Palin says Obama would kill her child

Status
Not open for further replies.

netrox

New Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Messages
4,769
Reaction score
0
It's so pathetic... truly pathetic. Repukes get more irrational everyday. Sarah Palin has the nerve to say this:

"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."

Palin: Obama's "Death Panel" Could Kill My Down Syndrome Baby

Let's see - private insurances don't have "death panel?"

Funny that they conveniently failed to say that lack of socailized medicine has killed so many Americans, including kids with DS because they have no money to pay for their treatments.

And last time I checked, all disabled people are eligible for social benefits and Medicaid and/or Medicare.
 
I think she is doing it for sensationalism...
 
GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. – Now, it's personal. President Barack Obama invoked his own anguish over the death of a loved one as he challenged the debunked notion that Democratic efforts to overhaul the nation's health care would include "death panels."

"I just lost my grandmother last year. I know what it's like to watch somebody you love, who's aging, deteriorate and have to struggle with that," an impassioned Obama told a crowd as he spoke of Madelyn Payne Dunham. He took issue with "the notion that somehow I ran for public office or members of Congress are in this so they can go around pulling the plug on grandma."

Obama invokes grandmother's death in health debate - Yahoo! News
 
its her new high paying job that's all

And believe me she ain't doing this for free. Phony is as phony does. But there is a side to this that is true.
The government will be more of a voice in individual healthcare. It is not a far leap of the imagination to a time when Sarah pregnant with a Down's Syndrome Child would be given a choice between voluntary abortion or no government paid services for the care of her child. I know I am not wrong here- it is exactly where things would go.
 
What baby? I thought that she only used him as a prop.
 
lol Palin seriously have no idea what she is talking about...
 
Sarah Palin has SHOWED that she is really DUMBER than a 5th grader. Didn't she recognize that a REPUBLICAN wrote this section regarding end-of-life discussion in the bill allowing Medicare to cover the cost of consulation once every 5 years...

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Scroll down to Section 1233 Be warned its hard to understand, but I made some bolded italics to point out what you should know...

SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.

(a) Medicare-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended--

(A) in subsection (s)(2)--

(i) by striking `and' at the end of subparagraph (DD);

(ii) by adding `and' at the end of subparagraph (EE); and

(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(FF) advance care planning consultation (as defined in subsection (hhh)(1));'; and

(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`Advance Care Planning Consultation

`(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term `advance care planning consultation' means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

`(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

`(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

`(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

`(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).

`(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

`(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--

`(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual's family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;

`(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and

`(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).

`(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State--

`(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and

`(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).

`(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that--

`(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;

`(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;

`(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and

`(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.

`(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is--

`(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and

`(B) a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments.

`(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).

`(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.

`(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.

`(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term `order regarding life sustaining treatment' means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that--

`(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;

`(ii) effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;

`(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and

`(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.

`(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items--

`(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;

`(ii) the individual's desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;

`(iii) the use of antibiotics; and

`(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.'.

(2) PAYMENT- Section 1848(j)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(j)(3)) is amended by inserting `(2)(FF),' after `(2)(EE),'.

(3) FREQUENCY LIMITATION- Section 1862(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended--

(A) in paragraph (1)--

(i) in subparagraph (N), by striking `and' at the end;

(ii) in subparagraph (O) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting `, and'; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(P) in the case of advance care planning consultations (as defined in section 1861(hhh)(1)), which are performed more frequently than is covered under such section;'; and

(B) in paragraph (7), by striking `or (K)' and inserting `(K), or (P)'.

(4) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to consultations furnished on or after January 1, 2011.

(b) Expansion of Physician Quality Reporting Initiative for End of Life Care-

(1) Physician'S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE- Section 1848(k)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(k)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:

`(3) Physician'S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE-

`(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.

`(B) PROPOSED SET OF MEASURES- The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register proposed quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that the Secretary determines are described in subparagraph (A) and would be appropriate for eligible professionals to use to submit data to the Secretary. The Secretary shall provide for a period of public comment on such set of measures before finalizing such proposed measures.'.

(c) Inclusion of Information in Medicare & You Handbook-

(1) MEDICARE & YOU HANDBOOK-

(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall update the online version of the Medicare & You Handbook to include the following:

(i) An explanation of advance care planning and advance directives, including--

(I) living wills;

(II) durable power of attorney;

(III) orders of life-sustaining treatment; and

(IV) health care proxies.

(ii) A description of Federal and State resources available to assist individuals and their families with advance care planning and advance directives, including--

(I) available State legal service organizations to assist individuals with advance care planning, including those organizations that receive funding pursuant to the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 93001 et seq.);

(II) website links or addresses for State-specific advance directive forms; and

(III) any additional information, as determined by the Secretary.

(B) UPDATE OF PAPER AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS- The Secretary shall include the information described in subparagraph (A) in all paper and electronic versions of the Medicare & You Handbook that are published on or after the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

'Death Panels' Debunked: Sen. Johnny Isakson - NPR Health Blog Blog : NPR

Would changes being proposed for our health-care system actually lead to government-sponsored euthanasia?


(iStockphoto.com)
Some critics come pretty close to saying so, and comments on the subject by Sarah Palin on Facebook late last week got a lot of folks fired up:

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.
To set matters straight, the Washington Post's Ezra Klein chatted with Sen. Johnny Isakson, a Georgia Republican who has worked to expand coverage of end-of-life planning. In particular, he supports a voluntary, Medicare-covered counseling session for people with their doctors to discuss end-of-life options. The idea is to make it easier to decide in advance what sorts of care people want and don't want when facing death.

Isakson took the 'death panel' charge head on, telling Klein:

How someone could take an end-of-life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up.


Really Sarah, it's time to lay down the bong....
 
Somehow I wonder what Mr. Palin really see in his wife...expect her looks.

Certainly she looks beautiful, but her brain isn't.
 
It's working. But I'd like to think it's his "all wee weed-up" was one of his faux pas major undoing.

Joint anyone?


obama_index_august_23_2009.jpg
 
I guess Palin was right on death panels in Obamacare.

KRUGMAN: Medicare is going to have to decide what it's going to pay for. And at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the panel that was part of the health care reform.

If it's not even -- if the commission isn't even brave enough to take on the death panels people, then it's doing no good at all. It's not educating the public. It's not telling people about the kinds of choices that need to be made. [...]

Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real [budget balancing] solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes. It's going to be that we're actually going to take Medicare under control, and we're going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT. But it's not going to happen now.

Read more: Krugman Tries to Explain His Call for 'Death Panels' to Balance Budget | NewsBusters.org.[/QUOTE]

The "real solution," eh? Use "death panels" to help balance the budget? Why, in the past he smeared others for even daring to suggest that Obamacare would support death panels.

Here are what Krugman said previously by denying death panels were ever in the picture.

August 13, 2009: "Right now, the charge that’s gaining the most traction is the claim that health care reform will create “death panels” (in Sarah Palin’s words) that will shuffle the elderly and others off to an early grave. It’s a complete fabrication, of course." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1

August 20, 2009 “It seems as if there is nothing Republicans can do that will draw an administration rebuke: Senator Charles E. Grassley feeds the death panel smear, warning that reform will “pull the plug on grandma,” and two days later the White House declares that it’s still committed to working with him.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/opinion/21krugman.html

October 4, 2009 “The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html

February 25, 2010 “So what did we learn from the summit? What I took away was the arrogance that the success of things like the death-panel smear has obviously engendered in Republican politicians. At this point they obviously believe that they can blandly make utterly misleading assertions, saying things that can be easily refuted, and pay no price. And they may well be right.”

March 21, 2010: “Politicians like Sarah Palin — who was, let us remember, the G.O.P.’s vice-presidential candidate — eagerly spread the death panel lie, and supposedly reasonable, moderate politicians like Senator Chuck Grassley refused to say that it was untrue.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/opinion/22krugman.html




By the way Paul Krugman is a liberal columnist for the New York Times. He is godlike to many Democrats. He is godlike to many on the left. He won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science in 2008. And his "final" solution would be to use death panels as a way to help balance the budget.
 
I guess Palin was right on death panels in Obamacare.

KRUGMAN: Medicare is going to have to decide what it's going to pay for. And at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the panel that was part of the health care reform.

If it's not even -- if the commission isn't even brave enough to take on the death panels people, then it's doing no good at all. It's not educating the public. It's not telling people about the kinds of choices that need to be made. [...]

Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real [budget balancing] solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes. It's going to be that we're actually going to take Medicare under control, and we're going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT. But it's not going to happen now.

Read more: Krugman Tries to Explain His Call for 'Death Panels' to Balance Budget | NewsBusters.org.[/QUOTE]

The "real solution," eh? Use "death panels" to help balance the budget? Why, in the past he smeared others for even daring to suggest that Obamacare would support death panels.

Here are what Krugman said previously by denying death panels were ever in the picture.

August 13, 2009: "Right now, the charge that’s gaining the most traction is the claim that health care reform will create “death panels” (in Sarah Palin’s words) that will shuffle the elderly and others off to an early grave. It’s a complete fabrication, of course." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1

August 20, 2009 “It seems as if there is nothing Republicans can do that will draw an administration rebuke: Senator Charles E. Grassley feeds the death panel smear, warning that reform will “pull the plug on grandma,” and two days later the White House declares that it’s still committed to working with him.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/opinion/21krugman.html

October 4, 2009 “The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html

February 25, 2010 “So what did we learn from the summit? What I took away was the arrogance that the success of things like the death-panel smear has obviously engendered in Republican politicians. At this point they obviously believe that they can blandly make utterly misleading assertions, saying things that can be easily refuted, and pay no price. And they may well be right.”

March 21, 2010: “Politicians like Sarah Palin — who was, let us remember, the G.O.P.’s vice-presidential candidate — eagerly spread the death panel lie, and supposedly reasonable, moderate politicians like Senator Chuck Grassley refused to say that it was untrue.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/opinion/22krugman.html




By the way Paul Krugman is a liberal columnist for the New York Times. He is godlike to many Democrats. He is godlike to many on the left. He won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science in 2008. And his "final" solution would be to use death panels as a way to help balance the budget.
 
Thanks, kokonut, for displaying a perfect example of twisting words and pulling things out of the context. All you have to do is click on the first link (NewsBuster) and actually read it.

BTW, has it occurred to anyone that Medicare (or any other insurance) makes choices RIGHT NOW on your life? The only difference is TRANSPARENCY. Now you can see how life actually works. And of course, no one likes it. But they are blaming it on "Obamacare".

At least argue about the issues of mandatory, "opt out", efficiency of Obamacare, etc. Those are the sensible arguments, but to say that Obamacare is introducing something new "death panels"? Obviously, that's spoken out of denial that it is happening right here, right now. You want transparency in politics? That also means you have to deal with reality.
 
Thanks, kokonut, for displaying a perfect example of twisting words and pulling things out of the context. All you have to do is click on the first link (NewsBuster) and actually read it.

BTW, has it occurred to anyone that Medicare (or any other insurance) makes choices RIGHT NOW on your life? The only difference is TRANSPARENCY. Now you can see how life actually works. And of course, no one likes it. But they are blaming it on "Obamacare".

At least argue about the issues of mandatory, "opt out", efficiency of Obamacare, etc. Those are the sensible arguments, but to say that Obamacare is introducing something new "death panels"? Obviously, that's spoken out of denial that it is happening right here, right now. You want transparency in politics? That also means you have to deal with reality.
The issue is that "death panels" do exist and Paul Krugman chided people over that idea. He's now he's talking about death panels.

In the end, Krugman's attempt at being "deliberately provocative" was really him saying in front of the cameras what Palin and others warned was the danger of allowing further government intrusion into healthcare.

and that

"...individual's rights are being subordinated to the government's financial interest."

And everyone thought that Obamacare was next best thing to sliced bread for its coverage and affordability then why did Kathleen Sebelius approved 111 waivers or "pardons" for businesses of all sizes from Obamacare? McDonald got one when they warned federal regulators that it could be forced to drop its own affordable health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 restaurant workers unless it got a pass. Remember when Democrats said that McDonald's hamburger flippers didn't have health insurance?

McDonald’s Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.

The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers’ health plans as the law ripples through the real world.

Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn’t loosen a requirement for “mini-med” plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans.

The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.

While many restaurants don’t offer health coverage, McDonald’s provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.

Last week, a senior McDonald’s official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain’s insurer won’t meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80% to 85% of its premium revenue on medical care.

McDonald’s and trade groups say the percentage, called a medical loss ratio, is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims.

McDonald's Says It May Drop Health Plan - WSJ.com

Um, eventually you will not be able to opt out of Obamacare because other existing healthcare coverages will not be around because of Obamacare; hence the pardons granted by the WH to "opt out" of Obamacare. It's not you that get to opt out, it's the company you work for that opt out where you'd lose your insurance coverage.

Old Democrat promise: Everyone gets to keep their health insurance.

New Democrat promise: You can keep your health insurance…if you BEG hard enough for an Obamacare waiver.
 
Issuing 111 waivers is a testament on the failure of the Obamacare. That's undeniable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top