Sarah Palin: bat****, or howling-at-the-moon bat****?

[DinoDoc]

I... don't know whether to believe this or not. I mean, she is that stupid, but...

link?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/24/AR2009082403018.html

[Dinner]

I... don't know whether to believe this or not. I mean, she is that stupid, but...

link?

Palin wrote about the "death books" at the VA on her Facebook page and apparently the whole "VA death book" claim originated in this Aug 18th opinion piece in the Wall St Journal (they just haven't been the same since Murdoch took them over): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...107981718.html

Here's a Huffington Post article about Palin's "VA death book" claims. Also watch the Fox News clip where they try to spin living wills, which is what the VA was promoting, as an effort encouraging Vets to commit suicide. It's a joke but a quick google search of "VA death panels" shows right wing bloggers are all over this; it is the new Obama death panel claim by the wing nuts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/22/how-conservatives-got-the_n_266275.html

[Dinner]

On Wednesday, James Towey, the former head of Bush's faith-based initiative, wrote a WSJ op-ed arguing that the Department of Veterans Affairs is pushing an end-of-life planning document, called "Your Life, Your Choices," that he insisted would give veterans a "hurry-up-and-die message" that is "clear and unconscionable." Towey imagined "a soldier surviving the war in Iraq and returning without all of his limbs only to encounter a veteran's health-care system that seems intent on his surrender." The Wall Street Journal's headline read: "The Death Book for Veterans."

A certain former half-term governor of Alaska found this important, and wouldn't you know it, RNC Chairman Michael Steele and Fox News' Sean Hannity started talking it up late in the week.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019608.php

VA death books are the new Obama death panels it seems. These deathers are like the birthers; no matter how means times you explain what end of life counciling is they continue claiming they're there to murder grandma.

[Drake Tungsten]

I bet Palin wins on this one, too.

[Dinner]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082403018.html

Specter is a complete worm and he's in a conservative district so, of course, rather then challenging the ridiculous deather claims he cops out and says he wants to review VA policy. That the VA has been offering end of life counciling for decades and that both Republicans and Democrats have all voted to fund end of life counciling & living wills doesn't seem to matter. The Republicans and Health Industry lobbyists who oppose health care reform just want to scare seniors and vets into thinking that the government is going to kill them.

How anyone can believe this nonsense is beyond me but these are the people who listen to and believe Rush Limbaugh & Fox News.

[DinoDoc]

I bet Palin wins on this one, too.

She's well on her way.

[Dinner]

I bet Palin wins on this one, too.

Her claim about Death Panels got totally debunked and she got laughed at so loudly and longly that she stopped doing interviews hoping it would blow over and people would forget. That's a Palin win in your opinion?

[DinoDoc]

Specter is a complete worm and he's in a conservative district so, of course, rather then challenging the ridiculous deather claims he cops out and says he wants to review VA policy.

The entire state of PA is a conservative district?

[Drake Tungsten]

That's a Palin win in your opinion?

The "death panels" got removed from the healthcare bill, didn't they? Palin 1 - 0 Dems...

[Dinner]

The entire state of PA is a conservative district?

Other then two big cities which are bright blue the rest of the state pretty much is red. That's why it is frequently referred to as a swing state.

[Guynemer]

Oerdin, please stop pwning yourself. You aren't doing our side any favors.




Yes, Palin is a ****ing opportunistic moron. And, yes, she won on "death panels", because the Democrats still don't have any ****ing balls.

[Dinner]

Who wants to bet that end of life counciling will still be offered and paid for by the government? So I don't see how Palin won. It's still the law and its still authorized by something like 7 different bills duly passed plus I'm willing to bet the final bill, even if it has to happen via reconciliation, will have both end of life counciling and a public option which functions much like Medicare. Anyone want to bet?

I'm guessing the whole thing will get passed in early December before those lazy Congressmen go on another long break.

I do agree that the Dems don't have any balls though. They've surrendered everytime rather then using their giant majorities to force through the bills we all know need to get passed.

[Drake Tungsten]

Who wants to bet that end of life counciling will still be offered and paid for by the government?

I do. The public option is dead.

[KrazyHorse]

Which statistic are you talking about? I was explaining "Lead time bias" and how it should not effect mortality rates, unless the study is conducted over a period of time that is short compared to the lead time between the methods of detection.

Why don't you keep repeating the same ridiculous claim over and over again?



By the by, here is the public statement by the organization which published the original study in response to the abuse of its statistics by, apparently, Rudy Giuliani (an abuse which has apparently picked up a life of its own and is now being repeated as gospel):

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/News/News-Releases/2007/Oct/Statement-by-The-Commonwealth-Fund-on-Use-of--Prostate-Cancer-Statistics.aspx

The Summer 2007 issue of City Journal included an article authored by David Gratzer, M.D., that says the U.S. prostate cancer survival rate is 81.2 percent and the U.K. survival rate is 44.3 percent. According to abcnews.com, Gratzer has cited a seven-year-old Commonwealth Fund report as his source for the statistics. In fact, the five-year survival data cited in the City Journal article do not come from The Commonwealth Fund report, and cannot be calculated from that report. What the report, Multinational Comparisons of Health Systems Data, 2000 by Gerard F. Anderson and Peter S. Hussey of Johns Hopkins University, includes are data on prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates in the two countries.

Specifically, The Commonwealth Fund report features a chart showing that, in 1997, the incidence of prostate cancer in the U.S. was 136 per 100,000 males and the mortality rate (death rate) was 26 per 100,000 males. By comparison, in the U.K. the prostate cancer incidence was 49 per 100,000 and the death rate was 28 deaths per 100,000. (The prostate cancer incidence rate—which is the number of men diagnosed with the disease in a given year—in the U.S. is thought to be higher because prostate cancer screening is much more common in this country.)

The incidence rates simply report the number of men diagnosed with prostate cancer in a given year. Prostate cancer mortality rates report the number of men who died of the disease in a given year. Neither speaks to length of survival, and that figure can not be calculated using the others.

[KrazyHorse]

Tell us something we don't know.

...

Now if a business is paying for health insurance for it's employees and the government starts paying for them instead. That's a subsidy. Got it?

You ****ing moron. The gov't doesn't pay for only the health insurance of workers of a given firm (or even of all firms). The government pays for the health insurance of ALL RESIDENTS.

If the government gave everybody in the country a 1000$ cheque then that doesn't mean that businesses could magically pay their employees 1000$ less, you ****ing idiot.