Seniors and the disabled "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."

Sarah Palin on Friday, August 7th, 2009 in a message posted on Facebook
Sarah Palin falsely claims Barack Obama runs a 'death panel'
Pants on Fire!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/10/sarah-palin/sarah-palin-barack-obama-death-panel/

Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska, urged her supporters to oppose Democratic plans for health care reform on her Facebook page.

"As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!" wrote Palin in a note posted Aug. 7, 2009.

She said that the Democrats plan to reduce health care costs by simply refusing to pay for care.

"And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. 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."

We agree with Palin that such a system would be evil. But it's definitely not what President Barack Obama or any other Democrat has proposed.

We have read all 1,000-plus pages of the Democratic bill and examined versions in various committees. There is no panel in any version of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person's "level of productivity in society" to determine whether they are "worthy" of health care.

Palin's claim sounds a little like another statement making the rounds, which says that health care reform would mandate counseling for seniors on how to end their lives sooner. We rated this claim Pants on Fire! The truth is that the health bill allows Medicare, for the first time, to pay for doctors' appointments for patients to discuss living wills and other end-of-life issues with their physicians. These types of appointments are completely optional, and AARP supports the measure.

Palin also may have also jumped to conclusions about the Obama administration's efforts to promote comparative effectiveness research. Such research has nothing to do with evaluating patients for "worthiness." Rather, comparative effectiveness research finds out which treatments work better than others.

The health reform bill being considered in the House of Representatives says that a Comparative Effectiveness Research Center shall "conduct, support, and synthesize research" that looks at "outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically."

The idea here, which Obama and his budget director Peter Orszag have discussed many times, is to make it easier for doctors, health care workers, insurance companies and patients to find out which treatments are the most effective, as determined by clinical studies and other research.

Obama has said he believes a comparative effectiveness commission should advise health care workers, not require them to follow certain treatments.

"I actually think that most doctors want to do right by their patients. And if they’ve got good information, I think they will act on that good information," Obama said during an interview with the New York Times on April 28, 2009.

He also specifically addressed end-of-life care for seniors, discussing the last week of his grandmother's life in 2008, and how her family and doctors decided on treatment for her.

"It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels," Obama said. "And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that's part of what I suspect you'll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now."

And in fact, the House bill states in the section creating the Comparative Effectiveness Research Center and an oversight commission, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer." In other words, comparative effectiveness research will tell you whether treatment A is better than treatment B. But the bill as written won't mandate which treatment doctors and patients have to select.

Palin's statement seems extreme, but other Republicans, like Newt Gingrich, are backing her up. "You're asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there clearly are people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards," Gingrich said in an interview on This Week with George Stephanopolous on Aug. 9, 2009.

We've looked at the inflammatory claims that the health care bill encourages euthanasia. It doesn't. There's certainly no "death board" that determines the worthiness of individuals to receive care. Conservatives might make a case that Palin is justified in fearing that the current reform could one day morph into such a board.

But that's not what Palin said. She said that the Democratic plan will ration care and "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." Palin's statement sounds more like a science fiction movie (Soylent Green, anyone?) than part of an actual bill before Congress. We rate her statement Pants on Fire!

Palin is no different that any PRIVATE citizen, she has the right to voice her opinion.

SSC wrote:Palin is no different that any PRIVATE citizen, she has the right to voice her opinion.

I'm not so sure that she was that far off the mark. IF...the government is to pay all bills,that will be taxpayer money. It would be ridiculous to assume that all medical expenses will be paid with no limit. It would be equally ridiculous to assume that the treating doctor(s) will decide when to terminate the treatments since they wouldn't do that as long as there is a chance of recovery. So...who will say that the treatments must stop? What will we call that person or persons? If the decision is made according to rules and regs,who will interpret and enforce them? If one feels his loved one was denied treatment,where will they get recourse or appeal? If an insurance company does this unfairly,one can sue. Can one sue the government? These questions aren't "fear mongering" but legitimate concerns. Unanswered.

SSC wrote:Palin is no different that any PRIVATE citizen, she has the right to voice her opinion.

sure she can all this sight does is go to extremes to determine if what she said is true or false or something inbetween,as it does on all statement in the news by anyone. usually it say false but if it is so far out of bounds false they label it pants on fire, lol , and it does smack of the movie soylent green. but we all know she has an agenda , she owes so much money,she will have to keep her name in the lime light in a hope to land a tv deal or whatever,to pay off her 500.000 buck legal bills, she is ticked that the macains camp stoped her legal defence fund , because they thought it was a ethics violation that may reflect poorly on macain during the election, she thought it meant the macain camp would pay off her legal bills, but they refused leaving her with them, and she is ticked off at them, i imagine as a non govenor now she may be able to collect on a legal defense fund but im not sure as i have not seen an article on what she can do now,. and is why she got out while the getting was good. but i know i have posted all this in news articles here, and is just rehash, so take care, sorry to repeat all this again,

Oh,that's OK Roscoe. I am impressed by your ability to read minds and all your inside informants in the Palin household. Although I think the term "death panel" was unfortunate my post above asks the question: "What will YOU call the decision makers when it comes time for the govvernment bean counters to shut off the medical pipeline to terminal or chronically ill patients? I will,if that situation obtains, call the decision makers a "death panel", which is strange since I have accumulated no legal fees, am not a member of the Republican party, and definitely DON'T want my name in the public eye. Perhaps you can use your powers and contacts to discover why I believe the way I do.

thanks moon im glad ur impressed but i cant take credit, it was all just articles in the news that i had already posted here,, glad u enjoyed it , take care,

I always wanted to be able to read MINDS, like Mr. Spock on star trek or something, it just never panned out..

But that has nothing to do with your discussion, I was just making a quick interjection, for comedy sake, you know...

btw, I thought Palin was a rich multi-millionaire? If that's true then how can she have a problem departing with 500.000 bucks? She has WAY more money than that, at least that was my understanding.

I know rich people don't like to part with their money, but Palin is no where close to being poor. She also has a rich family, they would help her if needed. Besides that, she can earn a million in a day if she wanted, do a few shows, maybe a book or magazine interview, perhaps come up with a "fragrance" (perfume)..lol there are many ways for someone like her to earn money quickly. If you're in the spotlight and you have fans (support), you have a means to make money, plain and simple.

"...she is ticked that the macains camp stoped her legal defence fund..." (I didn't see your post where she is quoted as having said this. Where is it?) "...because they thought it was a ethics violation that may reflect poorly on macain during the election..." (I didn't see your post where a representative from the McCain camp was quoted as having said this) "...she thought it meant the macain camp would pay off her legal bills..." (I didn't see your post where she was quoted as having said this)"...but they refused leaving her with them, and she is ticked off at them...(I didn't see your post where she was quoted as having said this) "...and is why she got out while the getting was good." (She said this? Where? When? I didn't see the article where she or a member of her staff said this) "but i know i have posted all this in news articles here, and is just rehash..." (Since when are speculations and opinions "news"? Yer,right, rehashing this kinda lurid fluff lent it no credibility whatsoever and may be why some may have read it and immediately discounted it as not news or worthy of response.)

I'll repeat this open question: "What will YOU call the decision makers when it comes time for the government bean counters to shut off the medical pipeline to terminal or chronically ill patients?" That will happen if the government is paying the bills with a Congressionally mandated and legally required budget,so I'm curious. If you choose to call the decision makers something other than a "death panel,what will you call them? A "no more life panel"? A "don't call us,we'll call you panel"? Again; I'm just curious.

meemoon wrote:"...she is ticked that the macains camp stoped her legal defence fund..." (I didn't see your post where she is quoted as having said this. Where is it?) "...because they thought it was a ethics violation that may reflect poorly on macain during the election..." (I didn't see your post where a representative from the McCain camp was quoted as having said this) "...she thought it meant the macain camp would pay off her legal bills..." (I didn't see your post where she was quoted as having said this)"...but they refused leaving her with them, and she is ticked off at them...(I didn't see your post where she was quoted as having said this) "...and is why she got out while the getting was good." (She said this? Where? When? I didn't see the article where she or a member of her staff said this) "but i know i have posted all this in news articles here, and is just rehash..." (Since when are speculations and opinions "news"? Yer,right, rehashing this kinda lurid fluff lent it no credibility whatsoever and may be why some may have read it and immediately discounted it as not news or worthy of response.)

marc its under general thought here it is again in a paste but u can find the original post here in general thoughts,titled "Are legal bills to blame," glad to do ur work for u, take care

Are Legal Bills To Blame?

Post rosco 357 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:53 am
Are Legal Bills To Blame?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/207398?from=rss

One of the main reasons Sarah Palin is stepping down as governor, say associates, is her large, unpaid legal bill. Her successor, Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, says she is worried about "the cost of all the ethics investigations and the like." But is that really the reason? John Coale, a Washington lawyer who helped Palin set up a legal-defense fund and PAC, tells NEWSWEEK the fund is "well on its way" to paying off $500,000 in legal debt from the campaign and another $100,000 in bills incurred later, leaving questions about how big a part money woes played in her decision to resign.

One thing is clear: Palin is fuming at the McCain camp, which she believes saddled her with all that debt. At the time John McCain tapped Palin, she was using Alaska state funds to pay the lawyer she hired to defend her against ethics charges. McCain aides, worried that that could raise ethical questions, put an end to the payments. Here's where things get testy: Coale says the McCain campaign, and later the Republican National Committee, led Palin to believe that they would pay her bills, but never did, causing Palin's debt to pile up. But two former senior McCain officials, who asked for anonymity to keep political peace, say there was no such promise (online finance records show no payments to Palin's lawyer). Palin's spokeswoman, her lawyer, and an RNC spokeswoman didn't respond to requests for comment.

You did my work for me? I read this article. I read all your posts,and I discounted it for what it was. Speculation,not news. Palin is not quoted in there at all. Some of her "associates" apeculated some things,other "associates" speculated something entirely different. I'm not hair splitting Roscoe,but you almost repeated word for word some writer's speculations as if they were "news". You,like me and all of us, are free to post what you will,how you wish,but posting speculations as if they were known facts or truth will be called. If you wish, I can search and find an article claiming that GW and the CIA plotted the 9/11 attack or that Elvis is alive.

as you said all of have speculated here~ even u Mr Moon~

lmao moon dont nit pic, u know its true, take care ,and have a good nite,

runawayhorses wrote:btw, I thought Palin was a rich multi-millionaire? If that's true then how can she have a problem departing with 500.000 bucks? She has WAY more money than that, at least that was my understanding.I know rich people don't like to part with their money, but Palin is no where close to being poor. She also has a rich family, they would help her if needed. Besides that, she can earn a million in a day if she wanted, do a few shows, maybe a book or magazine interview, perhaps come up with a "fragrance" (perfume)..lol there are many ways for someone like her to earn money quickly. If you're in the spotlight and you have fans (support), you have a means to make money, plain and simple.

Palins' finances unusual for Alaskans (WASHINGTON TIMES)
Family owns plane, two boats
By Jerry Seper (Contact) | Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Article
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has introduced her family to the nation as small-town common folk since she burst onto the scene as the surprise pick for the Republican vice-presidential nominee last month. A check of financial records, though, shows the Palins live anything but a common life when compared with their fellow residents of their hometown of Wasilla.

Their combined income of nearly a quarter-million dollars last year was five times the median household income for Wasilla's 7,000 residents. They own a single-engine plane, two boats, two personal watercraft and a half-million-dollar, custom-built home on a lake that is worth three times the average of other homes in town.
(She and her husband have done quite well but they are not "millionaires".and her lawyer says the debts are covered. Idle gossip isn't news)

Wow, I'd like to just have a plane and a boat, that would be groovy..

"gossip isn't news"??, OK, I'll remember that, somehow that never occurred to me.

i have seen that plane on a tv show when she showed the news her house during the election,she stated it had not been flown in years, and it is not that much of a plane, just a small one like my sister has in their hanger by their house as they live on a 3000 foot private air strip where every house there , about 8 my brother in law built, for the ppl,all have hangers and all use the airstrip, and just taxi from their house to it, it is cool to sit eating in the kitchen and watch ppl take off and land, mostly like 4 seater Cessna or i think its a cessna 172 , he is also with another man building a 7/8 scale p-51 mustang that will use a jaguar engine, anyway thats not my post, here is my post, take care,


Sarah Palin's Legal Fund Faces Ethics Questions
Posted:
07/21/09
Filed Under:Republicans, Investigations, Fundraising, Sarah Palin
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/21/sarah-palins-legal-fund-faces-ethics-complaint/


Sarah Palin will take a lot with her when she walks away from the Alaska governor's office next week. Unfortunately for her, it includes a suitcase full of ethics complaints, 19 of them, most filed since she became a candidate for national office and a target for her opponents. Most have been dismissed.
How does one pay the big bucks to defend against such allegations? One forms a Legal Defense Fund. So now we have a new story from the Associated Press that should REALLY gall her.

AP is reporting that a state investigator has determined the instrument that was formed to handle the charges of ethics violations might be an ethics violation itself.

At issue is the Alaska Fund Trust that supporters created to solicit money for Palin. The State Personnel Board says that very process may constitute an improper use of her official position.

Paline spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton said Tuesday, "I cannot verify the validity of this claim. There is no final report. The investigator is still confidentially reviewing this matter. It appears suspect that in the final days of the governor's term, someone would again violate the law and announce a supposed conclusion before it is reached."

THE PALIN FAMILY IS NOT WEALTHY. Sarah Palin complains she owes more than a half million dollars in legal fees that she simply cannot pay under current circumstances.

She's made no bones about the fact that this barrage of ethics complaints is intolerable, that she can't afford them and shouldn't have to. Certainly, there are much greener pastures out there.

Chances are she's going to be able to make plenty of money. Her problem is she will still be high profile, which means that all those who play the rough game of politics will still be trying to make her life miserable.

Thus far, she has made no comment, which considering how disgusted she is, might be a good thing. "Gosh darn it" just might not suffice.

just my postitive thoughts on palin, does she have a nice family? i sure think so, is she a good person? i sure think so, she states she is a christian which to me is admirable. i liked sarah palin, i only think she as it was proved was off base on the whole death panels , which even some republicans debunked, do i think she will make alot of money? yes i do, do i think she will ever hold a high political office, no i dont? i put her in the same catagory as dan quail on that one. there is no need to argue that because as on many if not all these issues we post on there is a honest and very accurate answer. . that answer is time. time will answer all these arguments.i think we tend to rush for an answer, and i put myself in that catagory. yall take care,

I'm tired of this issue too. I have asked a number of questions on this matter,which were ignored,maybe not even read. OK. So, instead of repeating the same questions over and over,I'll abandon this topic line with a simple summary: 1.Government financed, universal healthcare, will be funded with taxpayer money. 2.The taxpayers will NEVER write a blank check for that funding since it would,as any sane person must recognize, spiral out of control. 3.A board or commission will be necessary to apportion treatments and funds. 4.Some of those who are made to wait for treatment,or denied treatment altogether, will die. 5.Every insurer has a board or commission NOW making these life or death decisions. 6.The difference will be that one can argue with and even sue an insurance company if you feel an injustice has been done that results in a death. This avenue of regress will NOT be available with a single payer funding source: the US government. A decision to deny or postpone life sustaining treatment or surgery,will be a virtual sentence of death with no recourse. That to me is an accurate description of a "death panel".

i agree, insurance ppl make these same decisions everyday, this is not insurance but i would call it the medical fields rule, we had a man at work who was 60 and had bad chest pains, we talked him into going to a doctor as he was stubborn. but he took a week off and went to a doctor, , actually his lungs had fluid i believe but the problem was his liver, they told us his had alot of scare tissue in his liver and his only hope was a liver transplant. well while he waiting on one, he had a brain hemorrhage. i told my boss, joe is going to die, that they dont give livers to ppl that are not in good health,, and in fact he did die, a few weeks ago.. its tough to all of a sudden have someone u worked beside all of a sudden just be gone. i work with another guy that works the weekend shift,but he is a good guy that i like, he had 2 heart attacks and is younger than me. and they put in stints, he tryed but cant stop smoking, and since our overtime is cut out, he does not buy his heart meds like he need to, and goes without for days, and complains of tight chest at work. well im rambling again lol, sorry, nothing to do with the insurance issue,
i dont understand the co-op version, im on a co-op an electrical one at the lake. i will admit power is cheeper up there than here at home,but dont understand how a health insurance co-op would work,

Co-ops pool the premiums paid by members and use their collective bargaining power and streamlined payment methods to bargain for lower,fixed surgical,lab,and doctors' fees. One can use his/her own doctor if they accept the co-op's payment schedule. Most do.