Sarah Palin: Completely bat****

[Blaupanzer]

If we come to this, and likely we won't, would you rather have an ass-kissing government bureaucrat or a profit-oriented insurance bureaucrat make the decision as to what treatments are covered -- based on your policy/age/condition/etc.? The current #1 issue is should there be a Government option -- an insurance policy backed by the Government. The concepts of single payer, death panels, and driving all the insurance companies out of business all come from the overheated brains of the fgew remaining republicans. I.e., the repubs made this shxx up. Scaring the hxxx out of people is the only vote-getting method they know. We citizens need to assist them in finding something else to do, by throwing the narrow-minded, mean little buggers out of office.

[rah]

While I think fear mongering is not an effective vote-getting technique sometimes it's the only alternative to the DEMS method of just paying everyone off and not worrying about who's going to pay for it. Bribing for votes is their Standard method.

[Ben Kenobi]

Blaupanzer:

It's as simply as Barry's argument.

1. Fedex
2. UPS
3. US postal service

If you are in need of timely deliveries who do you trust? Chances are it ain't number 3.

The same applies to Obamacare. If they can screw up postal service, do you want them managing your health insurance?

[DinoDoc]

The concepts of single payer,

Yep, that's made up.

death panels,

Completely unrealistic that such a thing would happen in a government health plan.

and driving all the insurance companies out of business all come from the overheated brains of the fgew remaining republicans. I.e., the repubs made this shxx up.

Indeed. There's no evidence at all to support that contention.

[Asher]

Completely unrealistic that such a thing would happen in a government health plan.

You do realize that it was her private insurance that failed her here, not the government? It's interesting you're spinning this into something evil about 'death panels' when it demonstrates the failure of the private sector health care to do what it should for the people it is supposed to cover.

Indeed. There's no evidence at all to support that contention.

You are correct, there's not. Your link goes to a private consulting firm, owned by Insurance companies.

As usual, DinoDoc, you need to step up your game. These drive-by trolls with supposed links to refute people don't work on people anymore. They're always -- without exception -- nonsense that are occasionally not even at all related to the subject matter.

If you think linking to the summary of a study done by insurance companies critical of health care reform is 'evidence' of anything, that really speaks volumes of your intellectual capacity.

Don't waste our time. We're not your Palin-supporting, Fox News-watching, cousin-****ing, gay-bashing, god-fearing rednecks that this kind of insipid trash works on. Try this site or this site instead.

[DinoDoc]

You do realize that it was her private insurance that failed her here, not the government?

http://oregon.gov/DHS/healthplan/

Note the .gov in the address.

[Thue]

While I think fear mongering is not an effective vote-getting technique sometimes it's the only alternative to the DEMS method of just paying everyone off and not worrying about who's going to pay for it. Bribing for votes is their Standard method.

Didn't Bush sign off a large medicare increase? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicar...ernization_Act. While cutting taxes and running a deficit?

As far as I can see the Democrats are tax and spend, which the Republicans are loan and spend. The responsible positions are "tax and spend", and "cut taxes and cut spending". The loan and spend position the Republicans position demonstrated when they last had power is just irresponsible.

(And purposeful deficit-spending to avoid a second great depression, Keynesian-style, doesn't count as "loan and spend" in this context)

[Asher]

http://oregon.gov/DHS/healthplan/

Note the .gov in the address.

You're almost as bad as Ben.

FROM YOUR ARTICLE:

The news from Barbara Wagner's doctor was bad, but the rejection letter from her insurance company was crushing.

The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.

Please provide even one sentence from that article that discusses the 'death panels'.

Be honest, please. I've zero patience for this ****, Ben used it all up and you're treading dangerously close to Ben territory.

It seems to me that you are hamfistedly trying to imply that because the Oregon government did offer to subsidize physician-assisted death under its 'Die with Dignity plan' (which is wholly unrelated to anything else in this thread), this is evidence of 'death panels'. Please tell me you are not this stupid, and instead you are just trying to pull a fast one on people who are much faster than you?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Cause private insurance companies never refuse to pay for life saving drugs

And that's exactly like a "death panel" because they would pay for cheaper physician assisted death drugs

You are only marginally sounding smarter than Ben here, DD...

[Ben Kenobi]

Weren't y'all just saying "we don't treat other people like that, just Ben?"

Glad to see the claws out ladies.

The responsible positions are "tax and spend"

Responsible in the sense, "he's responsible for the car accident". Tax and spending is a horrible solution to budgetary problems. The responsible choice is:

1. Cut spending, cut taxes.

And purposeful deficit-spending to avoid a second great depression, Keynesian-style, doesn't count as "loan and spend" in this context

So borrowing at a rate of 2 trillion a year is considered to be a 'responsible' way to address a recession? Obama will top out 8 years of Bush in just one year. Just because a democrat borrows money and raises taxes doesn't make it 'responsible' simply because they have D by their name.

Obama is mortgaging the future of young people, money that we will have to pay the rest of our lives.

[Ramo]

So we go from the state being unwilling to cover a $4000/month drug that has a less than 5% chance of enabling the patient to live for five more years to "death panels."

[Ben Kenobi]

edit, DP.

[DinoDoc]

So we go from the state being unwilling to cover a $4000/month drug that has a less than 5% chance of enabling the patient to live for five more years to "death panels."

Actually this arguement at least wrt "death panels" has always been about the issue of rationing the care of the old and infirm as a means to control health care costs which seems to be central to the Obama health plan. This incident is only emblematic of that. The rhetorical flourish provided by "death panels" just made it amusing given the overheated reatction it seems to provoke here.

[Ramo]

You're saying that if this woman didn't have free health insurance due to her low income (only ~5% of Americans get Medicaid), she would've had a gold plated private plan that would pay for extremely expensive drugs with marginal efficacy. Do you realize how retarded this argument is?

[Ramo]

rationing the care of the old and infirm as a means to control health care costs which seems to be central to the Obama health plan.

I thought your theme in health care threads is that cost control is unposssible.