• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Palin Won The "Death Panel" Battle

Mike

Well-known member
The Lady is the Champ: Senate Expunges Palin's "Death Panels" from ObamaCare Bill
Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:14
August 17, 2009 | Peter J. Smith
The US Senate has sounded a hasty retreat on "death panels" in health-care reform by striking out the provision on "end-of-life counseling" from the bill. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), announced last week that the Senate Finance Committee has now expunged all "end-of-life" provisions from the Senate version of health-care reform in order "to avoid unintended consequences." Grassley admitted in a statement Wednesday that the storm of controversy surrounding the "end-of-life" provisions in detailed in section 1233 of the House version (H.R. 3200) expressed legitimate concerns that the elderly and infirm could end up pressured into lower-quality care or none at all...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I wonder what Senator Coburn of Oklahoma- an MD- thinks about Palin killing this section/amendment of the bill he had added to the Senate Bill with her false propaganda and fearmongering :???:
I wonder what the Doctors group he introduced it for think of her :???:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I wonder what Senator Coburn of Oklahoma- an MD- thinks about Palin killing this section/amendment of the bill he had added to the Senate Bill with her false propaganda and fearmongering :???:
I wonder what the Doctors group he introduced it for think of her :???:

Who cares what he thinks, what us the people wanted won out and that is all that matters! :wink:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
if he truly represents his constituents wishes he will be behind it.

they obviously didn't think it would meet with approval, if they took it out.

they probably have a priority list for things they can do without and things that must be contained in the bill.

It's not about health, like everything with this administration it's politicized.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I just think its comical- because the Repubs were b*tching about not getting enough of their amendments in-- then when they finally do-- its their own that comes back to eat her young.... :wink: :lol:

But like I've said for some time- the Repub Party is leaderless- and they have no idea which direction they want to come from- let alone which direction they are coming from.....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Do you think they took it out because of Palin?

I get a kick out of the Dems, they say there is no "leader" of the Repubs, but want to pin everything on an individual. Scrambling around, "It's Rush, no it's Palin, no it's ..."

The citizens have got the Dems on the defensive, not any one individual.

Sit back, watch what the citizens are saying, and then emerge as a "leader"

Why throw yourself out there right now, to be demonized? Throw out the odd decoy.

What's the other hand doing?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Do you think they took it out because of Palin?

I get a kick out of the Dems, they say there is no "leader" of the Repubs, but want to pin everything on an individual. Scrambling around, "It's Rush, no it's Palin, no it's ..."

The citizens have got the Dems on the defensive, not any one individual.

Sit back, watch what the citizens are saying, and then emerge as a "leader"

Why throw yourself out there right now, to be demonized? Throw out the odd decoy.

What's the other hand doing?

I agree- this article was wrong, giving Palin all the credit...But its still comical...This was not something in the Dems original version of the bill- but added by the Repubs- so I can see why the Dem leadership thinks its no skin off their butt to throw it out.... :wink: :lol:

Some of it was the false info put out by Palin-and Rush-and the Insurance Industry pawns--- the story that it was "Death Panels" to feed the hysteria of the rightwingernuts that will bite on any bait fed them about now....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Some of it was the false info put out by Palin-and Rush-and the Insurance Industry pawns--- the story that it was "Death Panels" to feed the hysteria of the rightwingernuts that will bite on any bait fed them about now....

and it wasn't just normal citizens that were looking at past bioethics papers written by Obama's health advisors?

Palin only wrote in her facebook page, what people were already thinking.

I guess Obama couldn't answer the questions being raised about "end of life counselling", to the satisfaction of voters.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Just yesterday we were talking about continual changes to the bill.

I no longer need to find that piece and legal translation I wanted Alice to see.

Alice you need to start over reading the bill. It is never going to be like it was when you started. It will be a "living document" (constantly evolving) until it finally dies on the floor.

Then we can get on with things that need to be addressed.
 

alice

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
Just yesterday we were talking about continual changes to the bill.

I no longer need to find that piece and legal translation I wanted Alice to see.

Alice you need to start over reading the bill. It is never going to be like it was when you started. It will be a "living document" (constantly evolving) until it finally dies on the floor.

Then we can get on with things that need to be addressed.

That's too bad...I was looking forward to reading it, because from what I had read, the part about end of life counseling was 180 degrees out of "death panels." The ONLY THING mandated about end of life counseling was payment by the government to the counselor.

Again, I do not like this bill...and I've stated more than once why. But what I dislike more is for someone to knowingly and intentionally misrepresent something for sensational impact. That is just plain wrong, and that is what happened.

Alice
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
The ONLY THING mandated about end of life counseling was payment by the government to the counselor.

Do you think certain individuals might just "promote" or sell counselling, if they were paid for it?

Do you think the Government would "sell" the idea, if it was going to save them money?

Take BC's advice, look at the intent of the writers of the bill.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
alice said:
backhoeboogie said:
Just yesterday we were talking about continual changes to the bill.

I no longer need to find that piece and legal translation I wanted Alice to see.

Alice you need to start over reading the bill. It is never going to be like it was when you started. It will be a "living document" (constantly evolving) until it finally dies on the floor.

Then we can get on with things that need to be addressed.

That's too bad...I was looking forward to reading it, because from what I had read, the part about end of life counseling was 180 degrees out of "death panels." The ONLY THING mandated about end of life counseling was payment by the government to the counselor.

Again, I do not like this bill...and I've stated more than once why. But what I dislike more is for someone to knowingly and intentionally misrepresent something for sensational impact. That is just plain wrong, and that is what happened.

Alice

Alice you are probably correct at least partially. But the words you read in these bills cannot be taken literally. You have to get a legal translation. Some of that translation is surely just as you say, misrepresntation. Other is fact.

Lawyers are gifted with weasel words. What do you think most of the elected politicains are? It is no different than Bill "not having sex with that woman" based on technical translation of what is legally defined as sex, as I said yesterday.
 

alice

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
alice said:
backhoeboogie said:
Just yesterday we were talking about continual changes to the bill.

I no longer need to find that piece and legal translation I wanted Alice to see.

Alice you need to start over reading the bill. It is never going to be like it was when you started. It will be a "living document" (constantly evolving) until it finally dies on the floor.

Then we can get on with things that need to be addressed.

That's too bad...I was looking forward to reading it, because from what I had read, the part about end of life counseling was 180 degrees out of "death panels." The ONLY THING mandated about end of life counseling was payment by the government to the counselor.

Again, I do not like this bill...and I've stated more than once why. But what I dislike more is for someone to knowingly and intentionally misrepresent something for sensational impact. That is just plain wrong, and that is what happened.

Alice

Alice you are probably correct at least partially. But the words you read in these bills cannot be taken literally. You have to get a legal translation. Some of that translation is surely just as you say, misrepresntation. Other is fact.

Lawyers are gifted with weasel words. What do you think most of the elected politicains are? It is no different than Bill "not having sex with that woman" based on technical translation of what is legally defined as sex, as I said yesterday.

Which is why I would have liked to have read what you were talking about for myself. No, I'm not a lawyer, but I am able to read and understand most anything that's brought forward, even legalese.

Now, we are going to have to agree to disagree, because you say I am probably correct at least partially. I believe I am correct, period...and that you are probably correct, at least partially. So, again, agree to disagree.

Alice
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
alice said:
backhoeboogie said:
alice said:
That's too bad...I was looking forward to reading it, because from what I had read, the part about end of life counseling was 180 degrees out of "death panels." The ONLY THING mandated about end of life counseling was payment by the government to the counselor.

Again, I do not like this bill...and I've stated more than once why. But what I dislike more is for someone to knowingly and intentionally misrepresent something for sensational impact. That is just plain wrong, and that is what happened.

Alice

Alice you are probably correct at least partially. But the words you read in these bills cannot be taken literally. You have to get a legal translation. Some of that translation is surely just as you say, misrepresntation. Other is fact.

Lawyers are gifted with weasel words. What do you think most of the elected politicains are? It is no different than Bill "not having sex with that woman" based on technical translation of what is legally defined as sex, as I said yesterday.

Which is why I would have liked to have read what you were talking about for myself. No, I'm not a lawyer, but I am able to read and understand most anything that's brought forward, even legalese.

Now, we are going to have to agree to disagree, because you say I am probably correct at least partially. I believe I am correct, period...and that you are probably correct, at least partially. So, again, agree to disagree.

Alice

Okay. (I agree).

If I do find that write again, I'll send you a pm and link. It sounds as tho now it doesn't matter.
 

alice

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
alice said:
backhoeboogie said:
Alice you are probably correct at least partially. But the words you read in these bills cannot be taken literally. You have to get a legal translation. Some of that translation is surely just as you say, misrepresntation. Other is fact.

Lawyers are gifted with weasel words. What do you think most of the elected politicains are? It is no different than Bill "not having sex with that woman" based on technical translation of what is legally defined as sex, as I said yesterday.

Which is why I would have liked to have read what you were talking about for myself. No, I'm not a lawyer, but I am able to read and understand most anything that's brought forward, even legalese.

Now, we are going to have to agree to disagree, because you say I am probably correct at least partially. I believe I am correct, period...and that you are probably correct, at least partially. So, again, agree to disagree.

Alice

Okay. (I agree).

If I do find that write again, I'll send you a pm and link. It sounds as tho now it doesn't matter.

Thanks
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Do you think they took it out because of Palin?

I get a kick out of the Dems, they say there is no "leader" of the Repubs, but want to pin everything on an individual. Scrambling around, "It's Rush, no it's Palin, no it's ..."

The citizens have got the Dems on the defensive, not any one individual.

Sit back, watch what the citizens are saying, and then emerge as a "leader"

Why throw yourself out there right now, to be demonized? Throw out the odd decoy.

What's the other hand doing?

I agree- this article was wrong, giving Palin all the credit...But its still comical...This was not something in the Dems original version of the bill- but added by the Repubs- so I can see why the Dem leadership thinks its no skin off their butt to throw it out.... :wink: :lol:

Some of it was the false info put out by Palin-and Rush-and the Insurance Industry pawns--- the story that it was "Death Panels" to feed the hysteria of the rightwingernuts that will bite on any bait fed them about now....

the democratic party and media deliberately mislead people into thinking the death panels were the advance directives legislation..

when in fact the cost cutting triggers, and cost effective directives will lead to an indiscriminate decision that will discriminate against the ill and aged..

The other focus of the administration’s cost-cutting plan for hospitals and health care is on reducing the use of more expensive treatments. This issue is being framed as a question of eliminating “inefficiencies,” and unnecessary costs. The main thrust, however, is on rationing and cutting back on health care for the elderly and poor.

In doing so, it underscored one of the main underlying goals of the administration’s proposals: reduce spending on the principal health care programs for the poor and elderly.

It is necessary to begin “cutting and reallocating hundreds of billions of dollars from projected spending on Medicare and Medicaid, as the Obama administration has proposed and Congress is considering,” the Times wrote. “Just to be sure, Congress ought to establish a fail-safe mechanism that could impose additional cuts after a few years if savings are less than projected.”

An article in the Times on Wednesday (“In Health Reform, a Cancer Offers an Acid Test,”) sheds further light on what is meant by “eliminating inefficiencies” in health care.

is eliminating Grandma on the table now? can we trust politicians to get it right.. ?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Do you think they took it out because of Palin?

I get a kick out of the Dems, they say there is no "leader" of the Repubs, but want to pin everything on an individual. Scrambling around, "It's Rush, no it's Palin, no it's ..."

The citizens have got the Dems on the defensive, not any one individual.

Sit back, watch what the citizens are saying, and then emerge as a "leader"

Why throw yourself out there right now, to be demonized? Throw out the odd decoy.

What's the other hand doing?

I agree- this article was wrong, giving Palin all the credit...But its still comical...This was not something in the Dems original version of the bill- but added by the Repubs- so I can see why the Dem leadership thinks its no skin off their butt to throw it out.... :wink: :lol:

Some of it was the false info put out by Palin-and Rush-and the Insurance Industry pawns--- the story that it was "Death Panels" to feed the hysteria of the rightwingernuts that will bite on any bait fed them about now....

the democratic party and media deliberately mislead people into thinking the death panels were the advance directives legislation..

when in fact the cost cutting triggers, and cost effective directives will lead to an indiscriminate decision that will discriminate against the ill and aged..

The other focus of the administration’s cost-cutting plan for hospitals and health care is on reducing the use of more expensive treatments. This issue is being framed as a question of eliminating “inefficiencies,” and unnecessary costs. The main thrust, however, is on rationing and cutting back on health care for the elderly and poor.

In doing so, it underscored one of the main underlying goals of the administration’s proposals: reduce spending on the principal health care programs for the poor and elderly.

It is necessary to begin “cutting and reallocating hundreds of billions of dollars from projected spending on Medicare and Medicaid, as the Obama administration has proposed and Congress is considering,” the Times wrote. “Just to be sure, Congress ought to establish a fail-safe mechanism that could impose additional cuts after a few years if savings are less than projected.”

An article in the Times on Wednesday (“In Health Reform, a Cancer Offers an Acid Test,”) sheds further light on what is meant by “eliminating inefficiencies” in health care.

is eliminating Grandma on the table now?

NOPE-- no more than any person with private insurance is left to the decision of the insurance companies on whether they will pay for a certain type of treatment or not...
When you talk rationing- it already exists- and the insurance companies are the ones telling the Doctors/Hospitals what kind of treatment they can or cannot perform...
I would rather put those decisions on whats better for my good health in the hands of a panel made up of medical professionals, than in the hands of Insurance execs that are only looking at the bottom line on their profit margin- and that know their salaries and bonus's are dependent on the amount of profit they make...

I think Obama- and several others have explained some of this quite well...Obama used his grandmother as an example-- laying on her death bed, dying of terminal cancer, 90+ years old, and her hip breaks (something common in terminal cancer patients)... Should she be given expensive hip replacement surgery (which she stands a good chance of not living thru) or should she be made as comfortable as possible for her final days?
Right now under current law- many Doctors are scared not to go ahead with the expensive hip surgery- fearing someone in the family may file a malpractice suit if they don't do it....That is the reason they need some national medical guidelines (not varying insurance company guidelines) layed out for the Doctors/Health Care providers to follow (not mandatory) that alleves them of that liability....
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
When you talk rationing- it already exists- and the insurance companies are the ones telling the Doctors/Hospitals what kind of treatment they can or cannot perform... I would rather put those decisions on whats better for my good health in the hands of a panel made up of medical professionals, than in the hands of Insurance execs that are only looking at the bottom line on their profit margin- and that know their salaries and bonus's are dependent on the amount of profit they make...
I think Obama- and several others have explained some of this quite well...Obama used his grandmother as an example-- laying on her death bed, dying of terminal cancer, 90+ years old, and her hip breaks (something common in terminal cancer patients)... Should she be given expensive hip replacement surgery (which she stands a good chance of not living thru) or should she be made as comfortable as possible for her final days?
Right now under current law- many Doctors are scared not to go ahead with the expensive hip surgery- fearing someone in the family may file a malpractice suit if they don't do it..

OT....those bold type comments are in complete contradiction with each other. One says doctors do what insurance companies pay for...the other says doctors do surgeries regardless in order to avoid law suits. Which is it????

And by the way.....are you sure the board will be made up of medical professionals only with no outside interferrence...
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I wonder what Senator Coburn of Oklahoma- an MD- thinks about Palin killing this section/amendment of the bill he had added to the Senate Bill with her false propaganda and fearmongering :???:
I wonder what the Doctors group he introduced it for think of her :???:

Why don't you call Dr. Howard Dean.....he's a doctor of sorts and probably will give you the answer you want to hear. :wink:
 
Top