Going Rogue

When Mrs. Todd Palin resigned her elected position as Governor of Alaska, her father was quoted in her recently released book as having said, "Sarah’s not retreating, she’s reloading." And that she has done. She has amassed an impressive amount of ammunition. She has raised her rifle, with it's sights adjusted for perfect aim, and has pulled the trigger to take pot shots at anyone she feels is responsible for her failed bid to take up residency in the White House.

Alaskan wolves are most certainly breathing a collective sigh of relief, now that she has at least, temporarily suspended her helicopter rides to use them for target practice. I'm sure that if they were able to communicate with humans, they would have a few fine words to offer regarding her take on preserving God given life.

In her book, Mrs. Palin's ghostwriter described a Republican gubernatorial seeking rival, Andrew Halcro, as "a wealthy, effete young chap" who rode on his father's coattails as a rental car franchise owner, then going on to achieving individual success as a local radio host and blogger, summarizing them as "major steps up from a previous job as our limo driver at Todd’s cousin’s wedding."

No one has been spared. The Wicked Witch of Wasilla (sorry, I just couldn't resist the temptation) referred to Ashley Judd, who is a strong and vocal opponent of the practice of shooting wolves from helicopters, as "a perky, pretty celebrity" with "asinine plans."

In the chapter "The Thumpin," she claims that those closely aligned with Barrack Obama had a hand in the "Troopergate" investigation, a stupendous claim, given that the investigation began long before she was on John McCain's short list, long before Rahm Emanuel was part of Obama's team, and long before anyone down this way had even heard of her.

Her charges come across much like those that claim that the President's Grandmother placed an ad in two Hawaiian newspapers, announcing the birth of her "Kenyan born grandson," on the off-chance that he would be nominated to run for President forty-plus year later.

Katie Couric is described as "condescending," and thus cited as the reason why she flubbed the response to the rather elementary question to name her favorite newspaper...ANY newspaper.

The bottom line is that Sarah Palin has transcribed her inner thoughts into print, written with one purpose in mind. Her desire is to reintroduce herself to America and to be allowed to offer her side of the story, despite the fact that it could have been expressed on her Facebook page and digested into some rather easily written sentences.

"It wasn't MY fault. Everyone was just so mean to me."

Hahahaha...Funny, Clay.

From what I've heard of the book (no I didn't read it), it's compiled like a Miley Cyrus fanzine. Likes, dislikes, inflating small town accomplishments, and an overview of her family life.

Lacking any real revelations of her political wherewithall, the book resorts to a few scandalous and lame accusations to move copies from the shelves.

As I said, I didn't read it, but I've yet to hear that it discusses world views or policy dissections. It sounds as deep as a Florence Henderson book reliving The Brady Bunch.

I'm glad Alprova and JohnnyRingo came up with a few really good zingers (I'm still chuckling)which now only leaves me with the responsibility of being the 'messenger' (you know..the one most people want to kill).

Think real hard. Be honest. How much of a chance did you give O'bama when he first decided to run for the presidency?? Now, let's see a show of hands. How many of you truly believe the Republicans aren't capable of doing something just as foolish as the Democrats just one year ago??

Let's face it, after what Taylor Swift accomplished last week (I'm still trying to recover from that night)I may never again utter the words, "Stranger things have happened."

Because they might........

Thank you for your time and attention, Woody

Does the currently cooling earth (remember our April snow shower) make Al Gore's movie a whine? Did our mansion-dwelling, jet-setting environmentalist have help evolving his projects? Were they self-serving (did he dream the Democrats might deadlock and turn to him last year)? Was he so obsessed with his climate theories that he neglected global politics? Can our left wing do anything so absurd that it'd move Mr Bennett to pluck a feather or two?

Has anyone here read the book yet?

Anyone?

Clay?

Alprova?

AndrewLohr inquired;

"Does the currently cooling earth (remember our April snow shower) make Al Gore's movie a whine?"

Not at all. Al Gore's movie was an indoctrination attempt to convince America that he is indeed and without question, the World's one and only Chicken Little.

"Did our mansion-dwelling, jet-setting environmentalist have help evolving his projects?"

Absolutely. He's a puppet with strings being pulled by the United Nations.

"Were they self-serving (did he dream the Democrats might deadlock and turn to him last year)?

Undeniably.

"Was he so obsessed with his climate theories that he neglected global politics?"

Well, that all depends on whether or not he is interested in transferring the wealth of Americans into the pockets of political and business allies around the globe.

"Can our left wing do anything so absurd that it'd move Mr Bennett to pluck a feather or two?"

Now THAT is a silly question.

You know that you guys are always "right." For Pete's sake, if that were not true, you would be referred to as "wrong" instead of "right." Y'all have that distinction, and still you find it necessary to whine.

If all of us lowly Liberals started criticizing our own, what would there be "left" for you folks on the "right" to whine about?

I mean, gee...I'm going to be taken out behind the woodshed and will be given thirty lashes for daring to offer that Al Gore is self-serving.

Don't you know that it's a high crime for any Liberal to dare speak or type anything critical of another Liberal?

Sorry...gotta go. They're knocking on the door... to take me to the woodsh.....

It would've been better if we could've all just ignored her and her book. Remember, even negative publicity is publicity. We've already given her more attention than she should have.

You Libs who suffer from Palin Derangement Syndrome are really quite pathetic. Get over it. This is such a yawner. I think there may be something to the theory that all the attention she attracts means that you guys all think she is a threat.

Page 102;

"As the soles of my shoes hit the soft ground, I pushed past the tall cottonwood trees in a euphoric cadence, and meandered through willow branches that the moose munched on..."

On page 133, Sarah Palin asks the most profound and thought provoking question of the century;

"If God had not intended for us to eat animals, how come He made them out of meat?"

As tempting as it may be to comment on that one, I'm going to just let it simmer on the stove.

Another theory of mine is:

You leftnuts hate her because she is hot. Bear with me...

All of your female heroes are pretty darn ugly, if you think about it. Hillary, Anita Dunn, Rahm Emanuel, Janet Reno, Pelosi, Boxer, blah, blah, blah...

I know, I know, you guys have all the hotties in Hollywood on your team --- but, they really should be excluded from your list because they are all a bunch of narcissistic megalomaniacs who cling to lefty ideologies because they think it helps assuage the guilt they feel for leading their vapid little Hollywood lives.

Alprova, you are in rare form today... I am proud of how you responded about Al Gore. Hope it didn't hurt too bad behind that woodshed.

I haven't read the book, is it really that bad? I am not sure I could support her for president with all the drama that seems to follow her, but I guess that happens with most controversial folks..

Walden you need to lighten up.

Walden wrote: "You Libs who suffer from Palin Derangement Syndrome are really quite pathetic. Get over it. This is such a yawner. I think there may be something to the theory that all the attention she attracts means that you guys all think she is a threat."

Why not just plant you hands on your hips, stick your nose in the air and say something along the lines of...."You're just jealous!!" It worked so well on the elementary school playground.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the last time I looked, there was not a string with a ring on it, sticking out of the back of her blouse, nor anyone yanking it before she speaks. She is a self-made, simplistic Chatty Cathy doll.

No one forced her to leave Wasilla, Alaska. No one forced her to write a book.

And lastly, no one forced her to lease a full sized tour bus, to paint it bright blue, to plaster her image on the side of it, and to embark on a tour of the states to promote her silly book. The picture of it was up on Drudge's web page for a VERY brief amount of time this morning. It got yanked real quick.

Ah...I found another image of it. All these Sarah Palin fans are so much help...

http://www.momsforsarahpalin.com/2009/11/sarah-palins-going-rogue-book-tour-bus.html

Whoever heard of such a thing?

alprova contributed: "Page 102: "If God had not intended for us to eat animals, how come He made them out of meat?"

"As tempting as it may be to comment on that one, I'm going to just let it simmer on the stove."

If Obama had used that line at the Washington Press Club dinner, it would be the banner on the next morning's NY Times and he would be hailed as a masterfully funny politician.

I'll Bet Clay hasn't read the book, by the way.

I doubt if she'd retire if we ignored her completely. No doubt the attempts at recognition would get more outlandish.

Obviously, her need for attention far outweighs her common sense and self awareness. Poor Baby! It's sad she has the money to indulge her need.

alprova wrote of Governor Palin's book tour bus: Who ever heard of such a thing?

Dear Mr. Pompous A**, just because you have not heard of something before does not mean it hasn't happened.

http://promomagazine.com/eventmarketing/harrahs_jackie_collins_book_tour_0530/

alprova whined: "Her desire is to reintroduce herself to America and to be allowed to offer her side of the story, despite the fact that it could have been expressed on her Facebook page and digested into some rather easily written sentences."

Quite an observation from someone who consistenly pens the most verbose posts in these forums to offer his thoughts.

And I know I don't have to ask if you have read the book alprova. Of course not, it's much easier to go to a left-wing blog to cut-and-paste observations about it from someone else, who most likely also has not read the book.

It is so much fun to see the lamestream media and liberals SO worked up about Governor Palin's book and her tour appearances. Without George Bush around, they have had no one other than grass-roots American citizens to spit their venom and vulgarity at recently

And conservatives are the people who hate? Puhleeze.

nurseforjustice - I don't disagree with you that I need to lighten up. I think I will.

I do enjoy firing up the discussions though!

alprova - I think my point is simply this... why do you guys care? Why do you, Clay, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Katie Couric, et al, continue to talk about her if she is so worthless? I just think its interesting, that's all. Off to see my newborn niece!

Peace all.

Walden, I believe it's called, "Know your enemy."

Even the seemingly 'ditsy' ones.....

Woody

Palin is probably the most unelectable person in the right-wing arena- that's why I'm supporting her every chance I get. Every time I see her authoring a new book, on the news and talk shows, I smile because this puts her a step closer to being on top of the next Republican ticket. As gullible as some on the right are about health care and the economy, there just may be enough of them to put her on the ticket.

Clara wrote: "It's sad she has the money to indulge her need."

What a statement. That would be like me saying it's sad that you have enough money to afford a computer and express your opinions here. How mean-spirited is that?

And yet Obama got HIS money by penning, some say with ghostwriting assistance, a couple of self-serving memoirs and that's a wonderful thing, right?

One of the reasons for this book tour is that Governor Palin has massive legal fees incurred while defending herself against frivolous ethics complaints filed mostly by one nutcase in Alaska, virtually all of which have been dismissed as unfounded.

What's truly sad is the left's insatiable desire to destroy one person at all cost. A person who, acording to them, isn't even considered a threat. Yet they persist in their destruction of Governor Palin.

Everything that the right does not like about Obama can be attributed to his radical agenda, his lack of executive experience, the radical people he has surrounded himself with during his adulthood and the direction in which he is taking this country. In other words, substantive reasons.

But all the shots the left takes at Palin are personal and judgemental. Her speech, her appearance, her family, her being a common, down-to-earth person and not an ivy-league elitist (which, by the way, was considered one of Lincoln's faults, too, before he became President). In other words, the typical non-substantive, whiny crap that liberals do when they just can't logically justify their hatred for someone.

Is she Presidential material? At this point, probably not. Does that justify all the hatred and personal attacks. Of course not, but they won't stop. It's what liberals do best.

Lightnup snivels:

"Quite an observation from someone who consistenly pens the most verbose posts in these forums to offer his thoughts."

But Sir, I'm not asking so much as a dime from you to read them. You get my thoughts for free...

"And I know I don't have to ask if you have read the book alprova. Of course not, it's much easier to go to a left-wing blog to cut-and-paste observations about it from someone else, who most likely also has not read the book."

You don't get to make any claims about me anymore. You have been caught one time too many making up your facts as you go along, ignoring substantive facts, ignoring challenges to back up your claims, and you haven't put away your pink tu-tu yet.

"It is so much fun to see the lamestream media and liberals SO worked up about Governor Palin's book and her tour appearances. Without George Bush around, they have had no one other than grass-roots American citizens to spit their venom and vulgarity at recently."

And if I died tomorrow, who would you have to use for a cyber punching bag? You really need to get yourself a girlfriend.

"And conservatives are the people who hate? Puhleeze."

I don't hate or fear Sarah Palin. I just wish she would shut-up. When that woman speaks, it is like listening to her raking her nails across a chalkboard. She's woefully uneducated, brash to the extreme, and rude to the core. She has no class. And to top it all off, she is is a consummate example of the modern day self-righteous hypocritical Conservative.

When she announces her candidacy for the 2012 election cycle, will she choose Carrie Prejean for her running mate?

Two beauty queens for the price of one. It ought to be the perfect ticket.

nurseforjustice wrote: "Alprova, you are in rare form today... I am proud of how you responded about Al Gore. Hope it didn't hurt too bad behind that woodshed."

Thank ya'...

I keep tryin' to convince people that I am not a total leftie.

I try to be completely fair when arriving at my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

It may not look like it, but I was very fair when digesting the info out there on Sarah Palin, BEFORE I arrived at the opinions that I express about her.

I'd love nothing more than to vote for a woman for President. Condoleezza Rice is a woman that I would vote for in a heartbeat if she had any inclination to run, subject to seeing her handle a campaign.

I read a lengthy interview years ago and her responses were extremely impressive. She was absolutely one of the rare and glowing assets of the GWB administration.

But she's gone on to bigger and better things I'm sure.

alprova wrote,

"I mean, gee...I'm going to be taken out behind the woodshed and will be given thirty lashes for daring to offer that Al Gore is self-serving."

If I were to come up with some critical posts about Palin, do you thing she would take me out behind the woodshed for 30 lashes and tell me what a bad boy I've been? Cause, you know, that sounds pretty good. Maybe Carrie Prejean could help out if I'm a little too bad. :-)

alprova wrote: You have been caught one time too many making up your facts as you go along, ignoring substantive facts, ignoring challenges to back up your claims, and you haven't put away your pink tu-tu yet.

Name a fact I made up.

alprova,

I'm with you on Condi, she is likely one of the sharpest people to walk the halls of the W.H. in a long time.

Rice/Palin 2012!!!

Lightnup wrote: "Name a fact I made up."

If I named a fact that you made up, it wouldn't be a fact, would it?

You had every chance to do the honorable thing in the previous thread and you refused to do it. It would be a complete waste of my time to enter into another exchange with you on the same subject.

You know what you did and it's all there in print. If you somehow come to your senses and you desire to admit the obvious, feel free to retract your accusations and apologize.

I'm in on the Rice ticket.. but not sure about Palin... Jury is still out. It is kind of scary to be agreeing with Alprova. =)

Lightnup,

Did I really sound hateful about Palin or was it just the need to attack me?

I'm pretty impervious to the likes of you. It's all right for YOU to spew stuff at fellow bloggers, but making a simple observation requires cross-burning in return?

My lack of income doesn't prevent me from keeping a level head.

I had, long ago decided not to answer you, not from lack of material, but just from the fact that, even from my ind. Ind. stance you would find some way to disparge an observation.

I didn't get Sarah Palin in financial difficulties. I certainly didn't make any decisions for her.

You weren't responsible for MY lack of income. I think, in lots of other ways, besides income, I am in a VERY high bracket compared to you.

Scotty wrote: "alprova, I'm with you on Condi, she is likely one of the sharpest people to walk the halls of the W.H. in a long time.

Rice/Palin 2012!!!"

You don't think that Sarah Palin would be willing to play second fiddle again, do you?

I don't profess to be a political strategist, but Mrs. Palin has this whole thing timed wrong, that is if she is intending to run for office in 2012. A two year political campaign has never been attempted before.

It's going to be interesting to see if she can hold the interest of people for that amount of time, again, if she is giving thought to running for the Presidency.

Personally, if her book is a complete success, I think she will give up on running for office. She's all about money right now and exploring all of her options.

She's embarking on a tour to do what she does best. She loves cameras, being the center of attention, and controversy...and probably in that order too.

This is a minor criticism, but I wish the woman would trim her bangs. It bugs the hack out of me every time she blinks her eyes and I see her hair jump at the same time.

That's fine alprova, avoid the fact that you cannot back up what you just said.

You twisted what the Governor wrote, and what she meant when she wrote it, into something completely different. I clarified, with substantial proof, that you mischaracterized what she wrote and what she was describing.

No made up facts about that.

Got anything else?

Ooooh, the claws are coming out. Pretty pathetic. Sounds and smells like fear, hey?

By the hooey, has any one of you saints ever read Obama's whiny, narcissistic, ME-books yet? Betcha haven't read or observed much about him have you? Except the one-liners you cut and paste from the Lap Dogs-you read THOSE of course.

Lightnup wrote: "Got anything else?"

I will only add one thing, against my better judgment.

You are fixated on her original remarks, which were never brought up or referred to in any manner by myself or by anyone else for that matter. It was her latter response(s) that caused all the uproar and that ceremoniously kicked off her month long tour of telling tall tales.

She made up her lies about there being "death panels" in the bill, and you are falling lock-step behind her in defending and obfuscating what everyone else knows to be true. She wrote eleven paragraphs, citing Section 1233 from the outset at the beginning of her remarks. But all of that means nothing. Her obscure first mention on the subject was all that counted...eh?

To be blunt, your explanation is ignorant, irrelevant, and totally ludicrous. It's not even an explanation the she, herself, has ever attempted to offer in regard to the controversy over "death panels." Sarah Palin is proud of those lies. She has become empowered and emboldened after telling those lies. And why is that? Because people like you swallowed them, hook, line, and sinker without taking so much as ten minutes to discern the facts for yourself, which could have been accomplished by reading what WAS written in that bill.

So please... pirouette in front of someone else. You need to practice some more twirling before you put on a public performance.

You stink.

I am a Republican, and I have to side with the Democrats on this. Sarah Palin is not the most intelligent person in the world (or even close). I really hope that she is not the Republican candidate for President in 2012, although I don't think that it would guarantee Obama a second term. I'm just afraid of what may happen if she were to be elected, but I also don't want to see Obama Part II. Hopefully she won't get the Republican nomination.

Clara wrote: "Did I really sound hateful about Palin or was it just the need to attack me?"

Yes, I thought that particular statement was hateful and I didn't attack you. I only used the comparison to demonstrate how hateful your statement sounded. Apparently you agree because you felt my statement was an attack when it was only an example.

JohnnyRingo - the "because she's hot" thing was intended to spur good conversation. It worked.

alprova, man, you really need a... drink.

alprova wrote: "She made up her lies about there being "death panels" in the bill...

And yet, according to new reports, the offending "death panel" language, as it could have been misinterpreted or misapplied, was removed from the bill after the hoopla began. How do you remove something that didn't exist?

"How do you remove something that didn't exist?"

Divide by zero?

Lightnup amazingly wrote: "And yet, according to new reports, the offending "death panel" language, as it could have been misinterpreted or misapplied, was removed from the bill after the hoopla began."

I'm beginning to think you like being cyber-spanked.

You know doggone well that your statement is BS. How many times over the past three days have you been asked to find any proof whatsoever that there was ANY passage within those pages that referred to any panel of people that would be making life and death decisions?

This to date is your best effort, but unless you are prepared to offer a page number, a section within the bill, or a link that offers the same, you're twirling again.

I have my original copy of the bill, downloaded on the day it was made public. No one has removed a thing from it. Every page is intact. Cite it. I'll look it up and shoot you straight.

But even if by some amazing feat, you could save your skin on this one, it doesn't do a thing for Sarah Palin and your other dishonest machinations, because she wrote eleven paragraphs about section 1233, which as we know was the section that merely stated that end-of-life counseling for the purpose of crafting living wills would be paid for under the plan.

"How do you remove something that didn't exist?"

They didn't remove 1233 because it referred to anything that could be remotely construed as being a "death panel." Your assertion that it did really flies back in your face, given that you have attempted for three days now to allege that Sarah Palin wasn't even referring to it. Can you say...oops?

Section 1233 was removed to shut-up people like Sarah Palin...a mistake in my opinion, but totally irrelevant as it turns out because H.R 3200 died a selective death, most likely in favor of a bill that will likely trump it, and that will come to aggravate the right to no end, because they will not be able to stop it.

I tried reading it, got about 150 pages in, could not take the stilted language, poor syntax, and self aggrandizement.

She's not a bright woman, barely literate.

Which makes her perfect to represent the people that love her. She shares much with them, including an absolute distortion of reality, lack of cultural education, and complete detachment from the rest of the world in which we live.

I suspect she was rooting for, and probably ironically identified herself with the Pigs when she read Animal Farm...Snowball seems likely.

Sad, pathetic little people that have nothing better to do than bash a woman for her book. I am not a fan of Palin or her party, however I can think for myself and I think you folks need to do community service. Get off your lazy behinds and actually be a benifit to society.

So much has been written over the last few days about Palin and the Republican Party. If she is on the ticket in 2012 it will be a second term for President Obama or another Democrat. I somewhat agree with some of the comments about Condolezza Rice and her being on the Rep. ticket. I believe if she had been on the ticket with McCain, we would not be having this conversation at all. But from my observations only, I thought that at the end of the Bush presidency that maybe the reins had been tightened up on Condi as they were on Colin Powell 4 years earlier. By the way, I think Colin Powell would be one of the greatest Presidents since Kennedy. Oops, that may have let it out of the bag I may lean to the left... that and I almost always agree with Alprova.

Why would anyone want to buy this garbage? That would be like contributing to her legal defense fund.

alprova and Lightnup, you guys are absolutely cracking me up with your intros to each other. I hope you are both laughing when you write these things. In a way I'm looking to see how outlandish you can get with these.

On a more serious note:

Since it was brought up again today, I'll make a comment and then ask the question again.

Comment: I think it is very probable that there is language in the former and current health care bill that could be interpreted as a "death panel." And there should be.

Rational for Comment: Every insurance company in existence must have groups (panels, if you will) which decide what care will not be covered because it is futile, etc. We cannot, afterall pay for treatments that just don't work or that have been shown to do more harm than good.

BCBS, Cigna, UHC have groups that make these decisions. So does Medicaid and Medicare and EVERY government health plan in the world.

Why do we reserve "death panel" only for the government plans?

Let's take it one step further. Private insurance companies also have "panels" which say some people can't get insurance due to preexisting conditions. For some uninsurable people, this is a true death panel.

It is remarkable that the current legislation wants to do away with this kind of death panel. Yet many conservatives recoil. They want to throw the whole bill out.

So again.... if the government decides certain treatments are futile and won't be covered it's derided as a death panel. If a private insurance company makes the same judgement, it's a reality of business.

Truth is we do need groups to decide what is futile care.

So, I'll challenge alprova: do you think it's likely there is this kind of "panel" in the bill or needed within the bill?

I'll challenge lightnup: will you acknowledge that your private insurance provider has these death panels, too?

And please, no whining or sniveling in your responses! :)

Lightnup,

Long ago, I read the first health bill and noted the so-called "Death Panel" portion. It was actually nothing but a rehash of the already existing, and completely acceptable "Living Will" portion of Medicare/Medicaid legislation.

Your arguments are ridiculous and a waste of time answering.

I cerainly don't like the Health Bill presently being produced in the Senate. So does that make us look foolish in YOUR eyes and subject to unwarrented attacks because of your lack of ability to read and apprehend things correctly? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

vol74,

I'd like to hear what YOU do in Community Service, and what you think would be important for us,specifically, to do. But that's quite a bit off topic, so I won't press. Welcome to the Blog.

WOW!!!!!!! This soooooo interesting. By the way, they found the bodies of the two US soldiers missing in Afghanistan. Now I'll let you'll get back to the exegesis.

moonpie,

You are absolutely right in that any healthcare system with finite resources will have to have some sort of deliberative body to decide on limits of care, in a generic sense, and could be called a "death panel".

It comes down to a simple cost vs. benefits analysis.

Now, I do not mean to be inflammatory with this, but I can not think of a single instance of private corporations engaging in mass murder of their customers, intentional or otherwise. If it has happened I'm sure someone will point it out. However, it must be pointed out that non-wartime government functionaries are responsible for more intentional deaths in the last century than all the wars in that time period combined.

I know that I'm wearing my distrust of government on my sleeve, but my wariness is well founded.

I do not want government functionaries making decisions on my behalf. Especially healthcare cost/benefit decisions.

I do realize that in most every case, the decisions will be based on the same sort of analysis regardless of the controlling entity, however, history shows that when governments are entrusted with great power, that power will likely be abused. How long will it be until healthcare benefits are wielded as a political weapon? Write a nasty letter it the editor criticizing some government action? Well Mr. SCOTTYM, no chemo treatment for you. Participate in a campaign to unseat the congressman who sits on the chair of the healthcare committee? No bypass treatment for you moonpie. Live in a blue district when the congress and the W.H. are controlled by the opposition? Too bad we don't have enough insulin to supply everyone.

See where I'm going here?

scotty,

I understand the concern you bring up and mentioned it myself the other day. I don't think you're being inflammatory, I think you're thinking with caution.

For millions of Americans, the only healthcare they have or can have now is Medicare. We should both be comforted that your and my concern of death "panel abuse" have not been evident there. (Although I'm sure there are examples, as we see in any health care system.)

(We frequently complain about how uncivil American politics has become. But things have been that way in England for years. If this were England, and I presented the "look at Medicare" argument, I would envoke howls of derisive laughter from the opposing party. But still, we must look at the best examples we have. We should acknowledge the imperfections and what they get right.)

Moonpie wrote: "So, I'll challenge alprova: do you think it's likely there is this kind of "panel" in the bill or needed within the bill?"

In the context that you present your definition of a "panel," it is absolutely plausible that on regular basis, there are meetings held where medical experts discuss and revise medical criteria that is used to draft policy language and that is also used in the implementation or denial of medical claims.

This very day, we have seen in the news a result of such an alteration of medical criteria used by insurers. A big story making the rounds today was a recommendation change that women should not have their first mammogram until at least age fifty. As a result of this medical restatement, some or most insurers will likely alter their policies to provide only limited payments for mammograms to women under age 50.

Now, in reference to the specific question you ask above, no such panel was described or referred to in H.R. 3200.

Insurance companies have their version of panels, that are used to amend language used in the policies it issues to consumers. Hospitals have their panel of experts on staff, who choose the best courses of treatment for patients and set the criteria to be followed by providers employed by the hospital.

Physicians negotiate all the time with insurance companies to provide approval of and payment for procedures and care that is not considered "customary and usual." When perusing some of the specific language that was contained in various treatments discussed in H.R. 3200, almost every one of them included a clause that allowed for "case-by-case" exceptions and/or exclusions.

"Obama's Death Panels" was a total creation by those seeking to incite objection to the bill by the public who would never verify the facts by actually looking up what was written in the bill.

Further, I dare offer that NO SUCH "death panel" exists today within the ranks of the worst of insurers. No group of people has the power to demand the pulling of a plug or can coerce a physician to deny treatment to someone who is deemed "too ill" to be treated, thus forcing someone to be delegated to die.

The decisions that people often refer to when condemning insurance companies are routinely made by individuals charged with interpreting policy language, the circumstances presented by the medical provider, to determine if the specific medical issue is covered, and if payment is provided under the policy for the treatment being requested.

People die every day due to a lack of decent and affordable health care, but any mention of "death panels" is pure hyperbole, and something that no one would ever stand for so much as a minute, which explains why it was brought out as a talking point by Republicans and used to derail the bill.

I doubt that Sarah Palin had a sudden brainstorm, but she absolutely took that lie, much like a star quarterback would take a football, and ran it in for a touchdown.

Scotty Wrote: "...it must be pointed out that non-wartime government functionaries are responsible for more intentional deaths in the last century than all the wars in that time period combined."

That's quite a statement you just made.

Would you please clarify what EXACTLY you are referring to with that charge?

alprova,

I know you are smart enough to figure this out for yourself, but for anyone who missed their history lessons:

Russia(USSR) '18-'53 50+ million China (PRC) '49-'87 30+ million Germany '33-'45 20+ million China '28-'49 10+ million Japan '36-'45 5+ million Cambodia '75-'79 2+ million Turkey '09-'18 1.5+ million Vietnam '45-'87 1.5+ million Poland '45-'48 1.5+ million Pakistan '58-'87 1.5+ million Yugoslavia '44-'87 1+ million

All killed intentionally, or through bureaucratic incompetence, by their own governments.

I am getting a sum of about 124 million and these are low end estimates. We also aren't even considering the deaths in African nations due to genocide and government mismanagement of resources, and the murder of dissidents in various S.American banana republics.

Around 36+ million others died in all the wars during this time, combatants and non-combatants combined.

The reason no one ever talks about this is that most of these deaths at government hands were the necessary steps to secure socialist utopias in those various nations.(It didn't work) They want to try it again and the natives might get all riled up if they knew the possible(I'd say inevitable) consequences.

The Nazis were pikers in relation to Soviet Russia and Communist China. Many people wonder why some of us find it so alarming to be inching toward greater government control over our lives. It is because we know from history what can happen.

I know you(alprova) have disparaged my "ancient history" lessons before, and you are welcome to do so again, but don't be thinking that you are the one who is being compassionate and sitting on the side of equality, freedom, and justice when you advocate systems which will further extend the power our government has over our very lives. Those systems have repeatedly led to much death and loss of freedom in the past and only the intellectually deficient, or the willfully blind would believe that it won't happen again.

As an explaination, I regretably used the phrases "take seconds" and "media whore" in the same sentence of a removed comment describing the purchase of Palin's book at a yard sale. I thought long and hard (there I go again) about the double entendre before I hit post.

I made my final decision to enter the comment based on Ms. Palin's book passage that lamented the McCain campaign decision not to use Obama's race against him. She goes on to stress that "political correctness will be the doom of America". I felt at the time the comment best described Palin's platform. I apologize, however, for my insensitvity.

That said, I see a lot of feedback that expresses shock(!) that Sarah Palin would be subjected to perceived ridicule based on her gender. To those concerned that such bias is unparalleled, I can think of only one response:

"Hillary"

Scotty clarified with: "I know you(alprova) have disparaged my "ancient history" lessons before, and you are welcome to do so again, but don't be thinking that you are the one who is being compassionate and sitting on the side of equality, freedom, and justice when you advocate systems which will further extend the power our government has over our very lives."

Two things;

1.) The United States is missing from that list, so I fail to see any relevance whatsoever.

2.) You're attempting to compare countries with Governments that don't EVEN BEGIN to compare to ours.

"Those systems have repeatedly led to much death and loss of freedom in the past and only the intellectually deficient, or the willfully blind would believe that it won't happen again."

Scotty, does the "M" that follows your name stand for "McCarthy?"

You really come off sounding just as deranged as that man was. Communism, in it's TRUE form would never fly in this country and you really should know that.

The Government that you dream of was fine when there was a population in this country no larger than those that live in the City of Chattanooga.

Ah...why bother continuing? We've been down this road before and it's pointless.

Look around you. Capitalism and Conservatism run amok hasn't faired so well for far too many in this country either. And that Sir, is a very RECENT statistic that is ongoing at this very moment.

Forgive me if I cannot get wrapped up in theories that involve ancient history.

alprova,

Thanks for the answer. My question/challenge was to see if you and and and your conservative counterparts were possibly looking at two sides of the same coin.

Giving all due respect to this possibilty, it sounds like from your reading and discussions with others that some conservatives think a unique, sinister death panel exists in the former or current bill.

If they believe that, the onus is on them to prove it. Sarah Palin essentially admitted the other day that she could not prove it, but then said it IS true and it's the democrats who are being disingenuos.

God, I hope she is never my lawyer!

alprova,

"1.) The United States is missing from that list, so I fail to see any relevance whatsoever."

None of the others were either, until they started killing their own people.

"Communism, in it's TRUE form would never fly in this country and you really should know that."

You're right, the people will never allow Capitol C Communism to take hold, statism, however is exactly what many on the left desire, and what all those countries above have in common, all-powerful, centrally controlled governments exerting control over every aspect of the citizens lives.

"The Government that you dream of was fine when there was a population in this country no larger than those that live in the City of Chattanooga."

There you are displaying your historical ignorance again. When this country was founded the population was a full order of magnitude larger than the population of the CoChattanooga.

"Look around you. Capitalism and Conservatism run amok hasn't faired so well for far too many in this country either. And that Sir, is a very RECENT statistic that is ongoing at this very moment"

Most of the problems we have are due to government meddling in markets and an entitlement mentality among a significant portion of the population(like the people who expect .gov to provide healthcare). Neither of these things are capitalist nor conservative.

"And that Sir, is a very RECENT statistic that is ongoing at this very moment."

You've listed no "statistic", you've only made a laughable assertion. Who is in control of two, and arguably three branches of the federal government at this very moment? It isn't conservatives, and there haven't been very many in D.C. in a long time.

"Forgive me if I cannot get wrapped up in theories that involve ancient history."

So.... we'll put you in both columns, intellectually deficient and willfully blind.

alprova wrote: "This very day, we have seen in the news a result of such an alteration of medical criteria used by insurers. A big story making the rounds today was a recommendation change that women should not have their first mammogram until at least age fifty. As a result of this medical restatement, some or most insurers will likely alter their policies to provide only limited payments for mammograms to women under age 50."

I suspect we'll see a lot of this with government run health care. Where did the recommendation come from? A government task-force. How do we cut health care costs? Don't pay for things that are deemed un-needed. How do we deem them un-needed? Create new guidelines. Who creates new guidelines? Government task-forces. Next finding: Republican men don't need prostate screenings.

"Capitalism and Conservatism run amok hasn't faired so well for far too many in this country either."

Relatively speaking, it has faired very well for a much larger number of people than it has not. Even with unemployment at 10.2%, that means we're at 89.8% employment. In the utopian liberal world, government always provides 100% employment, even for those who choose not to make themselves employable. __________

alprova just wrote something that clarified for me what this entire Sarah Palin/Death Panel fiasco is all about when he wrote: "any mention of "death panels" is pure hyperbole."

Hyperbole is okay for liberals, not okay for conservatives. Even though Alan Grayson can say that Republicans want sick people to die quickly, and Harry Reid can say health insurance companies make more money than any other business in America, and Queen Pelosi can say, "Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs," and Joe Biden can say, well, just about anything Joe Biden says, it just ain't right for a conservative to say something that isn't 100% verifiable by factcheck-dot-org.

Ouch! to those last two... Spot on.

Clara wrote: "Long ago, I read the first health bill and noted the so-called "Death Panel" portion. It was actually nothing but a rehash of the already existing, and completely acceptable "Living Will" portion of Medicare/Medicaid legislation.

"Your arguments are ridiculous and a waste of time answering."

Well, it was obviously a very poorly worded rehash because the language was removed following the uproar:

"Thu Aug 13, 1:55 pm ET – via YahooNews WASHINGTON – Key senators are excluding a provision on end-of-life care from health overhaul legislation after language in a House bill caused a furor."

"Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly."

"A health care bill passed by three House committees allows Medicare to reimburse doctors for voluntary counseling sessions about end-of-life decisions. But critics have claimed the provision could lead to death panels and euthanasia for seniors." http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/senators-remove-death-panel-from-health-care-deform-bill/

Understandable how people people could question whether this might go beyond just living will advice when you read things like the following:

"THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right? I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here."

"DAVID LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?"

"THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now." http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/13/breaking-finance-committee-drops-death-panel-provisions-from-senate-bill/

And thanks for having taken the time to respond.

Alprova said: "Forgive me if I cannot get wrapped up in theories that involve ancient history."

These posts remind me of small children or teens who stick their tongues out and say to their parents, "whattaya know? you're old, WE'LL never do that!"

Been there, heard that, seen it all kid. Scotty and Lightnup couldn't have elucidated the issue more clearly, yet...will they listen? Nope. It's gotta be suffer baby, suffer before you smarten up folks.

alprova wrote: "The United States is missing from that list, so I fail to see any relevance whatsoever."

Yeah, that's probably what many Germans said when people compared the growth of the Nazi regime with earlier events in Russia. No relevance whatsoever.

"2.) You're attempting to compare countries with Governments that don't EVEN BEGIN to compare to ours."

That's precisely the point alprova. Keep voting for people like Obama who are hell-bent on "fundamentally transforming" this country and our government WILL begin to compare to those.

Teabaggers just aren’t happy about anything these days. The Noblesville, IN 'Going Rogue' book signing didn’t go very well for her loyal fans, because 300 or so of the 1000 people with wristbands (marks of the beast :-)) were asked not to tread on Sarah Palin and then she tried to make a getaway with Baby Trig and several duffel bags full of cash.

Wingnuts have learned to protest about everything these days, so they were having none of it. This is the best thing you will see about that horrid Sarah Palin on the internets for a long time.

Lightnup wrote: "I suspect we'll see a lot of this with government run health care. Where did the recommendation come from? A government task-force."

The doctors and scientists on the task force "do not set federal policy, and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government." -- Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

"How do we cut health care costs? Don't pay for things that are deemed un-needed. How do we deem them un-needed? Create new guidelines. Who creates new guidelines? Government task-forces."

And what is the number one complaint filed against private insurers? Do you have any clue?

You people step into that one EVERY Time...

"Next finding: Republican men don't need prostate screenings."

On the contrary. I think Republican men ought to be FORCED to lie on their hands and knees with their shiny hiney exposed, to be subjected to a little discomfort in their posterior region -- a most befitting metaphorical substitution for their raping the middle class in nation for the past decade and a half.

How about every Tuesday at 10:00 a.m.?

Lightnup: "Relatively speaking, it has faired very well for a much larger number of people than it has not. Even with unemployment at 10.2%, that means we're at 89.8% employment. In the utopian liberal world, government always provides 100% employment, even for those who choose not to make themselves employable."

Uh huh...Liberals ONLY work for the Government. No Liberals own businesses or employ people. Only Conservatives do. Is that your take on the situation? Lightnup, you're a simplistic, obtuse, Republican rhetoric spewing hack, not really knowing why you side with them.

There's much more to the economic story than just jobs, and you might realize that, if you were to take just a second or two to ponder the issue.

By the time I was a year out of high school, I was nudging close to a six figure income, and more than half what I made was dumped into retirement funds.

Fast forward to 2008. I'm not going to put a dollar figure out there, because it's not pertinent, but let's suffice it to say that I lost more than five years worth of contributions and interest income over a twelve week period.

Two times in six months, brokers bailed on my accounts (they did this to hundreds of thousands of people), forcing me to endure expensive transitioning fees and losses due to poor investment strategies by idiots who knew how to talk a good game, but produced nothing but red ink. All said and done, I lost 50% of my retirement due to the market meltdown.

How many others out there do you think, took that same communal bath that I did? There are millions of us. Where did all that money go? It didn't just dry up and blow away in the wind.

It went into the pockets of all the inside traders that were liberated and allowed to do what they do best, when three former Republicans pushed to overturn a simple set of rules that were put in place after the Great Depression, to prevent the kind of losses that occur when the markets are plundered from the inside.

From my vantage point, what I can no longer afford is for the Republicans to be allowed to resume what they almost accomplished, which was to totally ruin this nation's economy. Admittedly, I am only one person, with one vote per elected office, but I am not alone.

Many people are just like me and they have full knowledge of what led up to this mess. Greedy Capitalists manipulated the system to the detriment of those who were just trying to grow a nest egg.

Money can buy people a lot of things, but it's never, to the best of my knowledge, ever purchased anyone a soul.

Lightnup: "Well, it was obviously a very poorly worded rehash because the language was removed following the uproar..."

You'll find all these obscure blogs to attempt to justify your ignorance, but will not spend ten minutes researching EXACTLY what was written in the legislation to discover the facts.

You're only fooling yourself.

canaryinthecoalmine wrote: "Been there, heard that, seen it all kid. Scotty and Lightnup couldn't have elucidated the issue more clearly, yet...will they listen? Nope. It's gotta be suffer baby, suffer before you smarten up folks."

I don't like doing this, because I consider it a weak way to make a point, but here it is anyway;

If history were the magical answer to go about determining the right or wrong of tackling an issue, then why are we embroiled in two very deadly wars at the moment?

You're scared to death of anything considered to border on a platitude of Socialism or even less likely, the dreaded concept of Communism, all the while knowing that key tenets of either could never begin to root themselves in this nation.

At the same time, Republicans overwhelmingly will vote for or support any effort to deploy our men and women to fight to their deaths, in battles that are not remotely related to the defense or security of this nation.

History should tell us that these kind of wars are dead ends. We lose much more than we could ever determine to "win."

Some whine and moan about billions that has been spent to keep our economy from totally collapsing, yet conveniently overlook or ignore the fact that nearly a trillion dollars has been spent chasing those ghosts over there, who will never be brought to justice or offed for their dirty deeds.

Those trillion dollars could have been spent for all kinds of things that would have benefited this nation and our inhabitants. It would pay for the medical care costs of every uninsured person in the country for six to ten years.

It's all about priorities and doing what is right for all, and I'm sorry, but some of you on the right have those priorities completely screwed up.

Spend a trillion for medical care...bad.

Spend a trillion to blow up stuff..good.

See?

alprova wrote: "You'll find all these obscure blogs to attempt to justify your ignorance,..."

Oh yeah, Yahoo News is an "obscure blog." Sheesh.

"Uh huh...Liberals ONLY work for the Government. No Liberals own businesses or employ people. Only Conservatives do. Is that your take on the situation?"

Is that what I said? No. Is that my take on the situation? No. But, despite your misinterpreting what I wrote, it does not change the fact that capitalism has faired very well for the vast majority of Americans and is a heck of a lot better than the alternatives, unless one is a non-producer, in which case socialism brings them more stuff that was paid for by someone else.

"The doctors and scientists on the task force "do not set federal policy, and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government." -- Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius"

And of course you buy that. What then is the reason for government task-forces if not to make recommendations which help determine government policies?

On the heels of the breast cancer screening anouncement, another medial group announced yesterday that pap smears suddenly aren't needed as often or as early as previously recommended. You can't see what's going on here? And you call me obtuse?

alprova wrote: "By the time I was a year out of high school, I was nudging close to a six figure income, and more than half what I made was dumped into retirement funds."

Obviously you were making way too much money if you were able to put away more than half of it. For god's sake man, didn't you know that poor people needed that money? Where was your soul? What's that you say, that was YOUR money to put away? How could that be if others were suffering? The good liberal knows that it's really the government's money and they were just letting you keep more of it than they should have been. Not to worry, Reid and Pelosi are fixing that "problem."

"Fast forward to 2008. I'm not going to put a dollar figure out there, because it's not pertinent, but let's suffice it to say that I lost more than five years worth of contributions and interest income over a twelve week period."

No doubt you're still far ahead of where you would be if you had lived and worked under socialism.