[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Man puts down ABC's The View on air

Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka

My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..

Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’

Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC

Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk,

Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up!

Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It!

Mike Johnson Holds 'Private Meeting' With Jewish Leaders, Pledges to Screen Out Anti-Israel GOP Candidates

Jimmy Kimmel’s career over after ‘disgusting’ lies about Charlie Kirk shooter [Plus America's Homosexual-In-Chief checks-In, Clot-Shots, Iryna Zarutska and More!]

1200 Electric School Busses pulled from service due to fires.

Is the Deep State Covering Up Charlie Kirk’s Murder? The FBI’s Bizarre Inconsistencies Exposed

Local Governments Can Be Ignorant Pissers!!

Cash Jordan: Gangs PLUNDER LA Mall... as California’s “NO JAILS” Strategy IMPLODES

Margin Debt Tops Historic $1 Trillion, Your House Will Be Taken Blindly Warns Dohmen

Tucker Carlson LIVE: America After Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk allegedly recently refused $150 million from Israel to take more pro Israel stances

"NATO just declared War on Russia!"Co; Douglas Macgregor

If You're Trying To Lose Weight But Gaining Belly Fat, Watch Insulin

Arabica Coffee Prices Soar As Analyst Warns of "Weather Disasters" Risk Denting Global Production

Candace Owens: : I Know What Happened at the Hamptons (Ackman confronted Charlie Kirk)

Illegal Alien Drunk Driver Mows Down, Kills 16-Year-Old Girl Who Rejected His Lewd Advances

STOP Drinking These 5 Coffees – They’re Quietly DESTROYING Your Gut & Hormones

This Works Better Than Ozempic for Belly Fat

Cinnamon reduces fat

How long do health influencers live? Episode 1 of 3.

'Armed Queers' Marxist Revolutionaries Under Investigation For Possible Foreknowledge Of Kirk's Assassination Plot

Who Killed Charlie Kirk? the Case Against Israel


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Sarah and the Death Panels
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/PatB ... ah_and_the_death_panels?page=2
Published: Aug 21, 2009
Author: Pat Buchanan
Post Date: 2009-08-21 08:37:46 by Eric Stratton
Keywords: None
Views: 490
Comments: 54

Sarah and the Death Panels
Pat Buchanan
Friday, August 21, 2009

"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."

Of Sarah Palin it may be said: The lady knows how to frame an issue. Culture of Corruption by Michelle Malkin FREE

And while she has been fairly criticized for hyperbole about the end-of-life counselors in the House bill, she drew such attention to the provision that Democrats chose to dump it rather than debate it

And understandably so. For if Congress enacts universal health care coverage, we are undeniably headed for a medical system of rationed care that must inevitably deny care to some terminally ill and elderly, which will shorten their lives, perhaps by years. Consider:

Democrats call Medicare the model of government-run universal health care. But Medicare is a system whereby 140 million working Americans pay 2.9 percent of all wages and salaries into a fund to pay for health care for 42 million mostly older Americans. And Medicare is already going bust.

If Obamacare is passed, the cost of health care for today's 47 million uninsured will also land on those 140 million. And if Obama puts 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens on a "path to citizenship," as he promises, they, too, will have their health care provided by taxpayers.

Here is the crusher. The Census Bureau projects that, by 2050, the U.S. population will explode to 435 million. As most of these folks will be immigrants, their children and grandchildren, the cost of their heath care would also have to be largely born by middle-class and wealthy taxpayers.

Now factor this in.

In 2000, the average American male in a population of 300 million lived to 74; the average female to 80. But in 2050, the average male in a population of 435 million Americans will live to 80 and the average female to 86. And, according to U.N. figures, 21 percent of the U.S. population in 2050, some 91 million Americans, will be over 65, and 7.6 percent, or 33 million Americans, will be over 80 -- and consuming health care in ever-increasing measures.

Now if a primary purpose of Obamacare is to "bend the curve" of soaring health care costs, and half of those costs are incurred in the last six months of life, and the number of seniors will grow by scores of millions, how do you cut costs without rationing care? And how do you ration care without denying millions of elderly and aged the prescriptions, procedures and operations they need to stay alive?

Consider two beloved Americans: Ted Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

Since he was diagnosed with brain cancer more than a year ago, Sen. Kennedy has had excellent care, including surgery and chemotherapy, which have kept him alive and, until very recently, active.

For a decade, President Reagan, because of round-the-clock care, lived with an Alzheimer's that had robbed him of his memory and left him unable to recognize his own family and close friends.

In the future, will a man of Kennedy's age, with brain cancer but without the means of offsetting his own health care costs, be kept alive, operated on, given chemotherapy -- by a government obsessed with cutting health care costs?

Will a bureaucracy desperate to cut costs keep alive for years the tens of thousands of destitute 80- and 90-year-old patients with Alzheimer's, as was done with Ronald Reagan?

What if, in 2050, Palin and her husband are not here. And 42-year-old Trig, with Down syndrome, has been in an institution for years, and the cost of his care and that of hundreds of thousands like him with Down syndrome is draining the resources of the health care system?

Will there not be voices softly suggesting a quiet and merciful end?

In Oregon, the law permits doctors to assist in the suicide of terminal patients who wish to end their lives. Let us assume numerous patients have Alzheimer's and, so, cannot be part of the decision to end their lives. Who then makes the decision to continue or end life? Would it be unfair to call the decision-makers in those cases a death panel?

Almost a third of all unborn babies in America have their lives terminated each year with the consent of their mothers. Fifty million since Roe v. Wade have never seen the light of day. For many, the quality of life now supersedes in value the sanctity of life. That is who we are.

Between 2012 and 2030, 74 million baby boomers will retire, cease to be the major contributors to Medicare and become the major drain on Medicare. How long will an overtaxed labor force in a de-Christianized America be wiling to pay the bill to keep all those aging boomers alive?

Rationed care is coming, and the death panels will not be far behind.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 24.

#5. To: Eric Stratton (#0) (Edited)

So socialized medicine will kill our grandparents despite the fact that medicine is already socialized for everyone over 65?

And never mind Sarah Palin lied about death panels, because it worked?

Doesn't this bull s**t insult conservatives? They really think you are that stupid I guess.

Rhino369  posted on  2009-08-21   10:02:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Rhino369 (#5)

So socialized medicine will kill our grandparents despite the fact that medicine is already socialized for everyone over 65?

When you want to cover "everyone" for "less," you will eventually have to do cost/benefit analysis.

4 givan 1  posted on  2009-08-21   10:29:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: 4 givan 1 (#8)

When you want to cover "everyone" for "less," you will eventually have to do cost/benefit analysis.

And you'll have to have bureaucrats decide who gets covered and who doesn't for critical treatments.

Sarah used a bit of hyperbole in language use, but the fact fundamentally is true. Of course there is no provision called "Death Panels", which is why liberals go around screaming that it's a lie. They're using the words of the rhetoric literally, in order to deny what is actually in the bill but not called the words of the rhetoric.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2009-08-21   10:32:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: SonOfLiberty (#9)

And you'll have to have bureaucrats decide who gets covered and who doesn't for critical treatments.

Instead of the corporate bureaucrats who do so now?

A business has every incentive to provide as little coverage as possible. Every dime it doesn't spend is profit. Government, for better or worse, doesn't really care. In fact if history is any guide, they'll probably spend too much, provide too much service.

Sarah used a bit of hyperbole in language use, but the fact fundamentally is true.

No, it was fundamentally false. She picked a specific portion of the bill and called it a death panel. When in fact that section of the bill didn't have any power to deny coverage, it was basically therapy for people who were dying. This was rhetoric, it was a downright lie.

Sarah Palin's understand of the health care debate is strong as her knowledge of the walstreet bailout, that she didn't understand during the election.

Rhino369  posted on  2009-08-21   10:48:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Rhino369 (#10)

Instead of the corporate bureaucrats who do so now?

You're allowed to pay for your own medical care, without insurance, if you want. Ever try negotiating with a medical provider? They will negotiate and give you DEEP discounts if you don't have insurance.

And, it should be pointed out, that saying "but but but...insurance" doesn't mean that it's right for government.

A business has every incentive to provide as little coverage as possible. Every dime it doesn't spend is profit.

That's why every time anybody gets very sick and goes into a hospital, they die immediately.

Oh wait, they don't most of the time. Odd isn't it?

Government, for better or worse, doesn't really care. In fact if history is any guide, they'll probably spend too much, provide too much service.

Yeah, like they provide too much service in military hospitals. Right.

No, it was fundamentally false. She picked a specific portion of the bill and called it a death panel. When in fact that section of the bill didn't have any power to deny coverage, it was basically therapy for people who were dying. This was rhetoric, it was a downright lie.

There will still be bureaucrats that decide that grandma has outlived her taxability...er...usefulness and should just be given a pill instead of a heart transplant. There's no denying that. Obama was pretty clear that he'd give a pill instead of medical treatment as well.

Like it or not, the charge is correct, even if you don't like the person giving it.

Sarah Palin's understand of the health care debate is strong as her knowledge of the walstreet bailout, that she didn't understand during the election.

I wouldn't argue that she's the sharpest knife in the drawer. On the other hand, Barry is at about the same intelligence level and some of the less mentally gifted folks seem willing to hand over life and death medical decisions to him. So in the end, arguing about intelligence has little bearing on government policies.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2009-08-21   10:57:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: SonOfLiberty (#11)

You're allowed to pay for your own medical care, without insurance, if you want. Ever try negotiating with a medical provider? They will negotiate and give you DEEP discounts if you don't have insurance.

And under the plans being proposed this wouldn't change.

That's why every time anybody gets very sick and goes into a hospital, they die immediately.

Oh wait, they don't most of the time. Odd isn't it?

Hospitals provide emergency coverage even if it gets denied by insurance. And of course the insurance companies must provide some level of service or be abandoned by customers. But the inventive is always to provide the cheapest service.

Yeah, like they provide too much service in military hospitals. Right.

They are better than the average private hospital in fact. But either way I wouldn't support a system in which the government directly ran healthcare like it does the VA. The government would only act as a payer.

There will still be bureaucrats that decide that grandma has outlived her taxability...er...usefulness and should just be given a pill instead of a heart transplant. There's no denying that. Obama was pretty clear that he'd give a pill instead of medical treatment as well.

Medicare wouldn't be changed at all. So that is just not true. If Palin wants to dissolve Medicare she should come out and say it.

Like it or not, the charge is correct, even if you don't like the person giving it.

It isn't correct, as I've shown.

I wouldn't argue that she's the sharpest knife in the drawer. On the other hand, Barry is at about the same intelligence level and some of the less mentally gifted folks seem willing to hand over life and death medical decisions to him.

You can say a lot about Obama, but I don't see how you'd assume he wasn't a smart guy. He graduated top ten percent at Harvard Law. He is undoubtedly a very intelligent man. That doesn't mean he is wise, or correct, but he is smart.

But Palin is stupid. I wouldn't necessary support someone because they were smart, but I'd never listen to a stupid person.

Rhino369  posted on  2009-08-21   11:36:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Rhino369 (#18)

And under the plans being proposed this wouldn't change.

Oh? So I don't have to get coverage and I won't have a legal penalty for opting out? If I, say, am an independent contractor or am self employed, I can just opt completely out and pay cash if I want, without penalty?

Great!

Hospitals provide emergency coverage even if it gets denied by insurance. And of course the insurance companies must provide some level of service or be abandoned by customers. But the inventive is always to provide the cheapest service.

Sounds good in theory, real life, I've watched many sick relatives be provided with excellent service and care when they got sick, and recovered, or had their life extended far beyond what it would have been had they received no care or the cheapest coverage.

Medicare wouldn't be changed at all. So that is just not true.

Take it up with Obama, he's the one who said that under his plan, he'd give an elderly woman a pain pill instead of a heart surgery (I believe it was, maybe it was some kind of transplant). I heard him plain as day say it.

You can say a lot about Obama, but I don't see how you'd assume he wasn't a smart guy. He graduated top ten percent at Harvard Law. He is undoubtedly a very intelligent man. That doesn't mean he is wise, or correct, but he is smart.

He thinks we have 57 states, that we were founded 20 centuries ago, that Austrians speak Austrian, he doesn't know enough to keep his mouth shut about local matters and calls people stupid without knowing the facts, and when he's not on teleprompter he can only marginally speak English. Graduating from Harvard Law doesn't mean you're smart, it just means you did what they asked you to do. I'm not stating that he's a blithering idiot per se, I'm just noting that he's not the super smart guy people seem to believe. Because he's not.

But Palin is stupid. I wouldn't necessary support someone because they were smart, but I'd never listen to a stupid person

No she's not. Please. I'm not her biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm not going to adopt the mantra of the left simply because they make the claim. My disagreements are with some of her positions, there's no need for me to smear her and call her names in order to hold those disagreements.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2009-08-21   11:45:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: SonOfLiberty (#21)

Oh? So I don't have to get coverage and I won't have a legal penalty for opting out? If I, say, am an independent contractor or am self employed, I can just opt completely out and pay cash if I want, without penalty?

Great!

You'll still get the s**t taxed out of you though.

Sounds good in theory, real life, I've watched many sick relatives be provided with excellent service and care when they got sick, and recovered, or had their life extended far beyond what it would have been had they received no care or the cheapest coverage.

Of course. I'm not saying the insurance companies are shit, and kill people. They do a fairly good job, but you must admit they have incentive to provide less coverage and the government does not.

Take it up with Obama, he's the one who said that under his plan, he'd give an elderly woman a pain pill instead of a heart surgery (I believe it was, maybe it was some kind of transplant). I heard him plain as day say it.

Got a link because thats pretty f**king crazy.

He thinks we have 57 states, that we were founded 20 centuries ago, that Austrians speak Austrian, he doesn't know enough to keep his mouth shut about local matters and calls people stupid without knowing the facts, and when he's not on teleprompter he can only marginally speak English.

Putting his foot in his mouth doesn't mean he isn't intelligent. The most intelligent people I know aren't great speakers. Of course that doesn't in any way show he is smart.

Graduating from Harvard Law doesn't mean you're smart, it just means you did what they asked you to do.

Not true. They grade on a strict curve, competing directly against each other. The average Harvard law student is in the top 1 percentile of intelligence, and is also a hard worker. And he did better than 90% of them.

I'm not stating that he's a blithering idiot per se, I'm just noting that he's not the super smart guy people seem to believe. Because he's not.

He's probably not a genius, but he is definitely a bright guy. Like I said, smart doesn't equal wise, or a good leader. His administration has been a disappointment to all so far.

No she's not. Please. I'm not her biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm not going to adopt the mantra of the left simply because they make the claim. My disagreements are with some of her positions, there's no need for me to smear her and call her names in order to hold those disagreements.

The woman is clearly stupid. Not because she doesn't speak well, because she does. But because she shows no understanding of even basic issues. And I don't say this because she is a conservative. There are many extremely bright conservatives. She just isn't one of them.

Nothing she has ever done, or said has shown anything but a below average level of intelligence. She flunked out of terrible colleges, and has made a career of superficial political issues.

She is a bimbo.

Rhino369  posted on  2009-08-21   11:57:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 24.

#26. To: Rhino369 (#24)

You'll still get the s**t taxed out of you though.

And, I'll receive a legal penalty as well, if I refuse to participate.

So much for "you'll be able to do that after it as well" then I guess.

Got a link because thats pretty f**king crazy.

It was broadcast on the radio. Look it up on YouTube I guess is all I can suggest.

Putting his foot in his mouth doesn't mean he isn't intelligent. The most intelligent people I know aren't great speakers. Of course that doesn't in any way show he is smart.

Now see, here we go. When he does these things, it doesn't mean he's not intelligent and gosh, most intelligent people we know aren't great speakers. But the same things, turned to Palin (or that beauty contestant chick), equate to automatic screeches of "stupid!" and worse.

He's probably not a genius, but he is definitely a bright guy.

I honestly think that anybody so easily guided and manipulated like he was in his upbringing, given his known associates and how he parrots them nearly verbatim, tells me he's not too bright. He's smart enough to speak well without stuttering in speeches, and he presents himself well. Bright though? I think the jury is still out on that one.

The woman is clearly stupid. Not because she doesn't speak well, because she does. But because she shows no understanding of even basic issues.

Nor would you if you were ambushed by a reporter out to make you look stupid (as would I as well, or anybody). Again, I'm not stating she's the smartest cookie to come down the pike, but good lord, calling her stupid (and bimbo) is nothing but bile.

Like I said, smart doesn't equal wise, or a good leader. His administration has been a disappointment to all so far.

Well, we do agree on that. I actually had some hopes that he'd turn around some of the more onerous Bush policies (Patriot Act, DHS, domestic unwarranted wiretapping, etc), but he turned around and directly violated his entire anti-Bush campaign rhetoric by justifying each of these things. Meh.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2009-08-21 12:05:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 24.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]