I made a passing reference to Sarah Palin’s “death panel” comment earlier today. It was part of a Facebook post, in which she wrote:
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.
First, let me say that I would agree that a panel of government bureaucrats deciding who lives and who dies based on some productivity standard would, indeed, be evil.
Second, the problem is, there is no such proposal on table–not even close. Yes, this fits into a narrative, currently being pushed by some opponents of the health care reform bill that it is all an attempt to euthanize the elderly, but the problem is: there is no such provision. If one looks at Section 1233 of the House bill (which is a far cry from a finalized law), there is a provision for providing counseling regarding thinks like living wills, DNRs, palliative care and the like–all a far cry from telling Gramps he has to do sit in the corner and die because he costs too much (and all issues that could become legitimate for any of us). The provision is about informing persons of options if they find themselves in specific types of medical situations, such as whether one wants to remain connected to machines or not–it doesn’t say anything about costs. One can object to the notion that such counseling should be in the bill at all, or that it be offered to patients every five years. However, one cannot read the actual proposal and say that it is about killing the elderly. A good column on this subject, including some legitimate criticism of the current language, can be found here.
I would note that I am not in favor of the current reform package for a variety of reasons, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t point out ludicrous arguments when I see them and all this talk about “death panels” and such is nonsense.
In regards to the Sarah Palin’s comment specifically Steve Benen wrote:
I’ve long wondered if there would be a point at which Sarah Palin went just a little too far for the political mainstream. A whole lot of political observers noticed the obvious lies, the cringe-worthy ignorance, the petty feuds, and the bizarre behavior, but wanted to maintain the fiction that Palin was a credible political figure. After all, John McCain wanted her to be one heartbeat from the presidency — and 60 million Americans agreed.Maybe, just maybe, her “death panel” message on Facebook — complete with lies, poor writing, policy confusion, and family exploitation — will be enough to convince the skeptical that Palin really is that far gone?
Given that Newt Ginrich (and even Ann Althouse, amongst others–although Right Wing Nuthouse’s Rick Moran takes here to task) have essentially endorsed Palin’s statements, I wouldn’t hold my breath. Further, I would guess that there is a significant correlation between those who support Palin and those who are convinced that Obamacare equals getting rid of Grandma.
Sphere: Related Content
August 9th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
It doesn’t really matter what the facts are. If it wasn’t healthcare it would be something else … Palin and Newt and the rest either are or are pandering to a constituency that has an extremely dualistic vision of politics. (It doesn’t help that a good number of them are fundamentalist Christian Nationalists who think a Democrat in power means Satan and/or the Antichrist is coming to power. The moment a Democrat came into power they were going to be working themselves into hysterics about living under totalitarian tyranny. All the crazy lies about death panels, brownshirt union members (a complete inversion of the history of fascism), conservatives and Jews about to be rounded up by liberal fascists (Glenn Beck made this claim), Obama not being a citizen, etc. fit into the prejudices that these individuals have.
Actual facts about the Obama administration that don’t serve the purpose of depicting them as absolute evil dont fit: it’s like trying to mix oil and water.
Heck, Glenn Beck has now twice warned his audience that if he dies mysteriously its because he was assasinated for exposing ACORN’s sinster plot to take over the planet or because the Obama administration or some of the powerful forces working for him had him done in.
August 9th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Why should Palin be any different than the other actors in this drama? At least she’s stretching a fact to fit her needs. Exaggeration is the coin of the realm in this debate. One side points to death panels, the other claims we’ll enter a utopia where everyone will have all the health care you want because everything will be run by wise bureaucrats who can bend the cost curve while raising taxes on 3 people total.
On the positive side she’s not resorting to calling those who disagree unamerican, Nazis, or racists. But if her “death panel” line sounds fishy maybe you should report her.
August 9th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Except, Buckland, I haven’t heard such claims of Utopia, and the proposal simply isn’t for government-run health care (and again, I say this whilst noting opposition to the plan). This proposal on the table is for insurance reform, not a national health service a la Britain. Beyond that, it is a far cry from stating that a policy will cover most people and a counter-claim that the policy will produce “death panels.”
And really, one can identify other uncivil behavior and also decry Palin’s. The notion that somehow Palin’s remarks are excusable because somebody else said something problematic doesn’t follow.
August 9th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Pelosi said people are showing up carrying swaztika. This is a fact. One might interpret this to mean she was calling protesters Nazis, but given the high profile comparison of Democrats to Nazis by Beck, Goldberg, Limbaugh, etc. and the protesters obviously comparing Obama to Nazis, the more reasonable assumption is that she’s merely commenting on how ridiculous it is that people are showing up at health care meetings carrying swaztikas.
Why is it so difficult to figure this stuff out?
August 10th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
I admit I hate reading legislation myself. Its like trying to swim through mud compared to say a technical manual on internal combustion. But something as important as health care, I at least skimmed through and when a claim is made of a particular section that legislative murder will occur I read it thoroughly. It took me the better part of 15 minutes to read the referenced section and it’s context well enough to understand it. Even to me with only a bachelors degree in history it became obvious that Gov. Palin must have (lets be gentle) made an error.
The question I ask myself is, Do these people actually believe we are so stupid that we cannot look for ourselves when they talk about government enforced “Death Panels” and other nonsense? Or Are they so stupid that they believe the non-facts they are spreading? In either case we need to take a firm look at some of our leaders and “experts” and ask ourselves if they are really the best we can find to make decisions in our name or inform us.
Either Former Gov. Palin is incapable of reading a law (which is somewhat concerning in a governor and vice presidential candidate)or she thinks her fellow citizens are mostly idiots. I can’t say she lost my vote because she never had it but I hope others keep this in mind if she ever asks for theirs.
August 11th, 2009 at 7:12 am
[...] the current House health care reform bill as it applies to end of life issues (a topic I touched on here), I would recommend the the following intereview that Ezra Klein did with Senator Johnny Isakson [...]