

  6. Tlaloc says:

    Many of these folks has espoused population control.

    And if you are pro-condoms obviously you are also pro-killing old people.

    Look I’m very much pro-population control and yet it’s been weeks, probably months, since I bludgeoned a senior citizen to death. I mean, really.

  7. Tlaloc says:

    just like Obama would not have gotten elected if the majority of people really knew about his background.

    indeed. If on the right had made a huge stink about Obama’s past and associates- why he never would have been elected.

    I think it’s bad form to practice revisionist history on things that happend just last year.

  8. kth says:

    Sorry, a “straw man” is commonly understood as a response to an argument not actually made. But a lot of people are indeed arguing that death panels and mandatory living wills are part of the current health care proposal. Moreover, judging by even the more civil of the town halls (where questions are actually asked and answered), many citizens seem to believe these things.

    It’s perfectly newsworthy to debunk an assertion made by a potential presidential candidate, though obviously that doesn’t represent a positive argument for the health care proposal itself. But Kate Snow never said it did.

  9. kth says:

    Direct quote from Palin’s Facebook post

    The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care.

    (emphasis added so no one has an excuse for missing the blatantly obvious)

  10. James Joyner says:

    Sorry, a “straw man” is commonly understood as a response to an argument not actually made.

    I’m not sure what’s commonly understood but the typical definition is to state the opponent’s position weakly. Here’s what Wikipedia has:

    To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

    Palin and others are engaging in the Slippery Slope Fallacy — attacking an eventual progression rather than the actual position — but they’re not stating that “death panels” are ACTUALLY PART OF THE LEGISLATION.

  11. Herb says:

    Rather — as Snow finally admits two minutes into the piece — the argument is that a natural consequence of having government involved in these decisions while trying to keep costs low is rationing of care and encouraging people away from expensive, extraordinary measures.

    Ah yes, but isn’t the Dem’s argument that the status quo will result in rationing care and encouraging people away from expensive, extraordinary measures as well?

    I think it is.

    Seems then, that both sides fear the same thing. And if we work together, then we could tackle this problem.

    Wait… Work together? All the fear-mongering and lies kind of make that difficult to do. After all, to this observer, the bad faith arguments put forth by the Sarah Palin’s of the world indicate they’re more worried about handing Barack Obama a political victory than they are about the evils of his health care reform plan.

  12. mpw280 says:

    If you have ms what is “acceptable” level of care? If you are 78 and get breast cancer what kind of care can you expect to get? Look to Canada and England and then come back and tell me that you won’t have some severe rationing for “unproductive or post productive” people. If you are 68 and a male and get prostate cancer are you going to get the same care as a 32 yr old? If you haven’t read about the woman in Oregon or talked to any Canadians with older parents then you don’t know the possibilities of how care will be restricted. England’s care service nearly killed my wife after a mis-carriage because they don’t do certain procedures until Thursday, and it is now Saturday so go home and develop an infection that could threaten your life, and we will get back to you on Thursday. Don’t buy the hype on how beautiful it will be as there isn’t a government program that delivers on its promises in budget or on time, especially one that will be as big as this one will be. mpw

  13. JKB says:

    Now who is going off the rails? That is not EXACTLY what Sarah Palin said. Her “death panel” analogy was part of a comment about the rationing required to cut costs. AJ Strata over at Strataphere has a long post on this issue, including the quote from Palin.

    Granny will not appear before a “death panel”, she will not have an opportunity to plead her case, she will simply be denied or delayed treatment by some faceless bureaucrats while cases with a better survivability are given priority. And of course, how long before granny is judged not by the severity of her ailment but by the color of her skin, her politics, her personal habits. How long before we have affirmative action in healthcare treatments.

  14. kth says:

    JJ, that’s not the understanding that tens of thousands of angry people have all across the country. That isn’t because they are stupid, but because Palin, Gingrich, McCaughey, and the rest have elided precisely the distinction you are insisting upon.

    Here’s Betsy McCaughey, in what seems to be the ur-text of this allegation:

    And one of the most shocking things I found in this bill, and there were many, is on Page 425, where the Congress would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go in to hospice care. And by the way, the bill expressly says that if you get sick somewhere in that five-year period — if you get a cancer diagnosis, for example — you have to go through that session again.

    And let’s be perfectly clear: this is the commonly held (mis)understanding, not the more arguable one about cost pressures leading to death panels somewhere down the road.

  15. James,

    Actually, there have been charges that the House Bill specifically contains a provision to require elderly people to submit to being told how to end their lives to save their families/the government money. Opponents refer (sometime directly, sometimes not)to section 1233 of the bill. I have had family members forward me e-mails from anti-health care reform advocates that specifically assert this–and not just that the logic consequence of rationing is that life and death decisions will have to be made (which, as we all know, are made now by insurance companies). There was a woman on the Fred Thompson show (via a clip forwarded to me by another family member) in which she makes a specific claim about the bill. I have deleted the e-mails and question, but should be able to dig them up.

  16. James Joyner says:

    kth and Steve:

    That’s interesting and touched on in the ABC piece. The law does require said counseling sessions but, obviously, they’re there to discuss options rather than mandate offing granny. Still, McCaughey and Palin would likely argue, the green eyeshade counselor would likely be encouraging the cheaper mode.

  17. Stan says:

    mpw280, who in this country finances the health care provided to 78 year old women with breast cancer? Isn’t it the US government? Is it really your belief that any US administration would deliberately short change the most potent voting bloc in the country?

    Regarding your statements about health care in Canada and England, are you aware that these countries are democracies with voting participation much higher than ours. Do you honestly believe that the Canadians and the British would support health systems so monstrous as to deny treatment to sick grannies? What is your source of information? And where is your common sense?

  18. sam says:

    @JJ

    they’re not stating that “death panels” are ACTUALLY PART OF THE LEGISLATION.

    Jesus, James, don’t you think, in the current overheated climate, that’s a distinction without a difference?

  19. DL says:

    Granny has a choice to buy private insurance.

  20. James,

    But we aren’t talking about green eye-shade bureaucrats, but rather what the provision allows for is that medicare would pay for relevant counseling by a doctor about things like living wills, DNRs and that like. It isn’t about cost, quite the opposite, it is a provision to pay for a service. It is the kind of thing that you or I have likely discussed with our wives or already have pertinent legal documents regarding. However, a lot of people either aren’t aware of these types of issues, or avoid talking about them.

    There are reasons to criticize the section of the law, but the fact of the matter is that it is being wildly misrepresented in the current “debate” over health care reform.

    And just to increase my “street cred” here, I am not a proponent of the legislation in question.

  21. This Guy says:

    Just read the bill at the link below.
    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf

    On pages 425-429 there seems to be a mandate for a living will and a pre-determination of what services a person will and will not receive in the “continuum of care” and on pages 29-30 the bill establishes an advisory board of 9 people, appointed by the President for three year terms, who are to set “benefit standards” and “cost-sharing levels”.

    Put those two together and you have basically what these “wacka-doos” are fearing, government control of end-of-life treatments and limits on costs. Am I crazy? Or is this scary?

    Please, if someone can read this bill and come to a different conclusion, let me know.

    James, Just backing you up, I think your def of “straw man” is correct, even if you did cite Wikipedia.

  22. DL says:

    “…they’re there to discuss options…”

    Why do they need government agents with stethoscopes if that’s truth. Why not allow people to get their own consultants or is that to American? I for one, have watched the abuse of old people before -they’re easy to lay guilt trips on -they’re easy to sell on anything -put a doctor’s uniform on and it’s a free sale. Granny will take the pill for the good of America.

  23. Here is Fred Thompson clip I noted above, which is an interview with Betsy McCaughey and she very specifically claims that the bill basically mandates that old people commit suicide if they get too sick. The claim is made around the 1:28 mark. She calls it a “vicious assault on elderly people and the boomer generation” and she means the House bill itself, not some unintended consequences that could be inferred.

    click.

  24. kth says:

    The law does require said counseling sessions

    It requires the funding of that discussion, but does not require doctors to broach that topic with patients. Right now, Medicare doesn’t compensate doctors for the time spent in such discussions, even if they are initiated by patients.

  25. To back up kth, I believe that what the current bill proposes is that every five years the doctor is supposed to raise the option of such counseling to patients. It does not require that the patient submit to said counseling.

    This is as I understand it, anyway.

    Also of relevance, I posted on this subject this morning here.

  26. sam says:

    @This Guy

    Please, if someone can read this bill and come to a different conclusion, let me know

    I read the pages you refer to, and I cannot see a mandate; what I do see is that if such a consultation is undertaken, it shall have the following elements, etc. That’s a lot different from saying the consultation is mandatory.

  27. ggr says:

    If you haven’t read about the woman in Oregon or talked to any Canadians with older parents then you don’t know the possibilities of how care will be restricted.

    Actually, as a Canadian with a parent who had a cancer, there was no restriction of care. Getting knee replacement surgery and hip replacement surgery can mean a wait of several months, but cancer and other deadly conditions are treated quickly. Nor, despite what I’ve read, are people caught in car accidents dying on emergency room floors … I’ve no idea how our system compares to the rest of the world, but having been in a car accident myself I can guarantee its at least adequate in emergency response.

    The reality of the Canadian system is that it isn’t nearly as good as democrats seem to think, and not nearly as bad as republicans seem to think. Which is why it tends to be pretty much a non-issue in our elections … for by far the majority of the population it works, though arguably its too expensive for what it does.

    Ideally, it’d be nice to have dual system allowing both public and private health, and that’s probably the way the Canadian system will go eventually.

  28. triumph says:

    for by far the majority of the population it works, though arguably its too expensive for what it does.

    Maybe if you people laid off the double-double and maple frosted donuts at your local Tim Hortons’, the health care costs wouldn’t be so damn astronomical.

  29. glasnost says:

    Jesus, James, don’t you think, in the current overheated climate, that’s a distinction without a difference?

    Understatement of the month!

    James, are you out of your mind? In your opinion, when Sarah Palin said,

    The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide,

    are you claiming that that statement does NOT support the idea that Obama’s “death panel” exists, or is being legislated into existence?

    I’m just absolutely gobsmacked.

    She doesn’t want her parents to stand in front of Obama’s death panel, but you’re SURE she is *also* NOT saying that the aforesaid panel is part of the legislation?

    This isn’t a “slipppery slope” argument. There’s no mention of a slippery slope. There’s no intemediary mechanism proposed. An accurate paraphrase of the statement would be “My America has no room for Obama’s death panel”.

    You have well and truly jumped the shark. Have you made a decision to start finding a ray of sunlight in conservative crazy, so as to keep your K street cred? Or what?

    Hey, and when people saturate your comment thread with evidence that you are factually incorrect, do you ever actually update? Post a correction? That journalism stuff?

  30. James,

    this is beneath you to defend these outrageous claims. Palin is not engaging in the “slippery slope” and you know it. This type of fence-sitting necklace-clutching may keep your readership up, but it hardly serves the purpose of truth.

  31. Mike P says:

    It’s important here to cite Ezra Klein’s interview with the Republican senator who actually proposed language similar to what’s in the bill.

    Additionally, James, you sound a lot like this op-ed in the Post today. In it, the author writes:

    Their claim is that, whatever the stated goals of policymakers, the concrete outcomes that will flow from the policies on the table will include experiences that feel like rationing and conversations that sound like “death panels.”

    In asking lawmakers to consider not merely the goals of their policies but also the experiential meaning of concrete realities that those policies may bring, they have a point. One can’t answer them by saying: “These policies won’t ration; there will be no death panels.” If these reforms do either of these things, they will do so as a matter of unintended consequences. The appropriate answer, therefore, is to explain the institutional checks that will prevent the emergence of such unintended consequences.

    Sure, the bill should spell out exactly what will and will not happen, but a lot of the opposition isn’t based on wanting a good faith explanation; it’s based on the hysteria that Palin’s using and almost everyone who is speaking honestly about this knows that what she is saying is, frankly, B.S.

  32. filipe chalupa says:

    But nobody — not even Sarah Palin — is arguing that the Democrats actually put a measure into writing that requires offing granny when she gets too sick to be worth the cost of healing her

    Tell that to my wingnut relatives who told me, to my face, that Obama was going to send them to “Incineration Rooms”.

    “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel”…

    Sorry James, but they are saying it. You’re just unhappy that the conservative side has gone batshit. I would be upset too, if my party became the Party of Stupid.

  33. filipe chalupa says:

    Creationism, Voodoo Economics, Global Warming Denial, military adventurism, hatred of gays, christianism, bigotry…

    sensible people left the GOP some time ago.

  34. mpw280 says:

    Hey Stan, I have actually talked to Canadians and Brits with those problems and have lived through them nearly killing my wife. I have family in England as well. You want to go up against that, what do you know about their systems? You could ask a few like Sullivan did on a talk show, where he asked for a show of Canadian hands and then asked how many were unhappy with their health care, guess what same number of hands went up. While they think its great that its “free” they hate that its slow, dirty, treatments are refused, and not as good as the “terrible” US health care. Infact they are mostly willing to come here for treatment if they could. This isn’t about reform, Obama and congress want to scrap the old system and put in a new one, all the while knowing that the current government run system is blowing its budget out of the water. So it begs the question: Why not go to school fixing medicare and medicaid and then shoot for a national plan? I also think by the time that refusal of treatment shows up in the proposed US system it will be my ass on the line, not my parents. I would rather plan my own life rather than have some nameless, faceless government drone decide that I have reached the end of my useful life and have no further need of this or that treatment. I think it makes more sense to have a health insurance policy that I can pay for using pretax income, can take anywhere in the country and make the decisions as to what is in it, wouldn’t you?

  35. Clovis says:

    mpw280

    Wasn’t Sully. IIRC ’twas Krugman, and he was actually a good sport about it. For once.

  36. James Joyner says:

    This type of fence-sitting necklace-clutching may keep your readership up, but it hardly serves the purpose of truth.

    Bryan,

    I’m not sitting on a fence. I’m rather explicit that “The business about “death boards” is over-the-top nonsense and is indeed being presented in a dishonest, unhelpful manner.” My point is that most of the people talking about such things are doing so as slippery slopes rather than as “it’s actually right there in the law.”

    It does seem that there’s also some of the latter. But that’s not a claim worth ABC’s time to debunk, frankly.

  37. sidereal says:

    But that’s not a claim worth ABC’s time to debunk, frankly.

    Except it seems that thousands. . perhaps tens of thousands or more. . seem to believe it. What exactly is the standard by which a claim is ‘worth ABC’s time to debunk’? Frankly.

    Tune into Limbaugh sometime this week. He’s not talking about slippery slopes.

  38. James,

    c’mon. Why don’t you just come out and say people on the right are LYING? that’s what I mean by fence-sitting. This “well, they are saying this, but it doesn’t mean anything” is exactly fence-sitting. And as far as slippery slopes go, that’s in the same ballpark. Palin isn’t in the “slippery slope” ballpark. Read her statements.

    Look, I’m fine with you opposing health care reform, but do so honestly, and give NO QUARTER to the utterly insane folks (like Palin) who would insinuate “death panels” and “abortion” into the debate.

    Palin didn’t hedge her statement. she went full-out wingnut. That’s the fact.

  39. davod says:

    “mpw280, who in this country finances the health care provided to 78 year old women with breast cancer? Isn’t it the US government? Is it really your belief that any US administration would deliberately short change the most potent voting bloc in the country?”

    (Read this slowly)You need to listen to what Obama and the Administration have said. (Back to normal speed)

    Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable, and yet they intend to cut billions from both programs.

    Now – People use Medicare when they retire. The baby boomers are already boosting the enrollment and the increase will continue for quite a few years.

    Short of rationing medicine how do you complete the circle.

    Obama has stated more than once that in such cases maybe hospice care or medication would be more cost effective. He says this in public.

    So you tell me if he is worried about the elderly vote.

  40. Arti Doane says:

    When President Obama his family and congress and their families all sign on to this health care bill so will I.

  41. Tlaloc says:

    Short of rationing medicine how do you complete the circle.

    Medicine is always rationed. Right now we ration by how much money you have. If you’re fine with that then alright, but don’t go pretending we don’t already ration health care.

  42. Tlaloc says:

    When President Obama his family and congress and their families all sign on to this health care bill so will I.

    And here I thought you guys insisted the plan be optional…

    Wasn’t “we’re gonna be forced on the plan!!!11!!” the first week of July freak out from the batshit crew?

  43. Pug says:

    Medicine is always rationed. Right now we ration by how much money you have. If you’re fine with that then alright, but don’t go pretending we don’t already ration health care.

    Yeah, let’s all pretend that everybody gets all the medical attention they need . . . well, except maybe for those 48 million people who have no insurance whatsoever.

    I’m thinking maybe they don’t get their ration. But then, they don’t deserve it anyway. They just don’t.

  44. davod says:

    Pug:

    The Census Bureau puts the number of long term uninsured at between eight to ten million.

  45. davod says:

    This argument about if Obama and the Congress sign up first is a bad approach. So they agree, what will this mean in reality.

    The Congress will get preference and the Obama’s will not be waiting in line.

    You can bet the Congress will not be subject to the scoring that gives those between the ages of 15-40 priority (Obama health care adviser, Emanuel’s preference).

  46. davod says:

    Obama has already said that the only way to reduce costs is to reduce the amount of health care provided to patients.

    John Goodman has more

    “In his speech to the American Medical Association, President Obama said what White House health adviser Ezekiel Emanuel and Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag have said in print some time ago. The only way to control health care costs is to get doctors to provide less care — fewer tests, fewer procedures, fewer everything. Of course, the Administration wants to eliminate only that care that is “unnecessary.” But HMOs say the same thing.”

    “To assist in this effort, the Administration is proposing a new federal health board to decide whether health care services are “effective” or “appropriate.” When he first advanced this idea in Critical, Obama health care guru, Tom Daschle, pointed to the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as the model. NICE has adopted a rule of thumb that health expenditures are inappropriate if they involve spending more than $22,000 to save six months of life. As a result, British cancer patients do not have access to drugs that are routinely available in the United States. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 25,000 British cancer patients die prematurely every year because of these restrictions.”

    “If health care is to be rationed, what’s the right way to do it? Zeke Emanuel (who is also the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) wrote an entire article on this subject in the Lancet on January 31, 2009. Emanuel advocated allocating health resources in order to maximize collective life years. Suppose a 25-year-old and a 65-year-old have a life threatening disease. Since the 25-year-old has many more potential years of life ahead of him, he should receive preferential treatment, says Emanuel. He justifies denying care to elderly patients in the following way:

    The complete lives system discriminates against older people…. Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.”

  47. Matt says:

    Davod you really are being deliberately ignorant of how the health care industry works in this country.

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=1#

    Gives you a perfect example of what’s wrong with our current system. Tests and procedures that aren’t needed are the order of the day in today’s doctor’s office. Just eliminating the unnecessary procedures and tests that doctors use as cash cows would save a frackton. I’ve seen this from the inside for the last +10 years and if something isn’t done it’ll explode in our face sooner then later.

    It’s ridiculous that you even trot out Zeke when he has litterly no position in this administration and thus no authority..

  48. Matt says:
  49. G.A.Phillips says:

    Creationism, Voodoo Economics, Global Warming Denial, military adventurism, hatred of gays, christianism, bigotry…

    sensible people left the GOP some time ago.

    lol…..Dude why,Evolutionism,Bookoo Economics,Global warming dental,Military undermineurism, hatred of nays,Punkbitchism, stupidatree…

    st*u…..and st*d…..

  50. davod says:

    I quote what Obama’s experts say and you accuse me of being ignorant?

  51. G.A.Phillips says:

    I quote what Obama’s experts say and you accuse me of being ignorant?

    lol….Thats how Obama himself says he thinks, by the way the people who surround him do it for him…..

    Except if your his Rev. for twenty years, then not so much…..

  52. G.A.Phillips says:

    The business about “death boards” is over-the-top nonsense and is indeed being presented in a dishonest, unhelpful manner.

    What do you call A group of liberals that implements spending for Abortion?

    You know it’s not hard to make this leap with the kind of things you know they have no problem with now, and looking ahead with the types of people, systems, and other influences they admire for those of us who understand history…

    So say what you will, but I think it’s being very helpful to point out were this could all lead to..

    A 25 member cabal deciding who is worthy to live and die buy whatever this collection of czars deems…

    Hope and change=death and taxes?

  53. ggr says:

    Hey Stan, I have actually talked to Canadians and Brits with those problems and have lived through them nearly killing my wife. I have family in England as well. You want to go up against that, what do you know about their systems?

    Well, since I’m a Canadian, I’ll bite. Believe it or not, most of us aren’t dying on the streets for lack of medical care, and for most folks the major problem with our health care system is its cost … it seems way too expensive in tax dollars.

    There is a minority who are strongly against our system, and political parties (both the NDP and the Conservatives) who routinely try to harness unrest about our medical system at election time (in opposite directions interestingly enough), and who routinely find that for most Canadians it just isn’t an issue … ie for most the feeling is it could probably be better, its very inefficient, but it works okay so don’t monkey with it. If we really were dying for lack of health care that would probably change, but for now that doesn’t seem to be the case.

    While I read Americans talking about how Canadians regularly die waiting for emergency care, or take years to see a cancer specialists (by which time they’re dead), after living here almost five decades I don’t know anyone to which its happened. Which is not to say it doesn’t happen, just that its infrequent, and I suspect the percentage of people who die from lack of care in the US system is probably in the same range as up here.

    Our system is not as good as some claim, and not as bad as others. For most its adequate, but wasteful, and ideally there’d be an option for both public and private health. The biggest problem with public care, at least the Canadian model, is how inefficient it is.

  54. floyd says:

    Over the top nonsense can be dismissed, until it happens.
    As any reader knows, in order to truly understand any written work, one must first know the author(s)!

    …………………………………………..
    filipe chalupa;
    Christophobia,multi trillion dollar deficit spending,pagan earth worship,pseudoscience,border capitulation,perversion, elitist bigotry….

    sensible people left the Democrat Party some time ago.

  55. An Interested Party says:

    sensible people left the Democrat Party some time ago.

    Talk about nonsense…who knew that there were so many people in this country who lacked sense…oh, by the way, sensible people refer to their ideological opponents using their established names, not political epithets…

  56. floyd says:

    Aip [or is it now Emily Post?];
    Simply answering chalupa in kind to make a point….

    I’m not yet willing to stoop low enough to give you the same treatment! [lol]

    BTW, the choice was between what you call an “epithet” and a ridiculous misnomer!

  57. filipe chalupa says:

    “In the House bill, there is counseling for end of life,” Grassley said. “You have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma”

    What bill do you think he was talking about, Mr. Joyner? The School Lunch Act?

  58. An Interested Party says:

    or is it now Emily Post?

    Not really, but if you are going to criticize others for not being sensible, you should at least try to be sensible yourself, even if, as I suspect, you have to act the part…

    Simply answering chalupa in kind to make a point….

    Oh, that you can be as silly and foolish as you perceive filipe chalupa to be? Well, that goes without saying…

  59. filipe chalupa says:

    From tpm:

    “Concerning the ‘Death Panels,'” …
    “With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients,” Palin says. “The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.”

    this section? this section of what? I mean, it seems she’s talking about a section of the health care reform bill, but James assures us she’s not talking about that bill. So I’m confused. I have no idea what ‘this section’ refers to here.

  60. filipe chalupa says:

    Get a transcript of today’s Hannity radio show. He said, and I quote, “They removed the Death Panels from the bill.”