Here's John Steward who takes on Betsy McCaughey, the first who equated end-of-life planning with government-ordered euthanasia, goes on the Daily Show to make her case.

US link:
Part 1- http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-20-20 ...
Part 2- http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-20 ...
Part 3- http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-20 ...

Canadian link:
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart : August 20, 2009

NeedKarma

Oh I know you will, the same crap she got caught speweing is the same crap you spew.

speechlesstx

NK, I don't recall having spewed any crap about "death panels" but I have spoken of what was in the bill and I also noted the VA's "planning" book which was rightly suspended by the Bush administration. Why is any of this in a government program allegedly providing health care?

I'm not here to knock advance planning but it has no place in a government program, designed by advocates of physician assisted suicide, providing financial incentives to doctors and presented in a format as unbiased as a push poll.

ETWolverine

Nah... refer them here instead.

Michelle Malkin Death panels? What death panels? Oh, those death panels

There are a bunch of good links to what is ALREADY going on in nationalized health care.

Or just tell them to look up the "Massachusets Model" medical system. THAT is national health care.

Elliot

tomder55

or just read the words of Zeke Emanuel.

Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years."
-
"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."

"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated."


"Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years."

"Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects....

Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments.... It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does."


"Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change. Savings will require changing how doctors think about their patients. Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others."

"Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."

spitvenom

If there are death panels where do I submit a resume to be a panelist. I know a few people that should be taken out legally. I'll start in Oakland those poor Raiders fans have suffered enough with Al Davis crazy out of touch mind.

ETWolverine

NK,

There have been about 10 or 12 attempts by Republicans to amend the legislation in both the House and the Senate so that there is no confusion about "death panels"... to essentially change or eliminate the language that Reps point to as proof of the death panels existence. To remove the confusion, in essence.

The Dems could easily change the language of the legislation, either with their own amendments or by adopting the Republican amendments. They could EASILY clean up the language and eliminate the entire argument from the Conservatives side (thus weakening the conservative position) in about 5 minutes.

They haven't. They have chosen to leave things as they are without change, even when they know that this is part of what is killing the bill for them.

Why not make a simple change in language to fix things so that the American people aren't scared of death panels? It would make passing the bill easier, wouldn't it? And they could do it quite benignly, without killing the nature of their bill. So why don't they?

Answer: Because the death panel is exactly what we have said it is and they WANT IT TO BE IN THE LEGISLATION. THEY WANT DEATH PANELS. If they didn't, they'd kill this political hot potato that is destroying them in the polls with a simple amendment to the bill.

They know what it says. They know our interpretation is correct. And they WANT it in the bill anyway. There is no other explanation for their stubborn refusal to make simple changes to on the issue to eliminate any confusion. Because there is no confusion.

Elliot

speechlesstx

Or perhaps Detroit, with their ailing auto industry, widespread political corruption and suffering through Lions football. Probably wouldn't be hard to push them over the edge.

excon

Hello again:

I'm done arguing with the dining room table. I'm outta here.

excon

ETWolverine

You're even getting beaten in debate by the dining room table?

Man, you've lost your touch.

Elliot

NeedKarma

Ok, I'll bite, show me the language in the bill that advocates death panels.