Palin stands by "death panel" claim

I read that section of the bill. It is a death panel as far as I can see. Although they 'suggest' topics such as wills and so forth the actually
content of the mandatory visits will be determined by a committee of bureaucrats.

They even suggest restricting information on how the patient can receive life saving treatment. Along with other provisions in this bill the intent
is clear. Make death the preferred choice for your treatment.

The reason for this is twofold. The authors of the bill are advocates of eugenics and thus wish to cull 'undesirables', and the other reason is
that they know they don't have the resources to extend full services to the so called 'uninsured' (aka illegal aliens and welfare families.)

The bill is full of ways to ration health care. They know that they will need to do so in order to hold down costs while pretending to take care of
everyone.

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

This woman drives me up the wall. I never thought there would be a person who I would despise more than the shrub, then she came on the scene.
The Only State that the Feds have stopped new sign ups was hers

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Perhaps Sarah Palin made that ridiculous statement about "Obama Death Panels" because she knew this story was going to break -- it was happening in
her own state, right under her nose:

State programs intended to help disabled and elderly Alaskans with daily life -- taking a bath, eating dinner, getting to the bathroom -- are so
poorly managed, the state cannot assure the health and well-being of the people they are supposed to serve, a new federal review found.

The situation is so bad the federal government has forbidden the state to sign up new people until the state makes necessary improvements. No
other state in the nation is under such a moratorium, according to a spokeswoman for the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

A particularly alarming finding concerns deaths of adults in the programs. In one 2 1/2 year stretch, 227 adults already getting services died while
waiting for a nurse to reassess their needs. Another 27 died waiting for their initial assessment, to see if they qualified for help.

~~

Another sign of trouble for the feds: eight lawsuits against the state division.

Most were brought by the Northern Justice Project, a private civil rights firm created in 2006 to pursue class action suits and other big cases.

"I think the lawsuits reflect that these two programs are and have been run incompetently for some time," said Jim Davis, one of the partners and
founders of the justice project.

The common thread in the suits is that seniors and disabled Alaskans aren't getting the services they are entitled to, under the law, Davis said. In
one big win, the state Supreme Court ruled last year that the state had improperly cut off or reduced services to more than 1,000 needy people.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
I read that section of the bill. It is a death panel as far as I can see. Although they 'suggest' topics such as wills and so forth the actually
content of the mandatory visits will be determined by a committee of bureaucrats.

They even suggest restricting information on how the patient can receive life saving treatment. Along with other provisions in this bill the intent
is clear. Make death the preferred choice for your treatment.

The reason for this is twofold. The authors of the bill are advocates of eugenics and thus wish to cull 'undesirables', and the other reason is
that they know they don't have the resources to extend full services to the so called 'uninsured' (aka illegal aliens and welfare families.)

The bill is full of ways to ration health care. They know that they will need to do so in order to hold down costs while pretending to take care of
everyone.

OMG....do mean Sarah Palin is telling the truth?
Gee....i thought maybe she just woke one morning and decided
to make things up, post them on the internet and just hope
she wouldn't get caught.

It looks like the truth is on Sarahs side.
The truth shall set us free from this ObamaCare mess.
Well maybe just a few more union thugs showing up at these
town hall meetings and the Libs will be able push away all anti ObamaCare
old people.
I want Pelosi to call them Un-American just one more time.

"Death Panels" or not (even that's hogwash) the healthcare will need to be rationed, and we at least need come to terms with that. So far the costs
are rising exponentially, and I haven't heard anything constructive from those who oppose the reform, with regards what's going to happen in 5, 10
or 20 years with the current trend. I grant you it's murky waters at best, in the sense of morality and all, but we just can't ignore economics of
that. Eventually one way or another, a choice will be made, even with the current bankrupting system, between a kidney transplant for person
ABC who's 80 and has terminal cancer, and a similar transplant for person XYZ who's 30 and has better chances.

Edited to add: for all their self-righteousness, the right-wingers' attitude is do nothing when it comes to healthcare (or lack thereof, or its
spiraling cost which weigh's heavily on the economy).

The panel everyone is referring to is called the "Medical Advisory Panel" and , if I remember correctly, it will have 27 members who will decide the
conditions underwhich someone will get or not get treatments, diagnostics, and procedures.

Apparently they will decide on "quality of life" issues as well.

They will also be in charge of cutting costs which actually means limiting the kind of medical care and interventions that will or will not be
available to various categories of individuals.

Yes, insurance companies do have "medical reviews" to determine medical necessity of expensive treatments. However, these are done by nurse
practitioners and doctors as opposed to the political bureaucrats that will be on the government panel. Medical reviews can be appealed. The
government's Advisory Panel will have the final word.

This is not a good thing. Alsp, the bill is so massive and has so much "junk" in it that we could all have the street people that ACORN (or
whatever they are calling themselves these days) hires having a say in our medical decisions.

There is also at least one provision in one of the five bills proposed by the Democrats that requires you to give the feds access to your checking
account in order to get the medical insurance card so they can withdraw your funds at will if they decide you owe money for something.

That is the ultimate outrage since the only agency that can legally do that now is the IRS and only if you owe back taxes and have not made some
arrangement with them to pay those taxes.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I grant you it's murky waters at best, in the sense of morality and all, but we just can't ignore economics of that. Eventually one way or another,
a choice will be made, even with the current bankrupting system, between a kidney transplant for person ABC who's 80 and has terminal cancer,
and a similar transplant for person XYZ who's 30 and has better chances.

These kinds of decisions are already being made by the medical establishment. There are only so many kidneys available for transplant at a given
time, so how do they decide who gets it?

In some instances you wait in line for a kidney and when your turn comes you get it. But there are many instances in which a celebrity or other
prestigious individual goes to the head of the line, before others who have been waiting longer.

Some people die waiting for a transplant.

I don't doubt that the age and potential ability to benefit from the transplant are factors that are considered, although I'm not familiar with
exactly how that decision-making process works.

But I do know these decisions are already being made on a daily basis.

If there is health care reform these are vexing questions that will have to be addressed sooner or later. There will be somebody whose interests will
not be served and there will be heart-breaking consequences no matter how the decision is ultimately made.

I just know that this is already happening, under the present free-market system. Failing to reform health care (or more accurately health insurance)
won't solve the problem.

Originally posted by Sestias
I don't doubt that the age and potential ability to benefit from the transplant are factors that are considered, although I'm not familiar with
exactly how that decision-making process works.

But I do know these decisions are already being made on a daily basis.

If there is health care reform these are vexing questions that will have to be addressed sooner or later. There will be somebody whose interests will
not be served and there will be heart-breaking consequences no matter how the decision is ultimately made.

I just know that this is already happening, under the present free-market system. Failing to reform health care (or more accurately health insurance)
won't solve the problem.

Thank you Sestias. You helped to accentuate the point -- for all the nonsensical operatic performance of Palin, on the subject of healthcare, it's
little more than fear mongering and purveying social poison to the American public. Shame on her.

If this health care bill fails; who will it help and who will it hurt?
As more and more people lose health care along with their jobs, HMO show record profits and the CEO buy more and more lavish homes and yachts. Who
will be blamed for the plight of the uninsured, sick and dying.

The Dembs who at least made an attempt at HC reform?

Or the GOP that didn't even bother to come up with a viable alternative?
Palin will be branded a mean, uncaring [profanity] not a real champion of the common man but just another pimp for the insurance co. HMO and big
pharma. Think she will ever be elected with that hanging over her head?

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.