News & Politics

Rant

Stupidity Triumphant

Posted 30 months ago|41 comments|573 views
Written by
Let's get this straight: If you honestly thought, after reading it, that Section 1233 of the health care reform bill was about creating Sarah Palin's fictional "Death panels," you should not to be allowed out in public unsupervised.

This was a provision that allows coverage for end-of-life counseling - the kind of thing we all need one day, whether or not it's paid for by our insurance.

Feverish fantasies extrapolated from this - that evil Democratic euthanasia panels would determine who lives and who dies - is a literally insane idea. It's not even worth discussing. It's only worth mocking.

Let me reiterate: If you can look yourself in the mirror and say, "I genuinely believe Obama and the Democrats in Congress want to set up mandatory euthanasia for old people," you're looking at a crazy person.

Sadly, Max Baucus, the Blue Dog in charge of the Senate Finance Committee (God only knows why) just decided to agree with the crazy people, the incoherent screamers who can't be bothered to actually read the damn thing. He is going to leave Section 1233 on the cutting room floor as "controversial."

While it is really only as controversial as the idea that we all, yes, will die someday, this turn of events will give the screamers some extra ammunition. They'll say (or scream at the tops of their lungs), "If it wasn't about putting babies and old people to death, why would they remove it?"

Why indeed? I hope Senator Baucus has a better explanation for why, because "it was controversial" doesn't cut it when the only people who found it controversial were nutcases. Here's to hoping it gets put back in before the final vote.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
30 months ago: The infighting begins. This is going to be better than UFC.
Wait until more gets cut and thrown away. The cutting hasn't even started and the back stabbing has already begun. I'm loving this.
30 months ago: Uh-huh. Be prepared for a yawner, TCG. I'm disappointed by Baucus, but not surprised; he's a Blue Dog. They're conservative. Oh, they're not anywhere near the screaming incoherency version of conservatism that's taken over the Republican party, but they've been against this reform from the beginning. Baucus just happens to have a position of power in the committee it's currently passing through.

It's sad that he decided to give the wackjobs some extra ammo, but that doesn't make them any less wackjobby (heh, my new favorite word). The bill will make its way through committees and eventually conference, and it's very possible it will be added back. I certainly hope so; I'd rather the dying be able to consult with their doctors about things like living wills without having to worry about how much the consultation will cost.
30 months ago: Please consider counseling for your racist hate problems.

Ask your Doctor about Bipolar Syndrome.
This might explain your total support to Obamacare.

Southern Democrats in the 1960's labeled by you as "Dixie-Crats". (future racist republicans)
Then the "Dixie-Crats" became Republi-Crats.
Then the Republicans became "yellow dog" Democrats
Then the "Yellow Dogs" became "Blue Dogs"

Now you attack anyone from outside of that time and region that offers an opposing opinion.

What was that old saying?

"Smeller Feller"
30 months ago: Well, that was extremely insulting and completely off-topic, but I'll pretend it wasn't and answer your, for want of a better word, "points" about the Blue Dogs. The Blue Dogs are *fiscal* conservative Democrats. On social issues, like race, they don't bear any resemblance to the Dixiecrats. Which, by the way, isn't what *I* call them, it's what they called themselves. Find an American history book and look them up some time, if you're curious.

All this leads me to my next comment on your, er, points: I wasn't attacking Dixiecrats or talking about them. I was making fun of people who literally believe Democrats want to kill old people. It's black-helicopter new-world-order levels of crazy. It's tinfoil-hat crazy. It's flat-earther crazy. Sure, there's probably some racism mixed in there, too, but when someone stands up in a health care town hall and screams something like "you wanna murder my grandma," it's just sad.

If you don't like it, or your party's steadily dropping poll numbers - seriously, you're gonna be in the teens soon - then make your party DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

* Stop buying into demonstrably false notions like the "Death panels."
* Stop spreading birther nonsense.
* Stop screaming incoherently at people who disagree with you.
* Start coming up with ideas beyond "taxes are bad."
* Start acting like adults.

And incidentally, if you're not proud of your party's history, that's something you can change, too. Start acting like yours is the party of Lincoln instead of just paying lip service to the idea while welcoming the Strom Thurmonds of the world with open arms.
30 months ago: There you go again.
You like to throw everyone into the same pot.
No seperation in you mind. Like I said.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: Yeah, that's all we need, somebody else saying you are stupid for not seeing things their way.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the health-policy adviser at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget had this to say in the much quoted Hastings Report in 1996. (SEE BELOW)
When questioned about it later, he said that it was meant only as a study, and that he was merely "analyzing the perspective" of rationed health care. He goes on to claim that only a few very enlightened scholars can grasp the true meaning of this paper, because only they are able take a line of argument in context. More elitist drivel.

I have read his paper, and I say "Bullpucky!" This paper does more than just lean to the side of rationalizing limiting health care "for the good".

"Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is is guaranteeing neuro-psychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason. Clearly, more needs to be done to elucidate what specific health care services are basic; however, the overlap between liberalism and communitarianism points to a way of introducing the good back into medical ethics and devising a principled way of distinguishing basic from discretionary health care services. Perhaps using this progress in political philosophy we can begin to address Dan's challenge, begin to discuss the goods and goals of medicine."

By"the good", he means "the good of the whole".

more...
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago:

"This is Dan Callahan's view with which I agree: . .. there can be no full discussion of equality in health care without an equally full discussion of the substantive goods and goals that medicine and health care should pursue ... [U]nless there can be a discussion of the goals of medicine in the future as rich as that of justice and health has been, the latter problem will simply not admit of any meaningful solution."

The guy, never thinking he would get this far up the ladder, expressed his true feelings 13 years ago, not even very thinly disguised as a contrast between two schools of thought, with the bulk of his argument leaning toward the necessary steps to make a social health plan work. Now he's health-policy adviser to the president, and has to do considerable back peddling.

Sneer all you want, the facts are the facts.
30 months ago: Heynn:
Did you ever see that movie with Bruce Willis and that little boy, where the little boy keeps talking with people who don't know they are dead?
Was it the Sixth Sense?
Did you ever consider that you were the crazy person here?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: Now, section 1233 was not the part of the bill referred to by the Death Squad comments. So all the liberals who are jumping on that bandwagon need to check their resources and not assume they know what they are talking about.
Her actual statements were referring to the quality of life clauses in the bill, not, as the author of this rant erroneously stated, about the end of life counseling.

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care," Palin wrote. "Such a system is downright evil."

Now, why would a Down's Syndrome baby need to have end of life counseling?

from Sarah Palin's Facebook page

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”

Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: Now Noni, you have given me a bit of insight as to your political philosophy, and that of the current left. One thing stuck with me from Emanuel's paper, the part about denying medical care to the demented. I couldn't quite put my finger on it until now.

From the way you talk to people, you on the left obviously think anyone against big socialist government has to be demented, so I guess we are going to be denied health care, under Emanuel's recommendations.
30 months ago: Um, no. The quality-of-life clauses? Please be specific: Which clause *in the bill* would deny mental health treatment to sick people? Actual text from the bill, not old theory papers from Emanuel, would be appreciated. And if not Section 1233, which section sets up death panels for Sarah Palin's baby? Again, actual text from the bill would be appreciated.
30 months ago: Oh, wanted to let you know I figured out which part of the bill the death panel scare comes from. It's Section 123, which creates an advisory board for determining benefits packages. I've got a new rant up that touches on that, if you'd like to continue this argument there. Here is fine, too.
30 months ago: Let's break it down by HNNs own print since he has READ the bill. In the opening of this post HNN states..

"Let's get this straight: If you honestly thought, after reading it, that Section 1233 of the health care reform bill was about creating Sarah Palin's fictional "Death panels," you should not to be allowed out in public unsupervised.

This was a provision that allows coverage for end-of-life counseling - the kind of thing we all need one day, whether or not it's paid for by our insurance. "

Now after further reading by HNN the "section 1233" statement must have been a typo and is really section 123.

"Oh, wanted to let you know I figured out which part of the bill the death panel scare comes from. It's Section 123, which creates an advisory board for determining benefits packages."
30 months ago: TCG, I hadn't read Section 123 yet. I thought the death panel theory pushers had really lost their marbles and were associating end-of-life counseling with some kind of weird panel that would actually decide whether a citizen should commit suicide or not. Now that I've read Section 123 as well and checked out the latest from various right-wing blogs, I'll happily admit I was mistaken in that regard. Their death panel theory comes from the kind of advisory board that already exists in private insurance companies. Somehow it's fine for private insurers but not for a public insurer. Still crazy, just a different crazy.
30 months ago: huh? are you kidding? please present the cold hard facts that supports

Their death panel theory comes from the kind of advisory board that already exists in private insurance companies. Somehow it's fine for private insurers but not for a public insurer.

Do you have documentation?
30 months ago: Once again, I must resort to "the Google" to do ten seconds of research that you could easily do yourself. You probably even have all the blogs and Fox "News" forum sites talking about it bookmarked already, but Google provides a handy index. Here's a link: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=section+123+death+panel&aq=&aqi=&aq=f&aqi=&fp=8ec80112f99bfde5

The first search result is to Sean Hannity's website, a forum where the gonna-kill-grandma crowd is particularly alarmist: http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1595831&page=12

The second search result is to this forum: http://forums.politicalmachine.com/361460. The conversation ongoing there is amusingly enlightening.

The third links back to Sarah Palin's Facebook commentary. Oddly, she thought that Section 1233 created the "Death Panel," too.

The fourth is a link to Fox Nation discussions. Section 123 figures prominently: http://www.thefoxnation.com/sarah-palin/2009/08/08/palin-dem-health-care-plan-evil-trig-would-face-death-panel

So next, I went to Google's blog searching page: http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=section%20123%20death%20panel&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wb. I'm sure you can imagine the content.

So yes, I do appear to have some "cold hard facts" that support my contention that the death panel theorists - heck, let's just call them "deathers" - are talking about Section 123.
30 months ago: Let me give you a true little story that shows how cheap and disassociated the private insurance companies can be. You decide.

Several years ago I took a severe fall while at work and shattered my right heel. If you are not aware. There is no possible way to cast a heel fracture much less a shattered heel. I was taken by my employer to the emergency room and dropped off. I filled out all of the paperwork while in extreme pain and included that it was a work injury along with my private insurance information. I was treated in the ER and told that it was only to stabalise the injury. I was also told by the treating DR in the ER that I needed to see an Orthopedic Surgen and they offered to transport me by ambulance to anothe (sister) hospital where an Orthopedic Surgeon and a CAT Scan could evaluate my injury. I declined and stated I would seek my own treatment. They drugged me up and sent me on my way. I setup an emergency appointment with a Orthopedic Surgeon and he sent me for a CAT Scan. The next day I had a consultation and was told I needed to have surgery and that would not guarantee I would ever walk again without help of a cane or other devices.

Remenber I said it was an injury while "on the job".

We scheduled the surgery to rebuild my foot and I spent 1 month laying on my back while not allowed to put any weight on the foot. After that I spent the next 3 months learning how to walk again. Remember, I said it was an "on the job" injury.

Long and short of the story. I am not a cripple, although I have severe pain. I don't use a cane or other device for mobility because MY PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANY PICKED UP THE TAB. That is correct. My employer paid nothing and my private insurance company got stuck. Maybe we need to look at the actual number of how many injuries are being placed into the private insurance sector that should be paid under workers compensation insurance.
30 months ago: Well, good for your private insurance company. And shame on worker's comp for not doing what it should. I'm glad your private insurance came through for you. But one anecdote does not a statistic make. In fact, I've had to use worker's comp myself, and it came through for me.
30 months ago: And F.Y.I. I am not one of those fat lazy unhandicapped shills that uses a fake handicap placard so I can park up front. Even though I have been offered. I park in the back of the parking lot and walk in proudly. But that would be another topic. Or would it.
30 months ago: But you miss the point Workers Compensation is government and they allowed my private insurance to help me without holding up their end of the bargain. It was the government program that failed me.
30 months ago: No, I got your point. You have a personal anecdote of a government program failing you. I have a personal anecdote of it succeeding. Neither of us have any statistics to indicate whether it generally works or generally fails.
30 months ago: I'm glad government took care of you. How bad was your injury? Did it require surgery? Did it require you to be immobile for 30 days before therapy? Did it require another 3 months of therapy? What exactly was your experience? Did you get a cut at work requiring stitches and a couple of weeks off? Please give us the details of your personal anecdote of government healthcare succeeding.

I'm all ears. Really. I want to hear a good side.
30 months ago: Sure. I wasn't nearly as bad off as you, but I did need some surgery on my achilles' tendon. I used to work in one of those food carts, and had it ram the back of my leg when an overzealous employee pushed it too fast while we were moving it to lockup for the night. I was off the foot for a couple weeks. Comp covered everything but, if I recall correctly, $20 of the cost. Good thing, too, because I haven't yet heard of the minimum wage food service job that offers quality health insurance.

Now, I'm noticing something: You're holding up your own experience with workers compensation as indicative not just of an individual failure of that program, but of the entire program's effectiveness, and an overall inability of government to do anything right. I'm curious, is there anything you think the government *should* be doing, and if so, do you think it generally does it well? It doesn't have to be related to health care.
30 months ago: Sure I do. I have many examples of what the government is either doing well or at least trying to do well.

1) Stong Military to protect the U.S. (don't say domination of the world)

2) Builds roads (although the most productive are sold off to private companies)

3) Maintain safe water (but that is coming into question with all of the "recycling of drain water")

4) Add hidden taxes to everything and not own up to it (gas, tobbacco, electricity, cable, phone, LONG LIST...)

5) Collect taxes - a forefront of their expertise

6) Spend your money (collected taxes) without your approval

7) Create laws the public in majority does not approve of

Need I go on?

8) Allow the desecration of the American Flag

9) Circumvent the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

Should I continue?

They do many things well.
30 months ago: Odd list. What would be on your list of things the government - federal or state - should be doing? It's pretty obvious how you feel about what it's doing now.
JAK Gladney
JAK Gladney
Saint Albans, WV
30 months ago: That the end-of-life provisions are being scrapped is a real shame, and you're exactly right: this is a concession to willful ignorance. I don't know of any way to sugarcoat it.

End-of-life outreach has been largely uncontroversial for the last twenty years--a means of empowering people, in close consultation with their personal physicians, to make their own end-of-life decisions, to get the facts from medical professionals on reasonable end-of-life interventions.

I'm glad you addressed cost analysis panels in your other rant--standard practice within the insurance industry, medical ethics boards, etc. For Palin, Grassley and others to refer to these as "death panels" is the worst kind of demagoguery--something we've come to expect in these debates.
30 months ago: But where is the stupidity? Not in the bill. Not in Noni's analysis of public opinion. Where do we find the stupidity, if it is not you or me, or Noni, or the bill's authors?

Many issues in the public eye have a stupidity to them. A full examination can reveal stupidity, but who amongst us has the skill and time to fully examine every issue? To seek out and understand the emotional slant and the realism, for ourselves?

Actually, this is the media's job. And we depend on the media to do this job, we expect it, we hope for realistic reporting, such as "We report -- You decide".

We all understand the media has purpose when it reports news, but we overlook its purpose. Media's purpose is to sell more media. Period.

Law acts as a deterrent against Media so that it must have some truth to its stories.

Here, with this "death boards" idea, it uses emotionally rousing phrases so the common reader reacts (and buys more media) to follow the story. But to do as Noni has done, to look into and research the situation, to parse out and throw away the emotional invective, is beyond normal reading.

Noni has examined one media story closely and written realistic results. Good thing we have RantRave, you think?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: The law is constantly being reinterpreted. Even the Constitution is being re-evaluated and twisted to suit the purposes of those in power. That is why the battle for the Supreme Court is so important, because, regardless of the wording of any law, it is subject to reinterpretation of "intent".
The forward-looking Americans, as opposed to what I like to call the "fraggles", are trying to insure that no law is passed that could, in the future, be re-interpreted to mean something alien to what it was proposed as.
The fact that Democrats are willing to cut section 1233 entirely, instead of just making the language crystal clear, indicates that even they concede the future mis-interpretation of it a possibility.
30 months ago: OOTB, one Democrat in the Senate is making a concession to willful ignorance, as JAK says. It's still in the House version of the bill, and will probably be in what Obama signs, because cutting it is just plain stupid. We already provide these services to terminally ill people on Medicare, and that hasn't resulted in euthanasia for anyone's grandparents, so there's no reason to expect it would if we expand this coverage.
30 months ago: HNN, I hope you have a good supply of non-perishables and such to hold you over when your party controlled Congress caused a National Uprising.
30 months ago: Uh-huh. So should I just dismiss you as one of the town hall screamer nutjobs now? There's not going to be an "uprising." What is with this violent fantasy? What, is it so upsetting to be beaten electorally you're honestly considering an armed insurrection? Oh yeah, that'll go a long way towards reestablishing the Republican party as a mature, civilized part of the national dialog. Come on... You're an adult, stop talking like a kid.
30 months ago: Nope, don't dismiss anything in your little world, I'm sure it all has some minor relevance.
JAK Gladney
JAK Gladney
Saint Albans, WV
30 months ago: "The forward-looking Americans, as opposed to what I like to call the 'fraggles', are trying to insure that no law is passed that could, in the future, be re-interpreted to mean something alien to what it was proposed as.
The fact that Democrats are willing to cut section 1233 entirely, instead of just making the language crystal clear, indicates that even they concede the future mis-interpretation of it a possibility."

Some Democrats are willing to cut section 1233 because they sincerely believe that this is one more good faith gesture that will secure conservative and moderate Democratic votes, avoid another month of painful mark-ups and further disambiguation, one less albatross to hang around the necks of those Dems when they return to their districts. Silly rabbits...good faith has nothing to do with any of this.

Interpretation relies on precedent: not merely how one "would" interpret any one provision, but how reasonable people "have" interpreted similar provisions. And there's really no organic interpretation that would support the "death panel" view of section 1233. This is slippery slope logic, and you can tilt virtually any argument to support it.

Seriously, TCG: the current Democratic regime has no control over whatever violent delusions you harbor.
30 months ago: What I want to know is how these violent fantasies of armed aggression against a popular and democratically elected administration result in a revitalized Republican party, if made a reality.

Violence against a legally elected administration wouldn't make them popular. It would make them *terrorists*.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: If it's not a problem, just add the words "if the citizen requests end of life counseling". Spell it out, don't leave it open to interpretation.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: JAK, interpretation does not always rely on precedent. There always, in every re-visitation of law, has to be the first time opinion.
30 months ago: OOTB, therein lies the rub - it already is spelled out. Remember what Section 1233 does: It amends existing law. Specifically, it amends a list of services and procedures that Medicare covers, not a list of mandatory medical experiments. Everything on the list is optional, or else you'd have situations where doctors are required to give everyone triple-bypasses, whether they're necessary or not.

If the text you're proposing was added to the bill, it would make the bill easier to read... and the final law harder. I'd rather it be the other way around.
30 months ago: I guess that that UH-Huh was directed towards me since noni does not have enough huevos to spell it out. So I'll answer the little man.

Huh? Armed insurrection? Only if needed to uphold the Constitution that you so proudly trample into the ground.

You don't have a clue. You might consider changing your tag to CommieNoni, that way you will be honest and everyone will know up front what you mean and what you want to teach thier kids.

Can you feel that CommieNoni?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: No it wouldn't make the final law harder to read, the amendments get written into the law in in question, in this case section 1861 of the Social Security Act, would be adjusted to reflect the "strike this, and add this". If you notice, some of the P.L. notations are already included in the version at ssa.gov, while others are not.
It couldn't be more difficult to read if it were in hieroglyphics.

It would not confuse the issue at all to make it clear that the counseling is strictly voluntary, with no strings attached to refusal to participate. I also think an advocate, or guardian ad litem, if you will, should be employed in the interests of the patient.

Imagine for a moment you are an old person. You have been educated by the government, and you trust the government. You have been shown how making an end of life directive is in everyone's best interest. You go in for your counseling session alone. The doctor, or social worker, or whoever, gives you a list of horror tales about how bad it is for the children of parents who linger at deaths door for an extended period. And don't forget the anguish many children have suffered in having to make hard decisions. Oh, my word, you certainly don't want your children to suffer on your account! Why delay the inevitable? And why should you suffer unnecessarily? We are all going to die eventually anyway. Just sign here, and we can ensure that it will be as pain free and drama free as possible for your children.
30 months ago: heynn.
Since you're not listening to me anymore,

Rantrave.com has removed this part from the comment.
30 months ago: TCG: "I guess that that UH-Huh was directed towards me since noni does not have enough huevos to spell it out. So I'll answer the little man."

Yes, it was directed at you. You're the one who started going on about a "National Uprising." What else is that supposed to mean?

I also see you suffer from Internet Toughguy Syndrome. Grow up.

TCG: "Huh? Armed insurrection? Only if needed to uphold the Constitution that you so proudly trample into the ground."

Quick question: Do you believe Barack Obama was legally elected President of the United States or not?

TCG: "You don't have a clue. You might consider changing your tag to CommieNoni, that way you will be honest and everyone will know up front what you mean and what you want to teach thier kids."

Do you even know what a communist is? I honestly don't think you do. Hint: It is not interchangeable in definition with "socialist" or "liberal."

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.