Palin Was Against “Death Panels” Before She Was Against “Death Panels”
Think Progress, the Democratic policy and media-watch group, has come up with an amazing discovery. Sarah Palin was in favor of voluntary, private counseling so that people could put their end-of-life affairs in order, before she was against government bureaucrats getting involved in a mandatory process as part of health care restructuring cost savings efforts.
Nothing inconsistent about Palin’s position. It’s private versus public. It’s one thing for individuals to plan their own lives on their own, but quite different when government enforces mandates and gets involved in such decisions as part of an effort to cut health care costs. Remember, keep your laws off my body, or something like that?
But that did not stop Think Progress from proclaiming that Palin was for “death panels” before she was against them. Needless to day, this will be the meme of the day, to be run with by left-wing bloggers to “prove” that Palin has been inconsistent, when in fact there is no inconsistency.
And I love Alan Colmes’ title in his follow up: Palin Was For (What She Mislabels As) “Death Panels” Before She Was Against Them. Alan, you didn’t need to use the parenthetical; everyone knows that “death panel” was just a descriptive and evocative term, not a literal quote of the name of a panel. Well, almost everyone.
An Inconvenient Truth About The “Death Panel”
“Put Your Laws All Over My Body”
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
“It’s an absolute outrage that you would take first of all a provision written in the bill,” Emanuel says, a provision allowing for “doctors to talk to patients about end of life care, and turn it into the suggestion that we’re going to have euthanasia boards — that’s a complete misreading of what’s there. It’s just trying to scare people.”
Emanuel says as an oncologist he’s had hundreds of discussions with patients about what to do when treatment doesn’t work.
“It’s wrenching,” he says.
The provision in the House Democrats’ bill is “an acknowledgment doctors should be compensated for making that conversation available,” he says. “It’s not forced — it’s voluntary.”
As for Palin’s vision of “Obama ‘death panels,’” Emanuel argues “there’s no basis for that claim either in any of my writings or the legislation. It has no grounds in reality. It’s surreal and Orwellian, the idea that this legislation or my writings suggest that her son Trig shouldn’t get health care.”
I suppose the lady has to start somewhere.
The more she drifts away from this tacit acceptance of federal invasion of individual lives, and towards a reasonable Federalist stance, the more I'll support her.
Crank It Up, Sarah!
I think the Professor missed to highlight some points.
Living wills and "advance" directives planning (voluntary, personal decision, etc.) are totally different from actual encroachment of the Government "Death Panel" in the personal decision of the people "when the time of ending it comes".
The former is planning and part of individual responsibility subject to his own moral decisions. The latter is the one that is outrightly "evil".
Just the same, you are very right, Sir.
And one thing:
Alan Colmes is a dick.
>>>what does that mean? Colmes is a body part? Colmes has another name, dick? Colmes is an idiot? and so on.
I am sure that an average American with basic common sense can DECIPHER that. If not, that American must be mentally incapacitated.
/sorry for the example Sir.
You keep trying to explain Palin's silly death panel statement. It was and still is silly, nonsense and illogical. Also it doesn't make sense about private/public. Any medical conversation is private, with prob some public funds embracing the conversation. Anybody who has made and end of life conversation think that the government is going to tell somebody when to pull the plug is just crazy. I don't care, and most people would not care if any "panel" told someone when they can end someone's life. It is so silly and downright stupid to think anyone would allow anyone else that authority.
For all pro-choicer's protesting of the government and it's "hands" upon their "bodies," they seem to be missing the point of how this would ACTUALLY be putting government's hands on our bodies. Quite literally. And I personally would like the freedom to keep my baby alive if it has some sort of defect, instead of having the government tell me "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one… retarded baby."
Bill, you have to cut Alan A LOT of slack. Not only does he look like the adult version of Mr. Peabody's boy, Sherman (imagine being a little hung over and seeing those beady, singularity-pupils looking back from the mirror) but nearly every day he has to express (and defend against all comers) notions that J.K. Rowling would reject for lack of verisimilitude.