TW: Have posted on this several times. No doubt end of life is a challenging ethical dilemma. It is interesting that most discussion is framed on the elderly when in fact most of the same issues are relevant for everyone including premies, infants, children and middle-aged folks for that matter.
The challenge boils down to we have finite resources how do we manage them. When life and death is the topic such simplistic framing seems inadequate but without framing there is no basis upon which to address the challenge.
From Economist:
"IN RESPONSE to a post of mine from Friday, commenter MaverEcon made an insightful point: "Whenever people talk about death, it's all about platitudes. We're unwilling to have serious and respectful debates on the topic." The unseriousness is exemplified by those who toss around terms like "death panels" and "rationing" in an effort to close off debate on how end-of-life care should be managed. In reality, though, that is where the debate should begin.
In September, Lexington devoted his column to Americans' fear of death, noting
'Health reformers always smash up against two unpalatable truths. We are all going to die. And the demand for interventions that might postpone that day far outstrips the supply. No politician would be caught dead admitting this, of course: most promise that all will receive whatever is medically necessary. But what does that mean?'
For one thing, it means that Medicare spent $50 billion last year to care for patients in the last two months of their lives. As "60 Minutes" pointed out on Sunday, "that's more than the budget of the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Education." It means we give liver transplants to the terminally ill, defibrillators to those with untreatable cancer. It means we use lots of money and resources, as if we have an endless supply of both, in order to briefly delay the reaper, or avoid looking him in the eye.
As a nation, perhaps that is how we want to spend our money. That's fine (if foolish). But we have so far reached that conclusion without having an honest debate over the benefits and costs. As others have pointed out, we condemn "rationing" as if we don't already do it. For example, instead of buying some of those defibrillators and paying for some of those transplants, we could computerise America's medical records. At this time, someone holding up a placard might accuse me of "killing grandma". In reality, though, my decision would save many more grandmas—a study found that between 2002 and 2004 nearly a quarter of Medicaid beneficiaries died due to safety incidents, many of which were likely preventable with better record keeping. But improving record keeping doesn't quite have the emotional appeal of caring for the elderly. So we give grandma her procedure, whatever it may be, while ignoring the fact that more money spent in one place means less money spent in another. Ignoring that every excessive procedure comes with a cost, in terms of the nation's overall health.
If nothing else, let's debate this (with Godwin's law in mind). I'm not arguing for a "Boomsday" scenario where we start enticing the elderly to end their lives early. But I do think we should become acquainted with the reaper before he comes for us. Not only will it allow us to have more honest discussions about how we use our limited resources (by the way, feel free to use your own money to pay for any care you want), but it will also lead to more dignified deaths. I know that sounds odd, but so does this statistic presented by "60 Minutes": "A vast majority of Americans say they want to die at home, but 75% die in a hospital or a nursing home." That is because we and our loved ones often do not consider death before it is upon us. That was the idea behind the so-called "death panels"—to make dying more dignified, not to bring it on more quickly. As a nation, we've so far dealt with that topic in a very immature way.
Any debate dealing with decisions about death will stir certain emotions. We should not ignore those feelings, but we should also not let them cloud our good judgment. There was a moving seen during the "60 Minutes" report where a doctor asked an elderly patient suffering from liver and kidney failure about one end-of-life scenario:
"Either way you decide, we will honor your choice, and that's the truth," [Dr Ira] Byock reassured [Charlie] Haggart. "Should we do CPR if your heart were to suddenly stop?"
"Yes," he replied.
"You'd be okay with being in the ICU again?" Byock asked.
"Yes," Haggart said.
"I know it's an awkward conversation," Byock said.
"It beats second place," Haggart joked, laughing.
The doctor thought Mr Haggart was condemning himself to a "bad death", suffering on machines with little to no chance of recovery. In this case, though, the goal wasn't to change Mr Haggart's decision. It was to make sure it was an informed one. But would it be wrong for me to point out that his ICU care would've cost up to $10,000 a day? That same money could pay for a year's worth of care for a person with type-2 diabetes. Let the debate begin."
Showing posts with label Right Wing Health Care Nuttery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Right Wing Health Care Nuttery. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Ignorant Populism
TW: Below was a reporter from the New Majority's view of the protest Saturday in D.C. The New Majority is a moderately conservative blog run by David Frum. For what exactly I would ask are these folks looking?
From New Majority:
"...I want Congress to hear this: No TARP, no bailout, no cap-and-trade, no socialist healthcare, no healthcare paying for abortions, no czars!”
...And then: “Balance the checkbook, give Medicare to those who need it, and get government out of my healthcare!”
Sarah Palin was without a doubt the unsaid queen of the 9/12 march. Of the many people I interviewed, about a dozen expressed solid support for a Palin candidacy, with all of the others at least open to supporting her.
Many were caught up in the fervor of Joe Wilson’s recent outburst. At moments, it seemed as if every other person was holding a “You Lie” sign. Joe Wilson, indeed, was a name I heard with much greater frequency than Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee (whose name crossed no one’s lips), and Tim Pawlenty. Floated names did include, however, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck.
“All eyes are on Sarah Palin,” a man said. “Without her, McCain would have lost in a landslide.”
...“Quitting as governor was so smart,” another man said. “She got her leg out of a political beartrap. They were trying to sink her up in Alaska.”
...“Whoever follows the Constitution!”
...“We want Joe the Plumber, we want Suzie the Waitress. We want people with real lives. We’re sick to death of politicians and we’re sick to death of lawyers!” added another.
“We have no leader right now. For now, this is a citizen’s movement. They must hear us. They work for us. The people have to lead this.”
I approached a man holding a gigantic sign bearing the word “Jesus.” “What brought you out here today?” I asked, and the man rattled off a list of offenses: cap-and-trade, the debt, the deficit, Obamacare.
“What does your sign have to do with that, if I may ask?” I replied.
“Well, first, look at your shirt. What’s on it?,” he asked. “Don’t look, but tell me what’s on it.”
“Well… it’s a dragon, hovering over a boat or something, across some mountains,” I responded.
“Right. A dragon. A serpent. It represents Hell.”
With that, he pointed to a woman walking by and said “What does this sign mean to you?”
“Jesus. My Lord and Savior, who died on the cross to save me from sin,” she answered.
“Do we know each other?” he asked her, to verify that she was not with his party, but I interrupted: “Wait, wait. That’s fine, but what I wanted to know was the sign’s relevance to today’s rally.”
“Well, we’re a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, and we need to get back to those,” the man responded.
“Jesus died,” the woman added, “so we could be free. We’re having that taken away from us.” She walked away, but the man continued: “Have you read the Gospel of John?” I said that I had. “Well, read it again. Five times this time. And don’t think of yourself. Read it carefully and ask yourself: who is this man? Who is this man? Because he must be either a liar, a lun — .” I again interrupted him and noted: “Yes, yes, C.S. Lewis’ trilemma. I’m familiar with all of this. He’s a good writer, but I’m not a believer.”
A woman I’d addressed earlier struck a similar tone. “Obama opposes the Bible. The Constitution is an extension of the Bible, because it was written by God-fearing men.” This woman, one-half of a couple that had come down from Michigan, was fairly elderly. Her husband added: “We’re seeing our freedoms taken away. We’re old. We’re afraid of the death panels. At first I was worried just about my grandchildren, but now we’re worried for us, too. But today’s turnout — I didn’t know whether it’d be one-thousand or whatever number of people, but this is amazing. It’s the answer to a prayer.”
One college-aged woman I spoke with was concerned with the next generation: “Young people have no idea what’s going on in this country. They don’t know the truth. I have to be a representative for our generation. I don’t want our rights taken away. They’re trying to take away free speech, our right to choose healthcare, ‘Under God’ from the dollar bill… that’s the way it’s always been. You take away God, and you hand over the United States to Satan. This country will go straight to Hell.”
I came to sympathize with the protesters I met. Their hearts are in the right place..."
http://www.newmajority.com/what-i-saw-at-the-912-march
From New Majority:
"...I want Congress to hear this: No TARP, no bailout, no cap-and-trade, no socialist healthcare, no healthcare paying for abortions, no czars!”
...And then: “Balance the checkbook, give Medicare to those who need it, and get government out of my healthcare!”
Sarah Palin was without a doubt the unsaid queen of the 9/12 march. Of the many people I interviewed, about a dozen expressed solid support for a Palin candidacy, with all of the others at least open to supporting her.
Many were caught up in the fervor of Joe Wilson’s recent outburst. At moments, it seemed as if every other person was holding a “You Lie” sign. Joe Wilson, indeed, was a name I heard with much greater frequency than Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee (whose name crossed no one’s lips), and Tim Pawlenty. Floated names did include, however, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck.
“All eyes are on Sarah Palin,” a man said. “Without her, McCain would have lost in a landslide.”
...“Quitting as governor was so smart,” another man said. “She got her leg out of a political beartrap. They were trying to sink her up in Alaska.”
...“Whoever follows the Constitution!”
...“We want Joe the Plumber, we want Suzie the Waitress. We want people with real lives. We’re sick to death of politicians and we’re sick to death of lawyers!” added another.
“We have no leader right now. For now, this is a citizen’s movement. They must hear us. They work for us. The people have to lead this.”
I approached a man holding a gigantic sign bearing the word “Jesus.” “What brought you out here today?” I asked, and the man rattled off a list of offenses: cap-and-trade, the debt, the deficit, Obamacare.
“What does your sign have to do with that, if I may ask?” I replied.
“Well, first, look at your shirt. What’s on it?,” he asked. “Don’t look, but tell me what’s on it.”
“Well… it’s a dragon, hovering over a boat or something, across some mountains,” I responded.
“Right. A dragon. A serpent. It represents Hell.”
With that, he pointed to a woman walking by and said “What does this sign mean to you?”
“Jesus. My Lord and Savior, who died on the cross to save me from sin,” she answered.
“Do we know each other?” he asked her, to verify that she was not with his party, but I interrupted: “Wait, wait. That’s fine, but what I wanted to know was the sign’s relevance to today’s rally.”
“Well, we’re a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, and we need to get back to those,” the man responded.
“Jesus died,” the woman added, “so we could be free. We’re having that taken away from us.” She walked away, but the man continued: “Have you read the Gospel of John?” I said that I had. “Well, read it again. Five times this time. And don’t think of yourself. Read it carefully and ask yourself: who is this man? Who is this man? Because he must be either a liar, a lun — .” I again interrupted him and noted: “Yes, yes, C.S. Lewis’ trilemma. I’m familiar with all of this. He’s a good writer, but I’m not a believer.”
A woman I’d addressed earlier struck a similar tone. “Obama opposes the Bible. The Constitution is an extension of the Bible, because it was written by God-fearing men.” This woman, one-half of a couple that had come down from Michigan, was fairly elderly. Her husband added: “We’re seeing our freedoms taken away. We’re old. We’re afraid of the death panels. At first I was worried just about my grandchildren, but now we’re worried for us, too. But today’s turnout — I didn’t know whether it’d be one-thousand or whatever number of people, but this is amazing. It’s the answer to a prayer.”
One college-aged woman I spoke with was concerned with the next generation: “Young people have no idea what’s going on in this country. They don’t know the truth. I have to be a representative for our generation. I don’t want our rights taken away. They’re trying to take away free speech, our right to choose healthcare, ‘Under God’ from the dollar bill… that’s the way it’s always been. You take away God, and you hand over the United States to Satan. This country will go straight to Hell.”
I came to sympathize with the protesters I met. Their hearts are in the right place..."
http://www.newmajority.com/what-i-saw-at-the-912-march
Sunday, September 13, 2009
McCarthy Resurgent...
TW: Obviously the kid is not that old maybe 12-14 so he is primarily spouting his parent's ignorance. But folks really need to do some history work on Facism, Communism, Racism, Treason, and most of all McCarthyism. McCarthy was American and very real. For decades he and his disgraceful methods were considered largely beyond the pale. Apparently amongst a certain strain of Republicans, he is making a comeback. They believe Joe McCarthy was a national hero. McCarthy embodied a level of populist paranoia which did great harm to the United States. He was the Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck of his day and arguably less damagingIn the mean time until and unless the Republican leadership instead of embracing this stuff, distances themselves I would really ask folks to consider whether the Republicans provide legitimate opposition.
The Democrats need help, their legislation could use some tweaking (sometimes more than that) but this stuff is ridiculous. Folks will try to say well there are and were especially during the W. Bush years shrill lefty opposition. True. But for the most part they were contained on the fringe. I could have walked over to Union Square in Manhattan (and did for amusement) and found signs somewhat akin to the above relative to W. Bush (less some of the obvious comparative nazi-McCarthy-commie inconsistencies).
What one would not have found were mainstream Democratic party leaders embracing the Union Square attitudes. Joe Wilson is now a cause celebre within the party for calling the POTUS a liar during a national address. His fellow South Carolinian Republican Senator Jim Demint describing the crowd:
"This is not some kind of radical right-wing group. I just hope the Congress, the Senate and the president recognize that people are afraid of what’s going on"
Some Republicans like David Frum and Mark McKinnon are denouncing Wilson and Glenn Beck publically and without equivocation but they are few and far between and they are not elected. Not one potential 2012 Republican POTUS nominee has made anything approaching a strong stand against this paranoid movement.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Actual Footage Of an Obama Death Panel
Death Panel Advisors - watch more funny videos
h/t Ezra Klein blog
Friday, August 21, 2009
Stewart And McCaughey: Dissecting Conspiracies
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Betsy McCaughey Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
TW: I thought this Stewart segment with infamous NY Republican Betsey McCaughey was extraordinary:
1) This was a very detailed conversation of the type one almost never sees on TV (I embedded part 1 of 3, go to the Daily Show site for the whole thing)
2) McCaughey knew details BUT so did Stewart and he did not back down
3) Therefore, McCaughey was not able to get away with insinuation
4) The entire end of life counseling turned into death panels is based upon convoluted interpretation which as evidenced by McCaughey requires an extraordinary amount of disparate pieces to be tied together to find the "Conspiracy to kill Grandma"
5) Do folks really believe this was the Dems/Obama's intention? That is irrelevant, what matters is opposition being able to obsfucate and plant the seeds of doubt. In this respect truth loses but the McCaughey's win and build their careers accordingly. Unless...the generally passive populace pays more attention...
From the Economist on conspiracies:
"...The conspiracy is everywhere. It is all-powerful, yet it cannot be seen. Evidence of its existence is seized eagerly. Lack of evidence is seized even more eagerly, to show just how powerful the conspiracy is—it can hide its tracks whenever it chooses. Can't find the death panels in the health-care bill? That's just what they want you to think...Everyone's heard of it, no one has really read it, it's far too complicated for the laity to understand anyway, and so trusted authorities will tell you what to think about it..."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/the_view_from_my_holiday.cfm
From another Economist blogger post:
"...Conspiracy theorists often follow a flawed chain of reasoning. First, they spot anomalies in the official version of events. (If an event is complicated and involves multiple witnesses, there will always be some.) Second, they conclude from these anomalies that the official account is a pack of lies. Third, they pick an alternative explanation that fits their prejudices. Fourth, they congratulate themselves for seeing through the smokescreen that those in power have created to fool them.
Scepticism is a virtue, but it does not mean automatically disbelieving anything the authorities say and then credulously swallowing the most exciting alternative explanantion."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2009/08/conspiracy_theories.cfm
Thursday, August 20, 2009
The Real Cost Of End Of Life Disinformation
TW: Bad policy. What was proposed briefly to be included in health care reform and shot down as "death panels" would have helped many folks. Instead it was demagogued to death. Where were the moderates as our political leaders either cowered like frightened children or joined the disinformation campaign with glee?
From Robert Reich:
"Three years ago, my mother died after a long and painful illness. During her last months she was only partially conscious, and in her brief intervals of awareness was often distraught. At several points my father, sister, and I met with doctors to figure out how to ease her obvious suffering with pain medications, and how we could get her into a hospice facility. We could afford the counseling, but millions of other families cannot -- which is why one of the useful heathcare reforms now moving through Congress authorizes Medicare to reimburse doctors for such voluntary end-of-life consultations. The American Medical Association and the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization support the provision...
Health care is already rationed, of course. Those who can't afford health insurance don't get much of it, except in emergency rooms. For those who have insurance, the rationing is done by prepaid medical groups, the legacies of HMOs, that decide what drugs and procedures their members will get. Or it's done by insurance company personnel who decide what will be covered. But for the scaremongers to say that under the healthcare reform proposals now being considered, government will do the rationing -- and that government bureaucrats will decide whether people live or die -- is odious. It's a deliberate lie that preys upon the fears of many people who already scared as hell about loss of their jobs, healthcare, homes, and savings.The "town meetings" that are now spewing such anger reflect deepseated fears that are welling up across America during this economic crisis. Healthcare reform may ease some of these fears. But the demagogues that are manipulating those fears for political gain don't give a hoot. Have they no shame?
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/08/sarah-palins-death-panels.html
From Robert Reich:
"Three years ago, my mother died after a long and painful illness. During her last months she was only partially conscious, and in her brief intervals of awareness was often distraught. At several points my father, sister, and I met with doctors to figure out how to ease her obvious suffering with pain medications, and how we could get her into a hospice facility. We could afford the counseling, but millions of other families cannot -- which is why one of the useful heathcare reforms now moving through Congress authorizes Medicare to reimburse doctors for such voluntary end-of-life consultations. The American Medical Association and the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization support the provision...
Health care is already rationed, of course. Those who can't afford health insurance don't get much of it, except in emergency rooms. For those who have insurance, the rationing is done by prepaid medical groups, the legacies of HMOs, that decide what drugs and procedures their members will get. Or it's done by insurance company personnel who decide what will be covered. But for the scaremongers to say that under the healthcare reform proposals now being considered, government will do the rationing -- and that government bureaucrats will decide whether people live or die -- is odious. It's a deliberate lie that preys upon the fears of many people who already scared as hell about loss of their jobs, healthcare, homes, and savings.The "town meetings" that are now spewing such anger reflect deepseated fears that are welling up across America during this economic crisis. Healthcare reform may ease some of these fears. But the demagogues that are manipulating those fears for political gain don't give a hoot. Have they no shame?
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/08/sarah-palins-death-panels.html
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
End Of Life Fearmongers Are the Worst Kind Of Scum
TW: There are few who have not dealt with end of life issues at some level. They are some of the most stressful, ethically wrought and emotional processes with which responsible adults deal.
The effort by the Palins, Gingrichs, Limbaughs etc. to lie, cheat or steal in order to kill health care reform partially by stoking irrational fear and confusion about the end of life implications of the health care reform effort should give pause to all of their supporters. Many Republicans claim to ignore their leaders but I call BULLSHIT, if you actually do not agree with this approach then stand up and say so instead of meekly mumbling "oh it is just politics" or "they don't really mean that".
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...It is difficult to bear the nihilist cynicism of mainstream Republicans like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh on this issue. The cruelty inherent in scaring the elderly to score political points is beyond reprehensible. I've had recent personal experience with this issue. In fact...
I've spent quite a bit of time with my elderly parents--they're both 89 and have been together since the age of 5--trying to help them steer their way through some difficult decisions, and trying to guarantee that their decisions about the rest of their lives will be honored, even if they have lost the ability to announce those decisions themselves. This isn't easy. My mother and her two sisters are quite frail and entirely dependent on my father, who has made no specific plans about what should happen to them should he lose the ability to take care of them. He has a living will, he thinks. My mother has often said that if she becomes severely debilitated, "Just let me die." But I'm not sure she has made that clear in a legal document. My father is reluctant to talk about these sensitive subjects and has resisted signing a power of attorney, to be activated if he becomes incapacitated.
My father grew up during the Depression and like many of his peers, he doesn't like spending money on services he suspects are unnecessary. End-of-life counseling on issues like living wills and powers of attorney is something he could clearly use--from a skilled professional who, unlike me, knows the best way to describe these things and the easiest way to enact them--and he would be more likely to take advantage of this service if it were offered free-of-charge, and regularly updated, by Medicare. Although, even then, I have to admit I'm not sure he'd want to take advantage of it.
I could say a lot more about this situation, about the details that make it particularly difficult, but those details are, of course, private. Suffice to say that I am personally appalled and outraged that Republicans like the nitwit Palin and the showbiz demagogues Limbaugh and Hannity have chosen this particular subject to exploit. It is an issue that needs sunlight and careful explanation. It involves the saddest and most lonely moments of life--and with a population living longer and longer, it is one that affects ever increasing numbers of parents and children.
I can understand conservatives who oppose government activism as a matter of principle. They say they hold their beliefs as a matter of respect for the rights of the individual. But the sort of scurrilous campaign they are conducting--the seditious fear-mongering that is the main staple of their public diet--is a matter of profound disrespect and incivility toward the individuals whose rights they claim to cherish. The sort of people who would conduct such a campaign can only be described as ingrates."
ADDENDUM Update from Klein: (TW: Americans deserve the governance they get. I know most Americans could give a shit about how they look to others around the world but we are really undeserving of world leadership at times):
"Senator Chuck Grassley has announced his membership in the Limbaugh mainstream of the Republican Party on the non-issue of Death Panels. This is the man who is the lead Republican negotiator in the Senate Finance Committee's effort to create a bipartisan health care bill--and he either (a) hasn't the vaguest notion of what's in the bill or (b) he is so intimidated by the ditto-head-brown-shirts that he is trying to fudge a response to keep them happy. Either way, he should be ashamed. And once has to wonder about the fate of the Senate Finance Committee deliberations if this is what the Administration is dealing with."
The effort by the Palins, Gingrichs, Limbaughs etc. to lie, cheat or steal in order to kill health care reform partially by stoking irrational fear and confusion about the end of life implications of the health care reform effort should give pause to all of their supporters. Many Republicans claim to ignore their leaders but I call BULLSHIT, if you actually do not agree with this approach then stand up and say so instead of meekly mumbling "oh it is just politics" or "they don't really mean that".
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...It is difficult to bear the nihilist cynicism of mainstream Republicans like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh on this issue. The cruelty inherent in scaring the elderly to score political points is beyond reprehensible. I've had recent personal experience with this issue. In fact...
I've spent quite a bit of time with my elderly parents--they're both 89 and have been together since the age of 5--trying to help them steer their way through some difficult decisions, and trying to guarantee that their decisions about the rest of their lives will be honored, even if they have lost the ability to announce those decisions themselves. This isn't easy. My mother and her two sisters are quite frail and entirely dependent on my father, who has made no specific plans about what should happen to them should he lose the ability to take care of them. He has a living will, he thinks. My mother has often said that if she becomes severely debilitated, "Just let me die." But I'm not sure she has made that clear in a legal document. My father is reluctant to talk about these sensitive subjects and has resisted signing a power of attorney, to be activated if he becomes incapacitated.
My father grew up during the Depression and like many of his peers, he doesn't like spending money on services he suspects are unnecessary. End-of-life counseling on issues like living wills and powers of attorney is something he could clearly use--from a skilled professional who, unlike me, knows the best way to describe these things and the easiest way to enact them--and he would be more likely to take advantage of this service if it were offered free-of-charge, and regularly updated, by Medicare. Although, even then, I have to admit I'm not sure he'd want to take advantage of it.
I could say a lot more about this situation, about the details that make it particularly difficult, but those details are, of course, private. Suffice to say that I am personally appalled and outraged that Republicans like the nitwit Palin and the showbiz demagogues Limbaugh and Hannity have chosen this particular subject to exploit. It is an issue that needs sunlight and careful explanation. It involves the saddest and most lonely moments of life--and with a population living longer and longer, it is one that affects ever increasing numbers of parents and children.
I can understand conservatives who oppose government activism as a matter of principle. They say they hold their beliefs as a matter of respect for the rights of the individual. But the sort of scurrilous campaign they are conducting--the seditious fear-mongering that is the main staple of their public diet--is a matter of profound disrespect and incivility toward the individuals whose rights they claim to cherish. The sort of people who would conduct such a campaign can only be described as ingrates."
ADDENDUM Update from Klein: (TW: Americans deserve the governance they get. I know most Americans could give a shit about how they look to others around the world but we are really undeserving of world leadership at times):
"Senator Chuck Grassley has announced his membership in the Limbaugh mainstream of the Republican Party on the non-issue of Death Panels. This is the man who is the lead Republican negotiator in the Senate Finance Committee's effort to create a bipartisan health care bill--and he either (a) hasn't the vaguest notion of what's in the bill or (b) he is so intimidated by the ditto-head-brown-shirts that he is trying to fudge a response to keep them happy. Either way, he should be ashamed. And once has to wonder about the fate of the Senate Finance Committee deliberations if this is what the Administration is dealing with."
End Of Life ABC Fact Check
TW: Given the insanity of the town halls, it is tempting to retort with much emotion. Will try to retort with facts (although as the right wing-nuts typically say, one should meet force with force so I make no emotion will be part of the response). This was a concise, ABC rebuttal of the Palinesque, Limbovian demagoguery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)