Stupid Sarah Palin lies about "death panel"

Search

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,117
Tokens
For once think of people who aren't lucky enough to be part of a Union and have to pay full price for Health Insurance or worse don't have the money to pay it themselves or a Union to pay it for them...funny how the closet socialist is railing against other people getting a piece.

LOL

I'm for responsible reform, and have said so on many an occasion. Even gave props to barbanman for a reform suggestion he posted.

I'm opposed to totally incompetent lying sack of shit politicians having the opportunity to fuck up more things than they already fuck up.

I listen to the likes of Obama, Pelosi and Reid and think dimwits, they live in a shell without a single lick of common sense.

I like things the way our founding fathers intended, as in a very limited federal bureaucracy, state's right and the opportunity to pursue happiness.

I expect nothing from other people, and don't ask for anything. Nobody on earth, not even an extreme Obama cheerleader, can make a rational argument that I'm a socialist in any way, shape or form.

"rational" being the operative word
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Its funny that some of you guys don't find it curious they they got rid of the language that Sarah refered to as death panel clause.
.

The fact that certain language was removed from the lastest version of the House bill does not give even an ounce of credence to Mrs Palin's dishonest assertions that those words mandated a "death panel".
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Steady rain drizzle here coming off the Gulf has us pinned to the home office this afternoon....thus my Sudden Interest in chatting about the Hot Facebook opinions of Sarah the Q
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
I watched Greta Van Sustren last nite.She said she read the bill and said it will be near impossible to implement and interpetate, and the interpetation of the bill will eventually get tied up courts and lawsuits.
She said it was one of the most poorly written piece of law she has ever read.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
The fact that certain language was removed from the lastest version of the House bill does not give even an ounce of credence to Mrs Palin's dishonest assertions that those words mandated a "death panel". <!-- / message -->

Any true american does not want some barackacrat deciding whats best for his/her health based on information from statfox book of skewed health statisitics.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Paul Krugman at the NY Times nicely cuts through the bullshit assertions of Palin and a handful of other Republican kooks regarding the so-called "death panel" in yesterday's edition.

He also takes note that President Obama is for the moment not responding as well as he might in the wake of this blast of outlandish and outright dishonest tactics by the aforementioned Kook fringe. Will Obama and those promoting major reform of health care in the USA make needed adjustments to find a path more palatable to the American public at large? As Krugman concludes, "Only time will tell".

========
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=2

<nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" "> Republican Death Trip</nyt_headline>javascript:void(0);By PAUL KRUGMAN

<script language="JavaScript" type="text/JavaScript">function getSharePasskey() { return 'ex=1407988800&en=7922ce503cb60a21&ei=5124';}</script> <script language="JavaScript" type="text/JavaScript"> function getShareURL() { return encodeURIComponent('http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/opinion/14krugman.html'); } function getShareHeadline() { return encodeURIComponent('Republican Death Trip'); } function getShareDescription() { return encodeURIComponent('President Obama had campaigned to move beyond divisive politics, but instead he is facing an opposition that eagerly seizes on every wild rumor manufactured by the right-wing media complex.'); } function getShareKeywords() { return encodeURIComponent('Health Insurance and Managed Care,Reform and Reorganization,Barack Obama,Sarah Palin,Charles E Grassley'); } function getShareSection() { return encodeURIComponent('opinion'); } function getShareSectionDisplay() { return encodeURIComponent('Op-Ed Columnist'); } function getShareSubSection() { return encodeURIComponent(''); } function getShareByline() { return encodeURIComponent('By PAUL KRUGMAN'); } function getSharePubdate() { return encodeURIComponent('August 14, 2009'); } </script>



<nyt_byline version="1.0" type=" "> </nyt_byline> Published: August 13, 2009

“I am in this race because I don’t want to see us spend the next year re-fighting the Washington battles of the 1990s. I don’t want to pit Blue America against Red America; I want to lead a United States of America.” So declared Barack Obama in November 2007, making the case that Democrats should nominate him, rather than one of his rivals, because he could free the nation from the bitter partisanship of the past.

Some of us were skeptical. A couple of months after Mr. Obama gave that speech, I warned that his vision of a “different kind of politics” was a vain hope, that any Democrat who made it to the White House would face “an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false.”


So, how’s it going?


Sure enough, President Obama is now facing the same kind of opposition that President Bill Clinton had to deal with: an enraged right that denies the legitimacy of his presidency, that eagerly seizes on every wild rumor manufactured by the right-wing media complex.


This opposition cannot be appeased. Some pundits claim that Mr. Obama has polarized the country by following too liberal an agenda. But the truth is that the attacks on the president have no relationship to anything he is actually doing or proposing.


Right now, the charge that’s gaining the most traction is the claim that health care reform will create “death panels” (in Sarah Palin’s words) that will shuffle the elderly and others off to an early grave. It’s a complete fabrication, of course. The provision requiring that Medicare pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling was introduced by Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican — yes, Republican — of Georgia, who says that it’s “nuts” to claim that it has anything to do with euthanasia.


And not long ago, some of the most enthusiastic peddlers of the euthanasia smear, including Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, and Mrs. Palin herself, were all for “advance directives” for medical care in the event that you are incapacitated or comatose. That’s exactly what was being proposed — and has now, in the face of all the hysteria, been dropped from the bill.

Yet the smear continues to spread. And as the example of Mr. Gingrich shows, it’s not a fringe phenomenon: Senior G.O.P. figures, including so-called moderates, have endorsed the lie.


Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, is one of these supposed moderates. I’m not sure where his centrist reputation comes from — he did, after all, compare critics of the Bush tax cuts to Hitler. But in any case, his role in the health care debate has been flat-out despicable.


Last week, Mr. Grassley claimed that his colleague Ted Kennedy’s brain tumor wouldn’t have been treated properly in other countries because they prefer to “spend money on people who can contribute more to the economy.” This week, he told an audience that “you have every right to fear,” that we “should not have a government-run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma.”


Again, that’s what a supposedly centrist Republican, a member of the Gang of Six trying to devise a bipartisan health plan, sounds like.


So much, then, for Mr. Obama’s dream of moving beyond divisive politics. The truth is that the factors that made politics so ugly in the Clinton years — the paranoia of a significant minority of Americans and the cynical willingness of leading Republicans to cater to that paranoia — are as strong as ever. In fact, the situation may be even worse than it was in the 1990s because the collapse of the Bush administration has left the G.O.P. with no real leaders other than Rush Limbaugh.


The question now is how Mr. Obama will deal with the death of his postpartisan dream.


So far, at least, the Obama administration’s response to the outpouring of hate on the right has had a deer-in-the-headlights quality. It’s as if officials still can’t wrap their minds around the fact that things like this can happen to people who aren’t named Clinton, as if they keep expecting the nonsense to just go away.


What, then, should Mr. Obama do? It would certainly help if he gave clearer and more concise explanations of his health care plan. To be fair, he’s gotten much better at that over the past couple of weeks.


What’s still missing, however, is a sense of passion and outrage — passion for the goal of ensuring that every American gets the health care he or she needs, outrage at the lies and fear-mongering that are being used to block that goal.

So can Mr. Obama, who can be so eloquent when delivering a message of uplift, rise to the challenge of unreasoning, unappeasable opposition? Only time will tell.
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
Steady rain drizzle here coming off the Gulf has us pinned to the home office this afternoon....thus my Sudden Interest in chatting about the Hot Facebook opinions of Sarah the Q

Shouldn't you be selling Amway @)
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Any true american does not want some barackacrat deciding whats best for his/her health based on information from statfox book of skewed health statisitics.

I have absolutely no idea what the above mangled syntax has to do with proposals to include end-of-life counseling - as are commonly found in all major health insurance plans right this very moment - within reform legislation.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Shouldn't you be selling Amway @)

Too busy handicapping tonight's MLB card.

Which is a key reason I like our modest, but growing group of online customers having the ability to just log on to the AG website and buy their products without my being involved whatsoever.

I just file the daily email summaries of online purchases into a folder.
 

New member
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Messages
5,137
Tokens
This death panel is silly.

It was a Republican Amendment

Oh, Those Death Panels

Posted by Amy Sullivan Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 10:14 pm

97 CommentsTrackback (6)
You would think that if Republicans wanted to totally mischaracterize a health care provision and demagogue it like nobody's business, they would at least pick something that the vast majority of them hadn't already voted for just a few years earlier. Because that's not just shameless, it's stupid.

Yes, that's right. Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

Let's go to the bill text, shall we? "The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning." The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.

So either Republicans were for death panels in 2003 before turning against them now--or they're lying about end-of-life counseling in order to frighten the bejeezus out of their fellow citizens and defeat health reform by any means necessary. Which is it, Mr. Grassley ("Yea," 2003)?
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
I watched Greta Van Sustren last nite.She said she read the bill and said it will be near impossible to implement and interpetate, and the interpetation of the bill will eventually get tied up courts and lawsuits.
She said it was one of the most poorly written piece of law she has ever read.

There is a good reason it is so poorly written.

It is an open ended document full of loopholes and backdoors for later exploitation by the pols and regulatory agencies to make it work anyway they want it to...but without explicitly saying it...right now.

It deserves to be questioned, and people have a right to be angry about it.

The whole thing is dishonest lawyerese bullshit. Instinctively most Americans can see it that way too...so anybody pumping it is not to be trusted.

Hello, Obama?

You...the one that isn't for single payer...except when you are.~~:<<
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,117
Tokens
This death panel is silly.

It was a Republican Amendment

Oh, Those Death Panels

Posted by Amy Sullivan Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 10:14 pm

97 CommentsTrackback (6)
You would think that if Republicans wanted to totally mischaracterize a health care provision and demagogue it like nobody's business, they would at least pick something that the vast majority of them hadn't already voted for just a few years earlier. Because that's not just shameless, it's stupid.

Yes, that's right. Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

Let's go to the bill text, shall we? "The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning." The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.

So either Republicans were for death panels in 2003 before turning against them now--or they're lying about end-of-life counseling in order to frighten the bejeezus out of their fellow citizens and defeat health reform by any means necessary. Which is it, Mr. Grassley ("Yea," 2003)?


standing alone in a competitive marketplace without any real attempt to ration care, no big deal and very big difference

when a politician says we're getting too much care, we he says he questions care given to terminally ill and the elderly, when he espouses one stop coverage for all (except politicians), and when he proposes that a government bureaucracy gets involved in all these decisions, it's actually pretty scary.

big brother to make health care decisions for you, I have to say I'm surprised by your level of support
 

New member
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Messages
5,137
Tokens
I haven't stated my support for any plan. I do think there needs to be a conversation about healthcare but I think it needs to be a rational conversation. There are actual concerns about the plan that need to be raised, not scaring the public with a so called death panel. I'd really like to see tort reform in the plan but we all know the democrats are slaves to the trial attorneys.

I think it the end, the bill (if passed) will not look much like the one that has been passed out of the 1 of several committees writing a bill.
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,117
Tokens
Paul Krugman barbanman? he is literally Obama's Bidet, it's part of his official job description, "licks Obama's ass 24/7".

Krugman makes Maureen Dowd look objective, Harry Reid look smart and Nancy Pelosi look sane.

He's out there in left field loser land with Keith Olberman, a/k/a zer0. Notice how they both work for failing companies? but I digress.

You are officially no longer eligible to mock any source any other poster ever cites, be it Sen Bobby Byrd on race relations or Teddy on drunk driving. Citing Alcie Hastings on how to resist temptations is know acceptable in your world. Yes, even Sarah Palin is a better source for info than any idiot whit shit on his tongue.

Good luck today :toast:
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,117
Tokens
Steady rain drizzle here coming off the Gulf has us pinned to the home office this afternoon....thus my Sudden Interest in chatting about the Hot Facebook opinions of Sarah the Q

Sarah Palin calls out the essence of Obama's desire and the problematic wording

Obama responds with one of his cute two step dances that answer nothing but appease his dwindling supporters

Palin rips him a new one citing specific wording and practical application.

Senators immediately remove such problematic wording from their bill.

-------------------------------------------------------------

barbanman concludes sarah had nothing do to with any of the above. It's a defense denial mechanism. You see, if she were actually responsible for the events that occurred immediately following her words, his head would explode. Since he values life and loves his poodle, he has no choice but to deny it ever happened.

pack a bowl my friend, it'll ease the pain.

In the meantime, enjoy this sexy girl dancing

1186_lg_clr.gif
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Paul Krugman barbanman?

Good luck today :toast:

Yes indeedy.

I've consistently noticed that the lead columnists at the Old Grey Lady are most informative when compared to the medium at large
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,117
Tokens
Yes indeedy.

I've consistently noticed that the lead columnists at the Old Grey Lady are most informative when compared to the medium at large


"informative"?

in a manipulative, deceitful, plagiarizing, framing, cheer leading and lying sort of way, I totally concur

"there" almost has accurate as the Enquirer



BTW: Krugman looks at the amazing shift in polling data and concludes, "the Republicans are the ones killing themselves". Seriously, how can one be so stupid?
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
"there" almost has accurate as the Enquirer

I'll presume you intended to write "They're almost as accurate as The Enquirer"

which leads me to recall that I Sure Took a Lot of Heat when I broke that Krugman column
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,117
Tokens
I'll presume you intended to write "They're almost as accurate as The Enquirer"

which leads me to recall that I Sure Took a Lot of Heat when I broke that Krugman column


no, I'm practicing modern day grammar, as practiced by one of the left's brightest minds on this board.

thus the quotes for emphasis
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,810
Messages
13,573,492
Members
100,872
Latest member
ninja_coder
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com