It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Palin 'death panel' claim sets Truth-O-Meter ablaze

page: 9
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Man...I thought I was on ATS, this thread certainly has it's share of liberal nutjobs...lol




posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


en.wikipedia.org...

When you actually come up with a rebuttal, let me know.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
The Republicans are actually pretty smart in the way they handle Sarah Palin.

They use her to rouse the rabble among the--ok, I'll abide by the new T&C and be very tactful--less sophisticated members of our society.

Then, when she says something completely beyond the pale, they distance themselves from her.

Meanwhile the damage has already been done and in many cases can't be undone.

Not admirable, but not too dumb.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


Yep... they know how to excite "their base".

It's the common pattern...

... which has the common pattern of failing.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
The powers that be are leveraging the left and the right to fight, and distract us while a totalitarian government is being built right under our noses.

Liberals want freedom from government. Conservatives want freedom from government. Both sides see the other as a threat to their liberties. But in the process of defending their liberties they're destroying liberty for everyone.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Dbriefed
 


Rather Ironic isn't it?

Yet no one will back down.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boomer1941
Man...I thought I was on ATS, this thread certainly has it's share of liberal nutjobs...lol


Wow... you got a star for calling people names...


On ATS? Say it's not so....



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 


Thanks for the advice. I have an appointment to talk to a CMO about the process for channging the rating. And I think I'll see if the VA facility here could use another volunteerAs a J.D., I could give some legal advice, and with a PhD in Chemistry, I might be of some help in the lab. They may need a one-armed beaker holder. As for the flu shot, I got one at Publix for $20.00 Unfortunately, they don't have much in the way of a medical devices department. "Attention shoppers! We're having a special on knees and hips. Go to aisle 6, next to drumsticks and pig knukles.
Anyway, thanks. The brotherhood may be all we have soon.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by skycopilot
 


ROFL, I can agree with that, being a victim of "mistake" in Afgan mountains. Those warthogs are scary... evening scarier when you are the receiving end... Buuuurrrrrppppp

The Air Force never should have retired the Skyraider. With one of those, I could napalm a wart off the end of your nose without singeing your mustache. And with 14 hardpoints, you could carry enough ordinance to kill every insurgent coconut in-country two or three times. Then they gave the A-1s to the Virtnamese Air Force and the Thais and gave us big smoke belching (Hey!Look at me - here I am - shoot at me" F-4s with no freakin' guns. How were we supposed to kill a water buffalo for steaks at the Club? Use a Mark 84 500 pounder?
And now they're planning to replace the Hogs with the JSF (F-35)
Sorry for the thread creep.




)



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Last night my husband and I were discussing this issue, and he asked a question which I felt was interesting.

This question had to do with why republicans and/or Christians seem to be using the phrase "death panel", when it is obvious that this new proposed bill has nothing in it in regards to a "death panel", it has in it provisions to reimburse the medical community for assisting people with knowing what their options are for when they become very ill. IE: advanced care planning directives.

He pointed out, that it is possible, that the underlying emotions might really be, that many republicans (neither of us is positive of this and were just thinking) do not feel that we have the "right" to decide how the end of our lives go.

So, let's take out the health care issue for now, and look at just my question, as I feel it might assist us in understanding some of the emotions here.

How do you feel about people being allowed to choose how to end their lives? Do you feel a person has the right to choose to gently pass away, being with their family in their homes? Or do you feel, that no matter what, humans should fight tooth and nail to the last breath?

Do you feel that people have the right to create an advanced care planning directive?

Forgive me if you feel this is a derailing of this thread. I feel it is important to understand the underlying emotions of where the concept of "death panel" comes from, and that my question might be able to do so. Possibly helping everyone to understand, that the concept of "death panel" is just a derailing of the real issue, which is peoples right to choose. Is this a religious issue hidden under the fear of "death panel?"

Harm None
Peace



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Strictsum
 


I will give you that. We shoudl have more then the two parties. Though I think a 100 would be a bit much.lol


I would like to see the gop go back to the classics, before they got all goofy.

I don't want to see the destruction of the gop, but I would like to see the fear and smear end.

Stop talking about Obama, and start talking about issues.

Though if they do go extinct, it is their own fault.

A single president shouldnt' be the downfall of a party, but it did seriously injure them.

but instead of saying: OK, we need to change things, and re evaluate and re introduce ourselves, they are doing more of the same, with a vengeance!

The first thing people said when Bush left was thank God I don't have to hear about 9/11 anymore. No more smearing, no more fear mongering.

It seems that teh GOP has doubled the pitchforks.

And as usual, instead of saying: we need healthcare reform, but lets do it THIS way, they attack obama, and say everything was just fine.

But people know everything isn't fine.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox

I don't want to see the destruction of the gop, but I would like to see the fear and smear end.

Stop talking about Obama, and start talking about issues.



nixie, nixie, nixie ...

Please check out this thread to understand the use of "smear and fear" a bit more before posting about it any further.

thread



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Doctor G
 


huh? The anti-health care reform claims become more & more absurd.

link please



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by elfie
 


Don't they though?

Amazing...



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I am not going to try to reason with you anymore. I remember what Joe Walsh said.

What if someone who speaks for the left said these critical things?
Would that have any influence on you?

Someone who generally knows what she is talking about and has done at least minimal research before spewing echoes of liberal doublespeak?

Here's what Camille Paglia of Salon has to say:

"Obama’s Healthcare Horror"

Heads should roll – beginning with Nancy Pelosi’s

www.salon.com...
(By the way, she writes in a forum known as "Town Halls" -- ever heard of that kind of forum?)


I must confess my dismay bordering on horror at the amateurism of the White House apparatus for domestic policy. When will heads start to roll? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ... has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama's aggressive endorsement of healthcare plan ... makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land.


Oh, and when she finally assesses your venerated plan?


The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.


And single payer? She's done some of the same research I have, it seems:


You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you're happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.


Directly on-topic? How about her take on Sarah Palin?


As a libertarian and refugee from the authoritarian Roman Catholic church of my youth, I simply do not understand the drift of my party toward a soulless collectivism.

This is in fact what Sarah Palin hit on in her shocking image of a "death panel" under Obamacare that would make irrevocable decisions about the disabled and elderly. On reflection, I realized that Palin's shrewdly timed metaphor spoke directly to the electorate's unease with the prospect of shadowy, unelected government figures controlling our lives. A death panel not only has the power of life and death but is itself a symptom of a Kafkaesque brave new world where authority has become remote, arbitrary and spectral. And as in the Spanish Inquisition, dissidence is heresy, persecuted and punished.

Don't even ask what she thinks of your attitude. So I'll show you anyway:


And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the "mob" -- a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals.
Somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills. The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration's outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable "casual conversations" to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it.


So, what does this do to you and your kindred's opinions that this is a good idea, and that conservative criticism is unfounded?

You have no idea, do you?

Deny ignorance!

jw



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


What does stalking Bush's car have to do with gop smear and fear?


Are you really comparing an illegal war that has killed thousands of soldiers and 100,000 Iraqi's to health care reform?

While we are at it, I will post a a link of disturbing behavior myself....


congressman hung in effigy

and of course the swastika.
and the sabotaging of town hall meetings.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by centurion1211
 


What does stalking Bush's car have to do with gop smear and fear?


Are you really comparing an illegal war that has killed thousands of soldiers and 100,000 Iraqi's to health care reform?

While we are at it, I will post a a link of disturbing behavior myself....


congressman hung in effigy

and of course the swastika.
and the sabotaging of town hall meetings.





The point is that the left has also engaged in nasty tactics, so it's not only the right. Hypocrisy to only criticize one side on this.

And are you the last one on ATS (maybe the world) that doesn't understand that the swastikas were meant to show Pelosi and her cronies that people think the dems are the ones acting like nazis?




posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by amazed

This question had to do with why republicans and/or Christians seem to be using the phrase "death panel", when it is obvious that this new proposed bill has nothing in it in regards to a "death panel", it has in it provisions to reimburse the medical community for assisting people with knowing what their options are for when they become very ill. IE: advanced care planning directives.

* * * *

How do you feel about people being allowed to choose how to end their lives? Do you feel a person has the right to choose to gently pass away, being with their family in their homes? Or do you feel, that no matter what, humans should fight tooth and nail to the last breath?

Do you feel that people have the right to create an advanced care planning directive?

Forgive me if you feel this is a derailing of this thread. I feel it is important to understand the underlying emotions of where the concept of "death panel" comes from, and that my question might be able to do so. Possibly helping everyone to understand, that the concept of "death panel" is just a derailing of the real issue, which is peoples right to choose. Is this a religious issue hidden under the fear of "death panel?"


That's an interesting question. Not all Christians, or all Republicans for that matter, feel the same about end of life matters.

I'm basically a Christian but I feel I have every right not to be kept alive if I become a vegetable or go into a permanent coma or even if I'm only existing in a drugged stupor. This is strictly personal, but as I believe in a life after death I see no reason to prolong my mortal existence if it has become no longer sustainable.

Other Christians, I think, may disagree with me. Some believe there is a redeeming value in suffering in and of itself. Others feel that any kind of giving up is tantamount to suicide.

I think the "death panel" idea has a lot to do with people's paranoia about what "the state" might do to people once they no longer have a useful purpose in the state's opinion. It's a free-floating anxiety about the potential abuse of power.

But I think your suggestion has a lot of merit. There are some Christians who do believe that taking control of one's death is a way of usurping God's power over our lives.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by amazed
Last night my husband and I were discussing this issue, and he asked a question which I felt was interesting.

This question had to do with why republicans and/or Christians seem to be using the phrase "death panel", when it is obvious that this new proposed bill has nothing in it in regards to a "death panel", it has in it provisions to reimburse the medical community for assisting people with knowing what their options are for when they become very ill. IE: advanced care planning directives.

He pointed out, that it is possible, that the underlying emotions might really be, that many republicans (neither of us is positive of this and were just thinking) do not feel that we have the "right" to decide how the end of our lives go.

So, let's take out the health care issue for now, and look at just my question, as I feel it might assist us in understanding some of the emotions here.

How do you feel about people being allowed to choose how to end their lives? Do you feel a person has the right to choose to gently pass away, being with their family in their homes? Or do you feel, that no matter what, humans should fight tooth and nail to the last breath?

Do you feel that people have the right to create an advanced care planning directive?

Forgive me if you feel this is a derailing of this thread. I feel it is important to understand the underlying emotions of where the concept of "death panel" comes from, and that my question might be able to do so. Possibly helping everyone to understand, that the concept of "death panel" is just a derailing of the real issue, which is peoples right to choose. Is this a religious issue hidden under the fear of "death panel?"

Harm None
Peace


There are several questions here.

First, yes I do believe that terminally ill people should be able to choose to end their lives in dignity. No, this has nothing to do with being on a slippery slope to enforced euthanasia. Yes, I think that "no matter what, humans should fight tooth and nail to the last breath" for their personal dignity. And that sometimes means they should be able to choose to take an active role in the timing and method of the end of their life. But that is an entirely different debate and is NOT put in play by this bill, despite the hysteria raised by opponents.

"An advanced care planning directive", otherwise known to me as a "Living Will", discusses among, other things, the desired memorial services, burial or cremation, or whether or not 'extraordinary measures' should be taken to preserve or revive the life of the person. And I know this from personal experience.

It has nothing to do with 'assisted suicide' or euthanasia and placing such emotive images as a 'death panel' on such a compassionate and useful counseling service is offensive, cruel, and deeply insulting to both the family and the patient. Furthermore, that the proposed Health Care bill includes compensation for such a benefit, is no different than benefits provided in Medicare and many insurance policies in existence today, perhaps even yours.

Raising the spectre of a "death panel" is the hyperbole of extreme opponents to any form of the public health care bill specifically intended to play on the emotions, fears, and beliefs of the religiously minded. It is a scare tactic that twists the intent beyond any recognition that the framers are people with family and religious beliefs too.

The same opponents are using the same scare tactic when they claim that there will be "government agents" knocking down your door to "teach you how to educate your children" because the bill provides cover for in-home nutrition and lifestyle counseling by the school nurse or GP or other paid consultants if the parent asks for it. It is intended to play on the fears of all parents, but especially those who chose to send their children to private (mostly religious) schools.

In my opinion, any school, public or private, that doesn't offer this service today is a lousy school. But especially in public schools, there is no way to afford to provide it as a free service. It is my understanding that there are insurance policies in effect today that provide these benefits to those covered by the policy. The provision in the bill is intended to extend those benefits to the millions of Americans that do not enjoy that benefit, and make it possible for schools to help parents help their children to get the most out of their school experience.

And yes, many of the opponents are Republicans, Universal Health Care is not something high on their list of interesting things to do. But there are Republicans who do want a good outcome. The main opponents are those who feel threatened by the bill, insurers and other health care special interest groups that somehow think that their exorbitant overcharging is under threat. They have a lot of money to influence Republican Congressmen who are ideologically suited to oppose the entire idea anyway. And the right wing media is owned by these people anyway, so they have an amplifying loud-speaker to get their twisted scare mongering into the ears of the TV addicted.

By trying to make the public debate about answering the twisted, insulting, conspiracy conjectures, and inciting rabid mob public demonstrations, the special interest group opponents make themselves look rational and composed, and their attempted evisceration of the bill look reasonable and beneficial.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Avenginggecko

Originally posted by kernalpanic

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

AND, this is different from the FOR-PROFIT Health Insurance Companies denying needed medical care and dropping patients rather than paying claims.....this is different how, again???


Its actually quite simple really, if an insurance company has a tendency to do that, actions can be taken to move to a new insurer. Activism on the part of people who point these things out can force insurers to change their ways, or be forced out of business as people are made aware of what they are doing and dump their policy with them. Remember...vote with your wallet.

Now if this is a government panel, where are you going to move to? Will they exempt themselves from lawsuit like they do for the Pharma companies and their vaccines? This option is unamerican. Plain and simple. So while Palin is using wordsmith tactics, she doesn't appear to be as dumb or clueless as you try to convince yourselves. I personally am on the Ron Paul train, but this snipping between party lines seems to me to be nothing more then a bunch of dopes still buying into the left-right paradigm to oblivion. Sarah Palin wouldn't be my first choice, but she is undeserving of this 'pile on' in this instance.


You can't just drop your insurance coverage one day and go to another one tomorrow. It takes time to switch carriers. Plus, there's this icky little thing called, "pre-existing conditions" that might suck for the patient.


Insurance companies try to discourage people from waiting until they get sick in order to purchase health insurance. One way in which they do this is to impose pre-existing condition exclusion periods. This means that if you have a medical problem which exists at the time you enroll in or purchase your health insurance, the insurance company will deny all claims pertaining to this medical problem for a certain period of time.


Source\

Basically, if you got denied for a cancer treatment under one carrier, you couldn't just "switch" and have it covered.

This is nothing new and has been the case with insurance companies since we've had health insurance. Consumers can't "vote with their wallet" when the insurance industry sets pricings and standards as a whole and not on an individual corporate basis.

Car companies are a good example: ever wonder why car prices are all similar? Economy cars are all priced similarly, regular cars are all priced similarly, and luxury cars are all priced similarly. It's because, like the insurance industry, the car companies are an oligarchy.

Oligarchies and monopolies = not good for the nation.

Honestly, I'd rather have imperfect legislation that lowers medical expenses and covers all Americans than no legislation that keeps medical costs skyrocketing and doesn't come near covering all Americans.


Still, there is price competition and service competition between banks and insurance. You see it every day in the junk mail. You take out the lawyers and limit the lawsuits and prices will come down too. All of what you say is accurate, but you can make a difference jumping ship if you cared enough to ask yourself....what if that happened to me? and stopped doing business with them...



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join