Word: Of death panels and dingbats
August 14, 2009 at 4:36 pm by Scott Henry in News
In 2007, Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson co-sponsored the Medicare End-of-Life Care Planning Act, which would expand Medicare’s coverage of voluntary end-of-life counseling. Similar measures had been included in the current health care reform legislation.
“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 … whether they are worthy of health care.”
— Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, from an Aug. 7 Facebook entry
“Palin’s website had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts.”
— Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., from an Aug. 10 Washington Post interview
“The irony is that actually one of the chief sponsors of this bill originally was a Republican … Johnny Isakson from Georgia, who very sensibly thought this is something that would expand people’s options.”
— Pres. Barack Obama, at an Aug. 11 town hall meeting in New Hampshire
“I never consulted with the White House in this process and had no role whatsoever in the House Democrats’ bill.”
— Isakson, from an Aug. 11 press release
“He expressed alarm about the scare tactics being used by opponents of health insurance reform on this issue, and we applaud him for that.”
— White House follow-up statement, in reference to Isakson
August 14th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Ever heard of Ezekiel Emmanuel? Brother of Rahm? Adviser to Obama?
He has written this regarding ethics and universal health coverage;
” An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.”
find it here – http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
August 14th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
BTW, his response to this is “I was taken out of context.
Like most politicians who say this it means, “Holy Shit, you FOUND that article?”.
August 14th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
The “End of Life” provicions have been dropped from the Senate bill becasue it could me misinterpreted or IMPLEMENTED incorrectly. Translation “Holy Shit, they FOUND that in the bill?”
From CBSnews.com – “CBS News correspondent Kelly Cobiella reports that proponents of health care reform believe that if more terminally ill patients were given end-of-life counseling, they would be less likely to chose futile, expensive treatments. It is estimated that 27 percent of Medicare’s $327 billion budget is used by patients in the last year of life. That makes end-of-life spending an attractive target for cost cutting, Cobiella reports.
August 14th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
So you want to waste my taxes on forcing brain-dead nonagenarians to stay on life support rather than letting them go out with a modicum of dignity? What kind of an interfering tax-and-spend screamer are you?
August 14th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
He’s a politician? To which office was he elected?
I’ve read the article a couple of times now and I would agree that presenting that sentence as his proscription for health care is indeed out of context and deliberately misleading.
It’s like digging up an article from a Jonathan Swift scholar and proclaiming that he or she actually supports the eating of poor Irish babies.
August 15th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Gee Dale, when did you start caring about whether people lived or died?
In our debate about torture, I brought up the fact that over 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody. You replied, “Yes, detainees have died in our custody. People die all the time. Doesn’t mean we killed them with torture.”
So even though at least half of them have been ruled homicides, and three have resulted in murder charges, Dale is not interested in the welfare of people the U.S. government captures, detains and murders.
However, Dale feigns outrage when the right-wing echo chamber pumps up the volume about government created death panels for old folks and the disabled.
So Dale, how do you determine whether a person should live or die?
August 17th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
I don’t determine if they should live or die. Simple enough?
Now to the rest of your non-sensical post;
If Grandma is detained in Afghanistan or Iraq with an AK47 in her hand or supporting Al Quaeda, then she takes her chances with Guantanamo. :-)
To your other point: you previously made the logical connection that people had died in our custody, ergo we were torturing them. I merely pointed out the logical fallacy in your argument.
Your argument today assumes I accept your statement about how many are homicides and, without sources, I do not.
Based on your post today, your deductive reasoning leaves a great deal to be desired.
August 17th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
No, it’s not that simple, Dale. When confronted with claims that the military, CIA, and contractors killed detainees, you showed no concern or interest in determining what happened. Instead you made a half-assed excuse. But when Sarah Palin talks about “death panels” that would not actually exist, and you quote Rahm Emanuel’s brother about what you think are his nefarious plans to off the disabled, you become fearful about what the government has not done and doesn’t intend to do.
You’re accusing me of writing something non-sensical, yet you are the one making a strawman of a grandma with an AK-47? And a smiley face about her being sent to Guantanamo?! You consider the War on Terror to be one big laugh riot, but you become deadly serious when Obama’s Nazi “death panels” are going to be started up? Explain your reasoning behind that.
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/dic/exec-sum.aspx
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-05/how-many-were-tortured-to-death/
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/politics/16abuse.html?_r=1
http://www.blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/06/taguba-bush-adm.html
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1868355
August 18th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
As I suspected, you do not understand.
We will disagree.
Regarding your sources, I don’t trust many of them anymore than i trust World Net Daily,
August 18th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Jay’s logic in past arguments was that because people died in our custody, we killed them.
Dale’s response was that people die all the time, not necessarily because we killed them
Jay offered no evidence or sources at the time, therefore a logical response is perfectly acceptable.
Jay says deductive logic = half-assed excuse.
Dale was addressing that specific point of logic.
Weeks (months?) later, Jay says that means Dale does not care about human life.
Again, Jay makes an error because of his love for “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” logic.
Therefore, because 98% of fatal car accident victims drank a liquid within six hours of their accident, Jay should avoid drinking any liquid because it obviously causes fatal car accidents.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Of course we will disagree. I didn’t expect you to change your mind and agree with me. I’m not foolish enough to think that when you were presented with the information you asked for that you would actually admit you were wrong in any way. When you can discard all the information I presented by saying you don’t trust the sources, then you can even refuse to acknowledge the fact that Americans have actually been convicted of manslaughter in the deaths of detainees.
Let me clarify a few points you made in your summation of our debate about torture.
I do not believe that we killed every detainee who died in our custody. If you actually read the reports I linked to, then you’d know they don’t even state that. However, I do believe that we killed detainees when the people responsible for the deaths have been convicted for those acts. I also believe it is very likely that when detainees died due to things such as blunt force trauma to the head, asphyxiation, and a crushed larynx, that it was due to abuse and torture.
Dale does not let facts get in the way of his argument about logic. He never asked for evidence or sources earlier, and when he finally asked and was promptly provided with facts and information, he offers no response other than that he doesn’t trust those sources. Dale needs to inform us of the exact publications and sources he does trust, so we can determine how he objectively obtains all of his information.
Dale finds it odd that I reference a point from our debate from four months ago, yet he finds it perfectly acceptable to question the words and intent behind something written 13 years ago.
Americans have been convicted in the deaths of detainees, and Dale has never said that – nor the possibility that we killed many others – bothers him. However, what does bother Dale is that Rahm Emanuel’s brother is going to lead a 21st century holocaust on the old and disabled.
August 19th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Looks like the links Jay posted are legit: NIH, Times.
Dale, are you looking for links to publications from peer reviewed journals? You ought to be held to the same standard on here.
August 19th, 2009 at 8:59 am
The references were not presented at the time of the original argument. When NO facts are presented, we could ONLY argue logic. I do not let facts presented today invalidate the logic of a few months ago. My logic was correct, even with the introduction of later facts. You see, logic never changes, even though the result of using logic changes. The logic used was based on the facts presented then. Given todays facts, logic would dictate a different conclusion.
I said I did not trust MANY of the references. A fine point of word usage I know.
I do not deny that some people were killed in our custody, but your facts were not presented months ago.
I never said you thought we killed them all. You wasted an entire paragraph on a red herring. Although that is a typical tactic, misstate my position and then argue against it. Nice.
Not that it matters, but we were discussing Gitmo, not Afghanistan and Iraq, the exclusive province of your links.
Yes, the words of Rahm bother me more than the deaths of the probable enemies in our custody. You see, the people who will be killed by health care rationing are obviously innocent. Another fine point, I know.
I am not defending my response from months ago in the light of information presented today. I am defending it based on the facts presented, or not presented, by you back then.
Thank you for not responding to ANYTHING in my post.
Dead Lancelot – I have made no argument of fact, therefore I have no need to prove those facts with references. Again, this is an argument over what was said months ago, rather than today. Those statements are the ones on which Jay bases his erroneous public statements of my morality.
For all interested – Yes, it is obvious today, given the information presented TODAY, that detainees have been killed in our custody. That was most certainly NOT the case presented a few months ago.
Also for the record – If you attack our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan and die in our custody, I am not worried about your demise.
August 21st, 2009 at 4:18 am
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, DaleC argues that at the time of our original argument I did not provide references to sources that detail the deaths of detainees while in American custody. Let it be noted that DaleC never asked for any sources at that time. Nor did DaleC write one word about any concern he might have had that people in American custody (who were never formally charged nor found guilty of any crime) died due to Americans abusing them and torturing them.
While DaleC’s morality drives him to speak out against “death panels” that do not exist, nor would they exist based on any existing legislation, he said not one word about deaths that actually occurred at the hands of people employed by the United States government.
DaleC claims that he was arguing logic, not on the facts known – and this is important – to him at that time. DaleC now accepts the fact the detainees died in American custody because Americans killed them. Those facts were available at the time of our original debate four months ago. My apparent mistake was in believeing that DaleC was informed about the deaths that occurred. I based this on DaleC’s general assertions that he is knowledgable and well-read when it comes to current events.
When DaleC asked for sources to support my statements, I promptly provided them. However, these sources are not new. Three of them were from 2005, one was from 2006, and one was from 2008. All of this information (and more) has been available for years, yet DaleC claims he was unaware of the facts, and now hides behind a defense that he was only debating “logic.”
When DaleC says “we could ONLY argue logic” he is wrong. Dale may have only been able to argue logic, if he was truly unaware of the facts, but I was arguing those facts. I assumed DaleC’s superior and trustworthy sources kept him informed of topics like employees of the government killing people, after all DaleC was right on top of the “death panels” controversy.
In his first replies after he was presented with the facts, DaleC did not write one word about now believing that detainees were killed. DaleC only commented about my sources saying he didn’t “trust many of them anymore than i trust World Net Daily.” Notice he didn’t say that he actually trusted one of them enough to believe what was written, only that he might have trusted at least one of them as much as or more than he trusts World Net Daily. Comparing one’s level of trust of a source to World Net Daily does not mean one truly trusts that source.
DaleC did not identify which sources of mine he does trust, nor did he reply to my request to “inform us of the exact publications and sources he does trust, so we can determine how he objectively obtains all of his information.”
DaleC’s argument of logic is that just because people died in American custody does not mean that we killed them. I agree with that. I never argued that every detainee death was attributable to abuse or torture by Americans. However, DaleC wrote that he thought my “logic in past arguments was that because people died in our custody, we killed them.” That is incorrect. DaleC holds two conflicting opinions. On the one hand he thinks that I thought “because people died in our custody, we killed them.” I never said that. In our debate four months ago I said that I believe detainees who died due to things like blunt force trauma to the head, asphyxiation, and a crushed larynx were probably due to abuse and torture. On the other hand he stated that he never thought I said “we killed them all.”
DaleC can only honestly believe one of those statements: either a) I thought because a detainee died in our custody we killed them; therefore, I must believe that all detaineees that died in our custody were killed by us, or b) I don’t believe we killed every detainee that died in our custody.
As for DaleC’s claim that “we were discussing Gitmo, not Afghanistan and Iraq,” that is false. Nowhere in our debates about torture has it been limited to Gitmo. DaleC may have thought we were only discussing Gitmo because he was unaware of the facts and that the scope of the torture program covered detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan and numerous secret overseas prisons.
In our debate four months ago neither us even wrote the words Gitmo, Iraq, or Afghanistan. But DaleC did write about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He, of course, spent three years in secret prisons, during which time he was tortured, until he was transferred to Guantanamo.
I am thankful for DaleC’s statement that “the words of Rahm bother me more than the deaths of the probable enemies in our custody.” For this takes me back to my original point in this thread. Which is that I wanted to know how DaleC determined who should live and who should die. DaleC responded that he doesn’t make those decisions (thank God for us all), so instead I should ask why are fictional characters in a future scenario more important than people who existed but were killed by our government?
First of all, I assume DaleC was referring to Ezekiel Emanuel, not Rahm. Second, DaleC has confirmed that the words of someone from 13 years ago bother him “more” than the fact that Americans killed detainees. The quote from Ezekiel which so offended DaleC described denying medical coverage to people. Now I don’t recall reading anything from DaleC about how angry he is that insurance companies and the government already ration and deny care, but maybe he could inform us all of whether or not he is outraged at, not at the prospect of something terrible happening in the future but, what has been going on for decades.
Does DaleC believe everyone should be given every treatment and medicine they desire? Does DaleC support taxpayer-funded abortions and euthanasia? Or liver transplants for 60-year-old chronic alcoholics? Would DaleC like to have wide-ranging and long-lasting civic forums to discuss the use of medical care?
Next, DaleC’s feelings about these issues are based on assumptions. He thinks some or all of the detainees that died were our enemies. Does he think that most if not all of our detainees are our enemies? Does he think most if not all are guilty of some crime?
America has detained hundreds of people in the War on Terror. Only those 800 or so at Guantanamo Bay are offered the right to challenge their detention, something congress and President Bush opposed. We have released over 400 detainees from Guantanamo without charging them with any crime. We have transferred over 100 detainees to other countries. Only three detainees have been convicted of any charges. And we only intend to try no more than 100 of the remaining detainees. So we will probably wind up trying 12% of the detainees ever held at Guantanamo.
How many of the people who we detained, held in prison for years, tortured, and then released does DaleC consider to be our enemies? For once, I am only speaking of Gitmo because detainees in prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere had no opportunity to challenege their detention.
Since DaleC apparently just became aware of the fact that we killed detainees in our custody, I wonder how it is that he has determined these people were our “probable enemies?” Based on the numbers of detainees we’ve released without charges, never mind being able to try and convict of any crime, why is DaleC so confident that those we killed were our “probable enemies?”
I also wonder how DaleC is able to determine that those who go in front of the the “death panels” of the future will be “obviously innocent?”
I think the best summation for DaleC’s argument is what he wrote to dead_lancelot:
“I have made no argument of fact…”
August 21st, 2009 at 7:34 pm
” “death panels” that do not exist, nor would they exist based on any existing legislation,” – you should read the stimulus bill and study other every single payer program in the world. THEY didn’t start out to ration care for old people either. You should also read the words of Zeke Emmanuel. Yes, I meant Zeke, not Rahm. The only assumption you got right. Of course, Rahm not “letting a good crisis go to waste” also bothers me.
“everyone should be given every treatment and medicine they desire?” – If they paid for it with their insurance plan, yes.
“Does DaleC support taxpayer-funded abortions and euthanasia?” – of course not
“Or liver transplants for 60-year-old chronic alcoholics?” – does their policy cover it?
“Would DaleC like to have wide-ranging and long-lasting civic forums to discuss the use of medical care?” – only if the end result is to prevent the Fed from taking over health care. We seem to be having those now. Civic discussions should not happen since my health care is none of the communities business.c
“So we will probably wind up trying 12% of the detainees ever held at Guantanamo.” – Curious if you have a problem with the innocent people who died during WWII in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or captured soldiers who were killed at the point of capture on the battlefield, like many of the detainees in your linked articles. I don’t.
I still have no concern over people captured in battle with our troops who die in our custody. I never will. Don’t want to die? don’t fuck with our guys.
“that insurance companies and the government already ration and deny care, ” – and every one covered by an insurance plan has the option to go to another plan. We will forced out of that by single payer. I see a major difference in submission and compulsion.
“Does he think that most if not all of our detainees are our enemies? Does he think most if not all are guilty of some crime” – yes, I do. Just like criminals here at home are not caught or prosecuted for every crime they commit, same for the detainees
“how he has determined these people were our “probable enemies” – our enemies tend to hang out in battle areas with guns where our soldiers capture them
“determine that those who go in front of the the “death panels” of the future will be “obviously innocent?” – they don’t hang out in the places as previously mentioned with the previously mentioned guns
Regarding the rest of your post, you have changed the argument from four months ago and it is beyond recognition today.
You are so far beyond reason that we will probably have to conclude this conversation.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:56 pm
If there will be a death panel I want to be on it. If you don’t have a place at the table you could be on the menu.
August 25th, 2009 at 12:59 am
First of all, I’m disappointed that you have stopped addressing our jury of readers. I also really got a kick out of you referring to yourself in the third person. Although I usually question a person’s sanity when they refer to themselves in that manner.
How would reading the stimulus bill help me to understand how one of the health care reform bills will lead to rationing of care for older people?
If the assumption I made about you meaning to write Zeke not Rahm was the only one you think I got right, then what were the assumptions I made about you in that post that were wrong?
What do you think should be done about people who don’t have health insurance yet want every treatment and medicine they think will cure them?
Why are you opposed to taxpayer-funded abortions and euthansia?
I would guess that most 60-year-old chronic alcoholics don’t have health insurance. I’ve known a couple of them, and one was uninsured and one was covered by the VA.
I disagree that we are right now having wide-ranging, long-lasting forums about the use of medical care. I assume you are referring to the town-hall gatherings members of congress are holding. These town-halls are not focused on when and why a certain type of medical care is used or not used in a certain situation. That is the discussion I would like to see many people have. But if your mindset is “only if the end result is to prevent the Fed from taking over health care,” then I don’t think you’re entering the discussion in good faith.
The community has an interest in an individual’s health care. If a person is uninsured or covered by the government through the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP, or is a government employee, then the community pays for that coverage. If a person is covered by private insurance, then they affect the other people in their plan and/or their employer.
Yes, I am troubled by the innocent people who died during WWII in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as those captured soldiers who were killed at the point of capture on the battlefield. I guess I’m not a real man like you Dale; a man who doesn’t shed a tear when innocent people die (unless they’re the right kind of innocent people). It makes sense that you comfort yourself by not dwelling on all the detainees who’ve been released, or were not captured on the battlefield, or were handed to us by other governments yet did nothing to warrant being detained. When you see everything in comic book fashion of good and evil, then it must be easy to allow unnecessary violent means justify what you hope to accomplish.
Not everyone has the option to go to another insurance plan. Are you not aware the fact that people are denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions? And since you don’t want the government rationing care for old people, what would you do with Medicare? Should we eliminate it and let old people buy private insurance?
Do you consider every detainee to be an enemy? I ask this because your method for determining who is an enemy seems to rely mostly on if that person is hanging out in a battle area with a gun. Yet you also acknowledge that not every detainee was captured on the battlefield.
Since you are not bothered much when Americans kill detainees in our custody, are you bothered more or less when Americans are killed by foreign fighters?
Since we are speaking of hypothetical death panels that everyone would go in front of, why do you say that everyone would be innocent? What about murderers, rapists, arsonists, etc.
I have not changed the argument from four months ago. I made it absolutely clear as to what I said and why I said it. The only reason you might claim not to recognize it is because back then you rattled off a line about logic, but you were uninformed and unaware of the facts. And truthfully the facts seem to mean little to you anyways. You have your opinion and you’re sticking to it. The fact that you offer no replies to the first half of my post, but you have things to say about simple yes or no questions later on, tells me you’ve been caught. You have no argument of logic to hide behind. You throw so many criticisms at me that you don’t even realize you claim to hold mutually exclusive beliefs about me. And you continue to refuse to identify which sources of mine you do not trust, nor have you informed me of the exact publications and sources you do trust, so I can determine how you objectively obtain all of your information.
August 25th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
“If the assumption I made about you meaning to write Zeke not Rahm was the only one you think I got right, then what were the assumptions I made about you in that post that were wrong?”
Thank you for clearly displaying your complete inability to reason deductively, a key point of mine earlier.
“Why are you opposed to taxpayer-funded abortions and euthanasia?” – I oppose both on moral grounds and also the fact that government funding leads to government control.
I don’t have time to respond to the rest.
August 31st, 2009 at 12:30 am
No faulty reasoning on my part, Dale, you didn’t address whether you were a)referring to the town hall debates as the wide-ranging, long-lasting forums; and b)labeling as enemies only those people who are found with guns on the battlefield.
I’m curious to know from what source you derive a sense of morality in which you are opposed to taxpayer-funded euthanasia, yet not bothered by detainees who died and were killed in American custody, and innocent people who died during WWII in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I look forward to reading your full response to my last post.