Palin supporter: "Well look here, it's a couple of gay guys, a couple of gay fellas"

So your standard for politicians having a national discourse is the same as a Clutchfans poo-flinging session?

And no, I don't see any other (non-lunatic) politicians talking about death panels in the US.

 

Except for the key point that this would only happen if people chose a public health plan that's not even available to them right now. Under anything that has been proposed so far, Trig could still be on whatever health care he's on now, in which case no gov't death panel would be involved. I wonder if she hates the fact that Trig has to currently face an insurance death panel - keeping in mind that an insurance company's primary motive is profit, not the health of the populace.

Under no circumstances would Trig be any worse off under health care reform than he is now in terms of actual care because they would always have the choice to stay with their current provider. The real battleground is on the cost side.

 

Which is why the fight is really over health insurance reform or healthcare reform.

 

As I have said on more than one occasion in this very thread...Palin used her typical inappropriate bravado.

While it is dumb to call it a death panel, do you refute that the decision on the level of health care that is appropriate for a given person will lead to life or death for that person?

 

Absolutely. But is that only the case with government, or does that also apply to insurance companies? Don't insurance companies currently deny treatment when they choose?

 

That has never been my experience with private insurance. Private insurance contracts are generally written to provide coverage in network for medically necessary treatments.

If a private insurance company denies appropriate treatment, they can be sued by the patient or the heirs of the deceased. You cannot sue the government if they do it. You know..sovereign immunity and all. You can attempt a Section 1983 claim, but good luck defining which Constitutional right was violated.

In other words, there is no real redress for the government denying appropriate care.

 

pretty much how I feel. I mean, seriously. Who gives a crap about some random person? lol.

 

Private insurance spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on claim denial. Fighting with insurance companies is one of the major problems with private insurance. And any public option would have the same structured policies on what is and isn't covered.

True - but that doesn't help the dead person. Insurance companies (and really, all companies) build in a tolerance for lawsuit expenses of that sort. If it's cheaper to deny the claims and deal with the occasional lawsuit, that's what a private insurer will do because the stated goal of a public company is to maximize shareholder value by maximizing profits.

 

No...there is a large difference between death squads executing or encouraging suicide of those with physical difficulties and a panel of people denying aggressive health care for the same people.

The end result may be the same (death), but the methodology and the culpability are far, far different.

The original point that I made was that Palin, in the second half of the posted quote, seemed to be speaking of the latter. In her same, typical, dumbass fashion, she completely botched a chance to make that point by calling it a death squad.

 

Absolutely. I keep waiting for my email from David Plouffe at Obama HQ, telling me where I can (nee, must) sign up.

Will the cost of the bullet be charged to the Palin household, like in the good ole days?

[Refresh inbox...
Refresh inbox...
Refresh inbox...]

 

Ford thought the same thing prior to the Pinto. Then they got hammered in the lawsuit.

Ford changed their philosophy regarding safety engineering at that point.

It is very difficult to curb abusive behavior when the entity exhibiting the behavior is immune from suit.

 

Man, at least I give my opinion and tell somebody else why I don't think the make sense, and why I think I do. You didn't do anything except criticize me and didn't even talk about the issue. I'm sure you have a perspective on it, so why don't you share it rather than just taking a jab at me.

 

I'm not telling you my standard, I'm telling you the way things are. I can't help what politicians do, except to elect/try not to elect them. I'm doing the best I can here with Texas, I can't speak for the rest of the nations politicians.

 

Apparently, you're still really not reading my posts or maybe you are and are just missing my point. I know fully well that the bill doesn't include "Kill mentally challenged or special needs children". You don't think I know? My point is that what Sarah Palin is saying by going to the extreme is that eventually, she (and myself as well) believes that the program won't be affordable forever, it will run short on money, when it does rationing will occur and the first to get dropped will be the elder and the special needs people, aka the 'least productive members of society'. She basically grouped that all into saying she doesn't want bureaucrats deciding who gets what and who doesn't. She used a little fear and went extreme by talking about death panels...and? What's the end result if elderly or special needs people don't get the necessary care? Earlier death? More painful life?

 

I believe you're giving Palin way too much benefit of the doubt. Major right-leaning radio/tv hosts (Limbaugh/Beck) are talking openly of government-sponsored eugenics & Nazi death squads. Members of Congress are talking about the elderly being left to die once they reach a certain age. Factor that in, and Palin's "death panels" should be seen as of a piece, as fear-mongering to prevent needed reform that such opponents choose not to (or cannot) fight on the merits.

I believe it's calculated when Limbaugh & Beck mention Nazis cleansing the undesirables from society; I believe it's equally calculated when Palin does so.

(I would also doubt Trig Palin's ability to get private health insurance on his own in two decades plus, when most dependent children are kicked off parents' plans, and his syndrome would be treated as a pre-existing condition.)

 

You just got done talking about fear-mongering and then this...

I think you proved the point I made in one of the earlier posts...everybody uses fear at some time when it's convenient for them.

 

To clarify, you do realize I'm speaking of the private insurance industry, as it stands today? A strong public option is not guaranteed, given the various bills/proposals in play. But, even depending on how things play out in committee, insurance companies' ability to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions is likely to be regulated out of existence.