Death panels! He hates white people! He's a Kenyan! Show me the birth certificate!

Where is the truth or intelligence in saying there is no god? "Is there a god?" is a yes/no question that can't be logically answered either way. By claiming there is none you are expressing a belief in an answer without evidence to support it. (That's basic dilemma logic: if you can't conclude either way you simply do not have an answer - there is no biased burden of proof.)

The difference between Sarah Palin and a belief in God is debunkability. Will there be death panels? Nope. And my imaginary sister is very unhappy that you called her unintelligent because of her attachment to Iggy Basalt. Some girls love teddy bears without prejudice ya know...

I think the way to move forward is to chip the boulders to what they were before the moss gathered and fossilised, not to smash them to smithereens as they have been unashamedly wont to do to others in their way.

(FTR: I'm agnostic) >> ^chilaxe:


Truth and intelligence matter to a lot of people also. Shouldn't we respect those values as well? Or is Sarah Palin not a legitimate target for criticism just because her views are important to a lot of people?
Regarding the pet rock, I doubt it's in children's best interest to not raise them to be intelligent.
Surely the answer is to move society forward.

The irony is by heightening up the rhetoric to ridiculous proportions they made more Democrats likely to vote for the bill.

Had they not it would have cemented the perception that health care was an attempt at government takeover, death panels and Armageddon. The only choice left even for many Democrats against the bill was to help pass the bill because if they didn't then in the midterms the party they belonged to would have had much more relevancy in determining their future than what their actual position on the bill was.

@bmacs27, I've got a few concerns about this lump sum idea. One is that you'd replace medicare with it, which seems like a bad idea right off the bat. Second, you push the problems with predictability of cost from government and insurance companies which must only worry about large pools of people and statistical averages, onto individuals who have literally no way of predicting their individual lifetime health costs. Third, any potential savings people make by limiting their spending benefits the US Treasury not themselves. Fourth, you're still leaving people without a safety net, both in the case of severe illness, or simple poor planning.

Those seem like huge issues to me, and the bit about savings benefiting the Treasury seems like a political poison pill to boot.

As for Barasso calling for HSA's, he wasn't actually presenting a policy prescription. He just said he liked HSA+Catastrophic insurance because it makes patients control their own costs. Obama was right to call that a rich man's solution, because you need to have enough disposable income to be able to save enough to cover out-of-pocket medical costs, and currently those are still largely driven by the bad incentive structure of our existing insurance system (in other words, they're ridiculously high).

You said, "If Obama would allow himself some humility here, and pitch a new proposal partially drafted by Republicans, I think he'd win the support he needs." I think this is a deeply misguided statement. The assumption here is that Obama's plan is some radical, left-wing proposal that's antithetical to Republicans, when in truth, Obama basically took previous Republican reform bills as his inspiration.

Since Obama pre-compromised in this way, Republicans just moved the goalposts, and said that Obama's plan is Stalinist health care, and if he wants to be reasonable, he has to drop the public option. So they dropped the public option. Republicans said instead of the House's surtax, they wanted to the tax exemption on employer benefits reduced or eliminated. So the Democrats did that too. The Republicans said they didn't want an employer mandate, so Democrats dropped that too. The Republicans said that they didn't want health insurance subsidies to pay for insurance that covers abortion, so the Democrats added language that did that too. Republicans said that they didn't want insurance companies to be required to cover end of life counseling (DEATH PANELS!!!), so Democrats dropped that too. Republicans said that they didn't want illegal immigrants covered, so Democrats put in strong language forbidding it, and setting up a system for enforcing it.

I could go on like that for quite a while longer. Republicans have been involved in this process from the beginning, and have extracted a ton of concessions from Democrats, in return for absolutely zero votes. The whole time, their rhetoric hasn't softened one iota -- it's still Stalinist, Nazi-ist, Socialist, Fascist Health care that's going to bankrupt our government, bankrupt our citizens, and get everyone killed, grandmas first.

That kind of thing makes it politically impossible for Republicans to turn around and say "well, now it's not so bad".

Obama started with a very moderate, bipartisan bill, especially considering the sizable majorities he still enjoys in both chambers of Congress. The idea that he needs to compromise more with Republicans is ludicrous.

>> ^KnivesOut:
Also, it should be noted that what Beck is describing is a a Death Panel.
That's right: Glenn Beck Wants Death Panels!!1!!!one


More of a straight up execution squad, but I get where you're going.

He's doing a great job of showing he's just as low and barbaric as this enemy he's discussing.

Also, it should be noted that what Beck is describing is a a Death Panel.

That's right: Glenn Beck Wants Death Panels!!1!!!one

^Oh Winstonfield, tell us what you REALLY think.

The way you frame it, the GOP are standing up for 'Real' Americans by nobly opposing health care reform. I'll bet in your day to day conversations you say "Death Panels" and "Socialism" at least once a day.

So sad.

>> ^longde:
I am now determined to volunteer and donate 2000 dollars to her campaign. Her nomination will be the best hope for america.
that's way too risky. if those retards believed in her spiel of death panels, they just might elect that dummy. and if that'll happen, America will be a laughing stock of the world, even more so than during Bush.
i'd rather see her go back up to Alaska and keep making retarded babies.

He's going on the PR offensive that's for sure.

Obviously this isn't actually aimed at the Democrats who must surely be aware of this, but it will be interesting to see if his frequent news appearances will refocus the dialogue on genuine issues or whether Fox and the Republicans will find another way to spin this.

I'm disappointed it took him so long to realise that though. After all his responses to criticism during his campaign were instant, yet he seemed happy ignoring the nonsense about death panels and the like. As much as perhaps acknowledging them gives them some kind of credulity, it's pretty clear that ignoring these notions and letting them fester always fails.

It's not about free healthcare, since there is no such thing. Healthcare reform means reducing the profit motive, by either increasing competition or removing the profiteers completely (i.e. Single Payer). I think anyone with a brain understands that the real death panels are in the insurance companies, and I want that to stop. That's the only "liberal agenda".

^ I wonder how many in that 56% oppose the bill because there is no public option/single-payer system, or because they think the death panels are coming for grandma.

Death panels for tea baggers.

It's really trendy to fear Google these days, isn't it?

In a world with companies directly and indirectly exploiting their customers, secretly collecting data and constantly reorganizing their business to maximize profit, the company that comes up front and tells you "we're gathering data" gets demonized for it.

Never mind that they're not specifically collecting data about you. Never mind that they make some of the best products out there, and they're usually free, with a few exceptions. Never mind that many other companies have identical services and collect the same data, and just neglect to tell you about it.

Never mind that they actually release their own data, free of charge, so for example, researchers can do things like track Swine Flu (H1N1) by using Google Trends.

------------

In my line of work I use Google products on a daily basis.

My company emails are on Gmail, which saves us absurd amounts of money not having to house a couple of Exchange servers in-house, be it physical server cost, electricity cost, Exchange and Windows Server costs, backup utility and storage costs and the list goes on. Free.

Every website we develop uses Google Analytics to track their statistics. It used to cost us in licensing, storage and server load with our old Analytics software. Now it's just a few lines of code and all the actual work is done on Google's servers. Videosift uses it as well, FYI. Just look through the source code and search for "ga.js". Free.

Most of our commercial websites have Google ads in them. They send us money, so Less than Free. It's not exactly a service they provide, but it does help pay those server-hosting bills.

I use Google maps whenever I need to go somewhere new, since it's hands down the best mapping service available to me. Free.

----------

I sort of went on and on there, but to me, this video is very very close to saying "Death Panels".

You can argue that we would benefit from a federal insurance system or not, but let's not make stuff up out of thin air and call it scary truth.

I couldn't agree more. Let's start with the lie about death panels. Then the lie about government takeovers. Then the lie about taking away benefits from old people. Then the lie that it'll bankrupt the country. Then the lie that wait times will go up. Then the lie that innovation will stop. The lie that you'll have a "government bureaucrat between you and your doctor". The lie that the proposed plans will kill small businesses.

In a related note, fear mongering about the H1N1 vaccine should stop too.

But back to your pet peeve on display here about "obscene profit" -- if you think the main, central argument Democrats have been using is for reform is that we need to punish insurance companies for the crime of having made a profit, you haven't been listening to Democrats. You've been listening to the talk radio/Fox News caricatures of Democratic positions instead.

I think it's pretty safe to say that what makes the profits "obscene" is not their size, but that they're coming amongst a backdrop of worsening service, and shrinking coverage base. As MoveOn put it, "Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." That's not a comment on the size of profits, it's a comment on how those profits were achieved.

>> ^rottenseed:
I don't know it's a really broad comparison when you start comparing different countries. I don't know where he got his numbers, I don't know where those numbers came from. I also don't know if Dr. Funkyfinkle or whatever her name was didn't rebut his cancer argument because he was right, she didn't know, or she didn't want to get into a ticky-tack battle over the specifics of the studies and statistics.
There should really be an official non-partisan organization gathering these numbers, giving them to EVERYBODY so that nobody can exaggerate.


The problem isn't that nobody knows...it's that the numbers can legitimately cover a range, and sometimes a large one. On top of that, one side appears to have no solid connection to reality, or interest in staying factual. Death panels, anyone? With an attitude like that, no "authoritative source" of numbers is going to matter...they'll just make up numbers they like better. Just like they do now.