Palin Speaks

[Winstonm]

"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. Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote

[luke warm]

what is she talking about?

[hrothgar]

what is she talking about?

There is a concerted disinformation campaign coming from the right wing to misrepresent health care reform.

 

One of the of the more prevalent meme is the claim that government officials are going to start euthanizing people once the hit the age of 22.

 

Sarah Palin is one of a small band of runners who are fighting against this oppressive system.

[Winstonm]

what is she talking about?

There is a concerted disinformation campaign coming from the right wing to misrepresent health care reform.

 

One of the of the more prevalent meme is the claim that government officials are going to start euthanizing people once the hit the age of 22.

 

Sarah Palin is one of a small band of runners who are fighting against this oppressive system.

56,899,510 Americans voted to put this lady one heartbeat away from the presidency.

 

"The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just 1 in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms."

[Lobowolf]

what is she talking about?

Government rationing of health care (taken to a (hypothetical) extreme).

[PassedOut]

what is she talking about?

Government rationing of health care (taken to a (hypothetical) extreme).

From my days in Atlanta, I remember an Alabama bridge player sentenced to death because he could not pay for the transplant he needed to save his life. Area bridge players worked hard to raise the money (Grant Baze played a big part in this), but the player died before the full amount was gathered.

 

Personally, I'd like to see the government step in to regulate the health care rationing that already exists in the US.

[Al_U_Card]

Heaven forbid that human life be placed in higher regard than money.

 

Imagine the ignominy of being rich and not having a life that is more worth saving than some execrable poor person's.

 

Government of the (rich) people, by the (rich) people and for the (rich) people.

 

Your money, don't leave life without it.... :)

[Lobowolf]

what is she talking about?

Government rationing of health care (taken to a (hypothetical) extreme).

From my days in Atlanta, I remember an Alabama bridge player sentenced to death because he could not pay for the transplant he needed to save his life. Area bridge players worked hard to raise the money (Grant Baze played a big part in this), but the player died before the full amount was gathered.

 

Personally, I'd like to see the government step in to regulate the health care rationing that already exists in the US.

You think he'd have gotten one in time under a government program? The main effect on rationing will be who gets to decide. The government's not going to be passing out free hearts to everyone who needs them.

[luke warm]

what is she talking about?

Government rationing of health care (taken to a (hypothetical) extreme).

yes, but i meant (specifically) the words "level of productivity in society"... i've never heard that phraseology used, any idea where she got that?

 

btw, since this supposedly concerns the health care debate, what are the panel's thoughts on forcing (if necessary) the federal executive, legislative, and judiciary branches to use whatever system is deemed acceptable for the rest of the citizentry?

[PassedOut]

what is she talking about?

Government rationing of health care (taken to a (hypothetical) extreme).

From my days in Atlanta, I remember an Alabama bridge player sentenced to death because he could not pay for the transplant he needed to save his life. Area bridge players worked hard to raise the money (Grant Baze played a big part in this), but the player died before the full amount was gathered.

 

Personally, I'd like to see the government step in to regulate the health care rationing that already exists in the US.

You think he'd have gotten one in time under a government program? The main effect on rationing will be who gets to decide. The government's not going to be passing out free hearts to everyone who needs them.

For sure - he had close relative willing to donate the organ he needed for the transplant. He just didn't have the $275K.

 

Of course not every heart patient will get a free transplant, but otherwise healthy people will not die for lack of money when a crucial organ is readily available.

 

Sure people will no longer be sentenced to death just to increase the profits of an insurance company. But there will still be tough decisions to make, and we'll constantly be looking at (and arguing about) how the government makes those decisions.

 

A much better scenario, in my view. And, happily, I won't have to spend so damned much time dealing with employees' insurance.

[Winstonm]

what is she talking about?

Gog and Magog?

 

Just don't tell that blabbermouth Chirac.

[PassedOut]

btw, since this supposedly concerns the health care debate, what are the panel's thoughts on forcing (if necessary) the federal executive, legislative, and judiciary branches to use whatever system is deemed acceptable for the rest of the citizentry?

I'd definitely like to see your suggestion implemented. (Won't hold my breath though.)

[Winstonm]

what are the panel's thoughts on forcing (if necessary) the federal executive, legislative, and judiciary branches to use whatever system is deemed acceptable for the rest of the citizentry?

 

There are certainly a number in Congress whom I wouldn't mind watching go in front of the Obama Death Committee. :ph34r:

[luke warm]

what are the panel's thoughts on forcing (if necessary) the federal executive, legislative, and judiciary branches to use whatever system is deemed acceptable for the rest of the citizentry?

 

There are certainly a number in Congress whom I wouldn't mind watching go in front of the Obama Death Committee. :ph34r:

what are your thoughts on this?

 

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

 

and would your thoughts be different had bush's white house done something similar about, say, the war in iraq - or even gitmo?

[kenberg]

what is she talking about?

Gog and Magog?

 

Just don't tell that blabbermouth Chirac.

:) :)

 

The lady's time in the spotlight is over. Applause. Curtain.

[kenberg]

what are the panel's thoughts on forcing (if necessary) the federal executive, legislative, and judiciary branches to use whatever system is deemed acceptable for the rest of the citizentry?

 

There are certainly a number in Congress whom I wouldn't mind watching go in front of the Obama Death Committee. :)

what are your thoughts on this?

 

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

 

and would your thoughts be different had bush's white house done something similar about, say, the war in iraq - or even gitmo?

And who is it from? Who is at flag?

 

 

As with the Magog business on the other thread, such stupidity, if it is for real, is truly astounding and tragic.

 

I hate to be in this position of hoping that so many things about our government turn out as hoaxes.

 

Feel free to send this to flag. No don't. It will probably get me on a mailing list for vitamin supplements.

[hrothgar]

what are your thoughts on this?

 

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

 

and would your thoughts be different had bush's white house done something similar about, say, the war in iraq - or even gitmo?

I think that this is a reasonable and proportionate response to the current political situation. There is an excellent piece in yesterday's Washington Post discussing a closely related issue.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9080603854.html

 

The opening paragraph reads as follows

As a columnist who regularly dishes out sharp criticism, I try not to question the motives of people with whom I don't agree. Today, I'm going to step over that line.

 

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.

 

There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress -- I've made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation.

 

Tracking the lies and falsehoods that the right wing is spewing seems completely reasonable.

 

Moreover, there is clear evidence that the "grass roots" anti health care protests have a strong component of astroturf. The following is quite amusing:

 

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08...op-official.php

 

Tracking emails is a great way to (eventually) identify the source of all this *****.

[cherdanno]

what are the panel's thoughts on forcing (if necessary) the federal executive, legislative, and judiciary branches to use whatever system is deemed acceptable for the rest of the citizentry?

 

There are certainly a number in Congress whom I wouldn't mind watching go in front of the Obama Death Committee. :)

what are your thoughts on this?

 

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

 

and would your thoughts be different had bush's white house done something similar about, say, the war in iraq - or even gitmo?

And who is it from? Who is at flag?

 

 

As with the Magog business on the other thread, such stupidity, if it is for real, is truly astounding and tragic.

 

I hate to be in this position of hoping that so many things about our government turn out as hoaxes.

 

Feel free to send this to flag. No don't. It will probably get me on a mailing list for vitamin supplements.

I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact I don't understand why you have a problem with that. This is very similar to what the Obama campaign did with the "fight the smears" website during the campaign. The e-mails just helps them judging which misinformation is so widespread that it warrants a public response.

Would you have less of a problem with this if this was handled by the DNC instead of the White House?

[mike777]

yes

[Winstonm]

and would your thoughts be different had bush's white house done something similar about, say, the war in iraq - or even gitmo?

 

I am an equal opportunity basher - Obama gets no free ride from me, either. The son-of-a-bitch is worse than Bush when it comes to civil liberties because he knows what he's doing - it can't be blamed on gross stupidity.

 

However, I am strongly in agreement with Richard that the wingnuts are actually more dangerous and should be called out in the open for their foolishness.

 

In my work I make a visit on an elderly woman who always has her television tuned to John Hagee or Pat Robertson and thus far she has informed me that these shows have taught her that Obama is really not American but was born in Kenya, that Obama wants to socialize medicine, and that when you separate Obama's name it means something or the other about the anti-christ (I stopped paying attention to her ramblings long ago.)

 

What is so odd about this is that there was no similar President-bashing from the good pastors when Bush-Cheney were in office.

[Al_U_Card]

Nothing inconsistent with previous actions.

 

You get what you pay for.

 

A banking supporter who will not "reform" anything.

 

Change for the same that you can rely on.

 

The saying here is "Quatre trente-sous pour une piastre." which translates as "four quarters for a dollar" and THAT is also change you can count...on.

 

p.s. the recent SS criticism about death threats et al....as long as he doesn't take on the bank(er)s he knows that he has nothing to fear.

[kenberg]

My reaction was visceral, I was not brought up to be a snitch. Can I defend my reaction with rational argument? I think so.

 

flag@whitehouse.gov is an anonymous site. Yes, I suppose it goes to "the White House", but that is more of a conceptual entity than a location. There is no indication of who gets this information, what they will do with it, who they are responsible to, and so on.

 

For example: I currently run a summer program that receives government funding. Will the people who decide on the funding have access to information reported to flag? Ridiculous? Well I think the existence of this site is ridiculous so that argument doesn't go far with me. Early in my career I was in a dispute with the University Vice-President who said something like "Gee, I wish I could think of a way to force you to do this". I still said no and survived, but there are some mean mfs out there. It's almost part of the job description for being a successful politician.

 

I prefer that there not be a website in the whitehouse where people are invited to send my name if they don't like what I say about Obama's healthcare plan. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue with me.

[Winstonm]

More change we can believe in....

 

 

WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass dozens of provisions of bills enacted into law since he took office, provoking mounting criticism by lawmakers from both parties.

 

President George W. Bush, citing expansive theories about his constitutional powers, set off a national debate in 2006 over the propriety of signing statements

[Winstonm]

Who can argue with this logic?

 

The Onion.com

 

"For years, doctors have complained that the notion of practicing medicine with the patient's health as the number-one priority is not only outdated, but unfair. By putting the patient's welfare before cost considerations, doctors place themselves at risk of antagonizing HMOs, which pay for the bulk of medical bills under the current system. Every time a precautionary electrocardiogram is done on someone suffering from chest pain, it is the HMOs that truly suffer."

[luke warm]

Tracking emails is a great way to (eventually) identify the source of all this *****.

and once the source is identified? i think you are an incurable hypocrite... if that quote had come from the bush white house you'd have had plenty to say... imagine this quote:

 

"There is a lot of disinformation about service done to our country by the troops at Gitmo, spanning from insensitivity to outright torture. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web, [or hear something in casual conversation] about our fight against terror that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

 

would it still have been okay? would you have been equally as blase`, as less horrified? i doubt it

I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact I don't understand why you have a problem with that. This is very similar to what the Obama campaign did with the "fight the smears" website during the campaign. The e-mails just helps them judging which misinformation is so widespread that it warrants a public response.

Would you have less of a problem with this if this was handled by the DNC instead of the White House?

this isn't a campaign, this is the government, and the "misinformation" is labeled so by the ones with the power... my above reply applies equally to you

And who is it from? Who is at flag?

try here