Right Wing Nut House



Filed under: Ethics, Palin, Politics, conservative reform, health care reform — Rick Moran @ 10:03 am

So the Senate, giving in to Palin’s fear mongering, has decided to scrap the end of life consultation provision in the health care bill.

“On the Finance Committee, we are working very hard to avoid unintended consequences by methodically working through the complexities of all of these issues and policy options,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. “We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”

The Finance Committee is the only congressional committee not to report out a preliminary healthcare bill before the August congressional recess, but is expected to unveil its proposal shortly after Labor Day.

Grassley said that bill would hold up better compared to proposals crafted in the House, which he asserted were “poorly cobbled together.”

“The bill passed by the House committees is so poorly cobbled together that it will have all kinds of unintended consequences, including making taxpayers fund healthcare subsidies for illegal immigrants,” Grassley said. The veteran Iowa lawmaker said the end-of-life provision in those bills would pay physicians to “advise patients about end-of-life care and rate physician quality of care based on the creation of and adherence to orders for end-of-life care.

Grassley is right about the House bill. There are plenty of slippery slopes that hold the potential for appalling health care policy to emerge once the health bureaucrats got a hold of its broadly drawn and badly written provisions.

But the end of life consultations weren’t one of them. There was no - repeat no mandate to force people to talk to their doctors about DNR’s, living wills, and other crucial, personal, intimate, and private details of what our specific wishes are when we prepare to leave this life behind. Fact check after fact check done by a huge variety of newspapers and websites have thoroughly, completely, and totally debunked Sarah Palin’s cynical fear mongering on the subject.

But it worked anyway. And because of it, it is my belief that Sarah Palin has no business being a national figure in the GOP - nor Guiliani, or any Republican who didn’t have the courage to face the wrath of Palin Zombies and disagree with her. Sarah Palin was wrong. And if she made the “death panel” statement to gin up fear and outrage, then that is the kind of cynical politics I want nothing ever to do with.

If she really believed it, she’s an ignoramus and should stick to being an airhead ex-governor that has conservative little boys drooling over her like they drool over porn actresses and movie stars. If, during the most critical debate on a public policy issue since perhaps the Civil Rights Act of 1964, all she has to offer is an irrational, exaggerated, hyperbolic, and ultimately dishonest critique of the Democrat’s health care plan, responsible Republicans should want to have nothing to do with her.

We needed leadership. She offered fear. We needed a genuine critique of very bad proposals We got fake tears, exploitation of her disabled child in a dishonest cause, and dark hints of the evil our political opponents represent.

Think of the good she could have done if she stuck with the facts. There is - or was - a sizable segment of independent women who admired Palin for her accomplishments. Where are they now? Her lying may have ginned up her base of Zombies who rushed to defend the indefensible but beyond that, she is even losing favor with other Republicans as her positive stands now at 39%, down 7 points since May.

Someone with her visibility could have intervened and called for civil debate based on the facts, denounced people who were shouting down their fellow Americans, and elevated the entire tone of this debate. Instead, she debased herself with her reckless disregard for the facts. And now, an important provision for seniors (one she supported in her own state) that would have had Medicare paying for doctor visits to discuss end of life issues has been sacrificed, largely because she misused her influence to conflate this vital and necessary provision with “death panels.”

Do we realize the irony in all of this? It was 1976 when the country was torn apart by the case of a comatose patient, Karen Ann Quinlan, whose parents sought vainly for months to have her taken off a respirator.

Quinlan was in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of ever coming out of her coma. Despite the parent’s pleas, the doctors and hospital ignored them and kept the young woman on a breathing machine. The legal hullabaloo that resulted was emotionally wrenching, and split the country in two over end of life issues.

At that time, doctors were pretty much Gods who alone could determine what treatments were given to terminally ill or, as in Quinlan’s case, comatose patients with no hope of recovery. In practice, some doctors actually did “pull the plug” but if they were caught, they may have been charged with murder. Clearly, medical technology that could prolong life had advanced beyond our ability to build an ethical and legal framework that would place these decisions in the hands of the patient and the family.

Now that framework is in place and suddenly, we want to prevent seniors and others from exploring these options, one on one with their doctor. This is especially relevant given the fact that too often, doctors are left out of the decision making process altogether and when the time comes, are in the dark about their patient’s wishes.

Many people don’t want to think about these issues but if Terri Schiavo had put it in writing that she didn’t want to live like a vegetable, her family could have been spared a great deal of pain. A living will with that stipulation would have kept the doctors from taking the extraordinary measures they employed to keep her alive. Reason enough for everyone to spend the $45 or so in order to make their own wishes known in a living will so that there is no doubt how medical professionals should treat us if we were to suffer an accident or illness that incapacitated us.

It was a small provision, thought to be uncontroversial - and would have been if we were having an honest debate about health care reform. But we’re not. And thanks to Sarah Palin, who might have changed at least some of that from our side, we’re not going to have one anytime soon.

I’ve said it a thousand times; this bill is so bad that if we spent the same amount of time explaining the truth of it as we do in lying about it, it will be soundly defeated. A good leader, a true conservative lives for the truth. Sarah Palin flunked the test on both counts and deserves to be cast into the outer darkness of politics reserved for those who misuse the public trust she so cynically, and cavalierly abused.


  1. Yeah, she’ll be kicked out. By the rational Republicans. Who at the moment could hold their convention in your garage.

    It was a win for stupidity. A win for fear. A win for lies. It was modern Republicanism in action.

    Comment by michael reynolds — 8/14/2009 @ 10:11 am

  2. The mere paying of people to provide unrequested consultation on end of life decisions would ensure that it would be common practice. Older people (I’m 66 and have dealt with parents and grandparents that are now gone) … often feel “useless” and unwanted as it is and the suggestion that one might chose to save others money but directives is tantamount to suggesting that people with diseases not see physicians. In many cases, it’s not the precise words in the bill but the logical result that is an issue. And no, this is not a false slippery slope argument. I am not against advance directives but against people being paid to encourage them. I know that I would feel intimidated by such action. (And I do have a written directive)

    Comment by Lavona Rann — 8/14/2009 @ 10:25 am

  3. If this provision got scrapped, it was not because of Sarah Palin. She is but one voice without any real power over Republican policies. Her enemies tend to attribute more power to her than she actually has. If we attribute more power and influence to someone than they actually have, it makes them much easier to vilify.

    I disagree. This thing got absolute saturation coverage on the cable nets. It even appeared as an item on those celebrity gossip shows like Inside Edition.

    Opportunity lost in my opinion.


    Comment by B.Poster — 8/14/2009 @ 10:26 am

  4. Yeah, that end of life consultation was billable time for doctors. There could never be any way that it could become mandatory, but……..

    Rick, call me cynical, but Palin was right, there are unintended consequences whenever government gets involved.

    Comment by Paul Mitchell — 8/14/2009 @ 10:31 am

  5. Wm. F. Buckley shattered the illusion that the Liberals were the intelligentsia with all of the solutions. Now Palin will be the face of conservatism? The downturn in the polls for the healthcare proposals are going to be attributed to Palin and her ilk but nothing could be further from the truth. The support is going south due to the cost, not the antics of the birthers. If this does in fact become Obama’s “Waterloo” then you are looking at the new Conservative movement.

    Comment by grognard — 8/14/2009 @ 10:49 am

  6. You’re correct. This did get a large amount of coverage on the news. Sarah Palin was and is but one voice in this debate. A number of people expressed concern over this issue. Palin’s statements are but one small part of this. I agree with yuo that this is an opportunity lost. This bill can be stopped on its bad merits without resorting to the kind of rhetoric that Ms. Palin engaged in.

    My point was and is that she did not play more than a nominal role in this. When we attribute more power to someone than they actually have it makes them much easier to vilify.

    A great deal of what you have written about the flaws in her policies I can agree with. We have to understand that she is but one politician, actually a retired one right now. About the only thing the leaders of the Republican party and the Democrats agree on right now is they don’t like Sarah Palin. As such, she has virtually zero chance of getting the Republican nomination for President.

    She has a small but devoted following within “Conservative” circles. Her followers are small in number and largely disorganized. I simply see no way that she could have influenced the debate to the level that you give her credit for.

    To sum this up, the end of life consultation provision probably would have been scrapped even if Sarah Palin stayed in Alaska and said nothing on this issue. There were simply too many people expressing concerns about it. Did she contribute to the scapping of this provision? Possibly, in some small way, when a number of people express dismay over what a politician is doing it sometimes gets their attention. I think this is what happened here. In my opinion, atttributing influence to Ms. Palin that she does not have obscures the issue.

    Comment by B.Poster — 8/14/2009 @ 10:49 am

  7. Palin will have lots of company. She may even get an honored seat beside Barack Obama, who also has taken to pathological lying in support of the bill.

    In all seriousness, this White House’s PR has been so dismal that the language used did lend itself to this type of exploitation. Even worse, given the blatant lying by Obama and Company, there is justified reason for a little paranoia here and there.

    Finally, if the Town Hall hostility has done anything according to the polls, it has turned independents against the White House and toward the protestors. This doesn’t surprise me given that the Left’s same tact against Bush also worked.

    Face it, Rick. These are hard and ugly times, both sides do the very same thing, and it isn’t realistic to expect anyone to stop any time soon.

    Comment by jackson1234 — 8/14/2009 @ 11:09 am

  8. “I’ve said it a thousand times; this bill is so bad that if we spent the same amount of time explaining the truth of it as we do in lying about it, it will be soundly defeated.”

    Chuck Grassley, Palin and others obviously did not get the message. I agree with Jackson about this because it does seem to work for whichever side uses it the most.

    We are a country held hostage by interest groups (not just lobbyists in Washington) on almost every issue of importance. How long we will be able to continue in the absence of what will be in 2012 20 years running of piss-poor vision and leadership in the White House is uncertain.

    And while I don’t like the President’s plan or the liberal’s ideas, I still want a prominent Republican to get out there and demand we have the right to know how much a medical procedure will cost us beforehand instead of having to fight the insurance system every time for them to uphold their policy agreements. I want a Republican who acts like he gives a damn about the 50 million people without insurance and has ideas on how to fix that without growing the government to an even greater monstrosity. Where are these Republicans? Where is their plan that they counter the President’s with?

    Am I wrong in remembering that Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, and other prominent Republicans in the Clinton era specialized in forcing Clinton and his ilk into policies and legislation that was far more considerate of conservative beliefs and the country’s needs than their liberal ideology originally intended to create? How did they do that? Was it by being obstructionist or actually being constructive and compromising, negotiating, and winning the PR war with Americans?

    Comment by Eddie — 8/14/2009 @ 12:00 pm

  9. Let me start out by saying that I a pro-limited government, pro-life, conservative who staunchly opposes this bill.

    Then let me say, I am 100% in favor of medicare (and all other forms of insurance) paying for end of life directives. think Terry Schiavo!

    The argument that paying doctors to talk to their patients incentives them to euthanasia is total BS. First off, consultations pay doctors much less than hands-on medical procedures.

    Second-off, they are paid to consult, not to push death, there is NO logical reason to conclude that a doctor would push his patient to “take one for the team” like a government bureaucrat might.

    Finally, if we’re talking about financial incentives, isn’t there more financial incentive for a doctor to artificially extend a patients life and thereby get paid for all those extra procedures than there is to kill the patient and end that sweet-sweet revenue stream?

    Finally, the Democrats are cowards for backing down to such utter BS. By doing so they tacitly admit that living wills ARE a secret government plot to kill old people and take a big step towards ensuring that they will not be covered at any time in the foreseeable future.

    If the argument is that the language is to ambiguous, and I still challenge anyone to show me the ambiguous sentence anywhere in section 1233, then all the Dems had to do was add this clause to the end of section 1233:

    “the consultations in this section are to be strictly voluntary. Any Health provider or Government official found to be forcing or coercing patients into a consultation will be guilty of a class A felony and will serve a minimum of 20 years in federal prison”

    Ambiguity problem solved!
    The Democrats are cowards and foolish cowards at that!

    Comment by ken.mcloud — 8/14/2009 @ 12:16 pm

  10. ken.mcloud Said:

    Ambiguity problem solved!
    The Democrats are cowards and foolish cowards at that!

    You said ‘finally’ twice.

    Comment by Chuck Tucson — 8/14/2009 @ 12:24 pm

  11. You lost me

    Comment by Neo — 8/14/2009 @ 12:39 pm

  12. Rick;
    I agree that Palin was over the top. Having said that I still wasn’t clear why the specific inclusion of a payment for advanced care directives was in the bill since physicians already had the ability to bill for “counselling” (including advanced care counselling) in the Medicare Regs. If specifically including it in a bill would increase advance care planning then I’m all for it.


    I am not against advance directives but against people being paid to encourage them.

    Advanced directives are simply a mechanism to tell care providers what you absolutely don’t want if you can’t express yourself (i.e. in a coma). You can just as easily state in your advanced directions that your “want everything” as you can state “you don’t want continued ventilation if you’re unlikely to recover”. The process of advanced directives doesnt’ suggest more or less treatment it just makes explicit one’s wishes.

    Frankly, I’ve seen it protect a patient who wants ventilation but who’s family wouldn’t want it for the “loved one”. In the absence of advanced directives doctors and hospitals tend to do “everything”.

    Comment by c3 — 8/14/2009 @ 12:46 pm

  13. Michael Reynolds, Rick must have a big garage. Obama’s favorability and job approval ratings are nose-diving (last count, dipping under 50%). More people now trust the R’s over the D’s with health care and the economy- a huge swing in just 2 months. I think it is your party that is in the most trouble. Read all the good news here: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/13/fox-news-poll-69-now-expect-obama-to-break-promise-about-not-raising-taxes/

    You spend most of your time here telling us how dire the Republican party’s fate has become. I think with a large percentage of Dem’s either under indictment, caught evading taxes, admitting that they don’t read the bills they sign, taking phone calls while being asked questions by constituents, telling their constituents how lucky they are to have them, jetsetting boondogles for themselves and their families on the public dime… Maybe you should consider helping your own instead of trolling here, pretending to try to help us.

    Comment by lionheart — 8/14/2009 @ 12:49 pm

  14. Lionheart:

    Go back and read what I said: I said “rational Republicans.” A tiny subset of Republicans.

    Comment by michael reynolds — 8/14/2009 @ 1:07 pm

  15. Why don’t you logically argue with Palin point by point rather than presenting an ad hominem attack based on a statement from her argument. Advanced care counseling was not the point of her argument. Health care rationing was. As usual liberals bring up a strawman and set it on fire while the real issues smolders under the name calling.

    Rationing? Why do you Palin Zombies desperately try to put words in her mouth? And it is impossible to argue the logic of her position because there isn’t any. In fact, nobody knows WHAT she was talking about with the death panel crack. She certainly didn’t say, did she? Did she refer to a specific proposal? Or did she just leave it to her moronic supporters to fill in the blanks?

    It was pure, hyperbolic fear mongering for which ad hominem is more than justified and indeed, the only rational response to make to such idiocy.


    Comment by DumbOkie — 8/14/2009 @ 1:08 pm

  16. Maybe this will help …

    death — a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life

    panel — a group of persons selected for a specific purpose, as to discuss

    Comment by Neo — 8/14/2009 @ 1:12 pm

  17. [...] a campaign of distortion that started with former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Rick Moran assesses what that says about Palin and American politics: There are plenty of slippery slopes that hold the potential for appalling health care policy to [...]

    Pingback by Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » The “Death Panel” Post Mortem: Palin Wins, Sanity Loses — 8/14/2009 @ 1:16 pm

  18. Rationing? Why do you Palin Zombies desperately try to put words in her mouth? And it is impossible to argue the logic of her position because there isn’t any. In fact, nobody knows WHAT she was talking about with the death panel crack. She certainly didn’t say, did she? Did she refer to a specific proposal? Or did she just leave it to her moronic supporters to fill in the blanks?

    It was pure, hyperbolic fear mongering for which ad hominem is more than justified and indeed, the only rational response to make to such idiocy.

    She actually did say! Including references to the bill, quotes from other people, and built a conclusion from the propositions presented. Ms Palin did not leave it to her “moronic supporters” to fill in the blanks - though most of the media did leave it to the individuals to fill in the blanks and spew their own brand of rationality and civility to the discussion.

    Comment by DumbOkie — 8/14/2009 @ 1:32 pm

  19. Chuck, he really meant it the second time… well, 3 paragraphs later (in reference to comments 9 and 10) :-)

    Comment by lionheart — 8/14/2009 @ 1:42 pm

  20. Whereas she loses me on Federalist grounds; she seems to accept tacitly the Constitutionality of the false idea. Don’t object to one brick: decry the whole wall in the name of real Conservativism.
    Hopefully, as the anti-Obama, she’s going to drift further to the right…

    Comment by smitty — 8/14/2009 @ 1:46 pm

  21. “‘We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”

    Awwww . . . how reasonable from Senator Grassley. Glad he had a rational approach to the issue.

    “DES MOINES — Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told people at a town hall meeting Wednesday they have “every right to fear” a provision in a House bill that would provide funding for end-of-life counseling.

    ‘We should not have a government program that determines we’re going to pull the plug on grandma,’” he said”

    So either he started taking his meds . . . or he claims one thing to he reporters and the exact opposite thing to the base. God Dammed pathetic liar.

    . . .and y’all were worried that the Dems were going to run out of control in the Government? The trouble is the Dems are too polite. They needed to get on TV and say “that’s a god-damned lie”. Instead, they said “inaccuricies about provisions lead to misinformation among eligible constituernts.”

    God-damned liars . . . and god-damned wimps.

    Comment by busboy33 — 8/14/2009 @ 5:25 pm

  22. I agree with you, Rick, on Palin’s future (or lack thereof), but the end-of-life consultations were understandably troubling. The overall question, of course, is what is the government doing in our health care at all. As a subset of that question, IMO, it is naive to expect such consultations to remain voluntary and innocuous when they are funded by a cost-conscious federal program.

    We are concerned that health commissions would not remain independent, and that our freedom will go the way of QALY measurements. They may not start as death panels, but they would surely morph into them.

    Comment by MochaLite — 8/14/2009 @ 5:56 pm

  23. MochaLite: Medicare is the government doing health care. Do you want to get rid of Medicare?

    Do you have health insurance now? If so, perhaps you should seek treatment for your paranoid delusions about “death panels”.

    Comment by HyperIon — 8/14/2009 @ 6:01 pm

  24. My parents just went to have their directives set up. They are in good help but wanted to make sure that me and my sister make the decision if they are unable to do so and No, they did not want to be on life support when there is no chance of recovery. Unfortunately, most people have never made these provisions so I think it is not a bad idea. This is not about politics but how you can try to have a decent death.
    I just don’t want to get involved in this debate because it is obvious to everyone that things have to change. So the adult thing would be to try to work out a compromise that could save costs and insure more people. Sure a lot of people, lawyers, insurance providers, drug companies, doctors might not be too crazy about the cost-cutting provisions but then do we have a choice?.

    Comment by funny man — 8/14/2009 @ 6:29 pm

  25. Why pick on Palin? What is she saying that other conservatives are not also saying? This concentration on Palin by both the left and the right does not make sense.

    Comment by Derick Salls — 8/14/2009 @ 6:35 pm

  26. MocaLite:

    Paying for a consultation once every five years honestly doesn’t sound too “incentivising”. That’s like saying paying for a yearly checkup incentivises doing check-ups.

    It was important enough that a Republican put it in the bill in the first place (John Isakson). In 08 he wanted to make the consultations mandatory (they were voluntary).

    btw — if you don’t have a Living Will, a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, and/or a DNR . . . look into them. They are incredibly important if you want YOUR wishes carried out. What’s to stop your son or daughter from saying “Moca told me they want the plug pulled” after you are unconcious?
    Don’t want the plug pulled? Write it down. Get it notarized. Put it your lockbox with your will. It is your life — you should make the decisions about it.
    Palin was for Advanced Directive planning last year, and had the government encourage citizens to look into them:

    “NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sarah Palin, Governor of the state of Alaska, do hereby proclaim April 16, 2008, as:
    Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.
    Dated: April 16, 2008 ”

    Comment by busboy33 — 8/14/2009 @ 6:54 pm

  27. “Right Wing”


    Geez, dude… why do you even PRETEND anymore?

    Comment by John Rogers — 8/14/2009 @ 7:08 pm

  28. Palin is the only one with the guts to bring up the death panels. They did exist in the bill and President O’Dumbo is pushing that exact thing. You don’t even have to be old for O’Dumbo to kill you, but only need to be born during a botched murder (abortion) and O’Dumbo still approves of baby murder. I hope you are approaching the age when you will likely need a bypass or other expensive procedure. I’d like to hear the screams when O’Dumbo’s henchmen tell you to go home and take the pill. Advance medical care planning is not similar to the death panels. You are in charge of your medical care, not some dumb ass democrat in D.C.
    This is not and has never been a conservative site. It’s always been an America hating socialist/facist site in hiding which hits and misses at the truth.
    The white house is now the largest criminal enterprise in history. $150 million bribe from the drug industry to O’Dumbo and he won’t push cheap drugs. They makes the world wide Mafia and terrorist organizations look like Brownie scouts.

    Comment by Scrapiron — 8/14/2009 @ 8:09 pm

  29. Why this vitriol against Sarah Palin? You are sounding more and more like a liberal hack. I can’t believe you are launching these ad hominim attacks against her.

    There are always unintended consequences when the government gets involved.

    Isn’t no one aware of the case in Oregon where Oregon health care has refused cancer treatment for this lady, but is willing to reimburse $50 for the physician assisted suicide? And she has no recourse. Isn’t government control of your healthcare great?

    The cancer treatment they refused to cover was experimental and would have been rejected by any private insurance company in the country except those plans that the very rich have. I am sorry for the woman’s predicament but what happened to her happens thousands of times every day to people on private plans.

    And yes, there would be unintended consequences. But Palin’s death panels would not be one of them, she knew they would not be one of them (or was too stupid to believe propaganda about them), and saying what she said was outrageous hyperbole.

    See above: True conservatives love the truth more than partisanship.


    Comment by Venkatram Pramod — 8/14/2009 @ 9:48 pm

  30. Rick go after the left more. Not the right. Maybe change he blog to the Left wing Nut House

    How bright is it to tag someone as a liberal simply because they disagree with you?

    Not very.


    Comment by Bob — 8/14/2009 @ 9:53 pm

  31. What does Sarah Palin have to do with the conservative cause? Just because someone says they are conservative doesn’t mean they are. Geez, must have forgotten the louder and crazier you shout the more conservative you are. Not in my book; William Buckley anyone?

    Comment by funny man — 8/14/2009 @ 10:34 pm

  32. OMG…you criticize Palin for fear mongering after the fear fest the liberal Dems just pulled, coercing the most abusive, partisan, socialist porkfest our nation has ever seen all on the threat of the economy failing. And after all of the spending was committed the economy continued to sink further than it would have if nothing was done.

    Yes, when I see conservatives attacking other conservatives, I know they have listened to too many liberal commentators instead of the American people.

    Listen to what Obama is saying about insurance companies and the fear mongering he is doing right now…he makes Palin sound like Pollyanna. Umm…what exactly have you been promised to savage fellow conservatives, and by whom?

    Best regards,
    Gail S

    True conservatives value truth over partisanship.


    Comment by Gail S — 8/14/2009 @ 11:51 pm

  33. If she is prepring to run for the pres she needs to be more informed and make comments that have been screened for her so she can show herself in the best way possible. Personally I think with some political training on the national level she can be formitable opponent. At this point thought she is better to not to make much if any comment but keep learning the ropes if she views a bigger prize which unless something changes will be back in the conservitives side in 12.

    Comment by Darryle Huffman — 8/15/2009 @ 2:40 am

  34. “If she really believed it, she’s an ignoramus and should stick to being an airhead ex-governor that has conservative little boys drooling over her like they drool over porn actresses and movie stars.”
    Well with that you have “lost Me” I do not drool over Palin and frankly am insulted by your comment,rather I respect her social issues stance (economies go up and down but once a key social aspect is lost it can’t be recovered).I used to enjoy this column as a rational expostion of conservative values.Clearly you have succumbed to PDS-a shame for a person of your stature-why the need for disgusting persoanl attacks? Also,if you think she has such a small following you have not looked at the number of subscribers to her Facebook page which will be over a million shortly (how do your hits compare I wonder).I agree with the poster above-you have moved to the left and have taken the Sullivan path-a shame.

    Why do people feel it necessary to say goodbye? 13 year old drama queens announce they are leaving and then stomp out the door. Are you a 13 year old girl? Judging by your excitement at Palin getting a million “friends” on Facebook, my guess is yes.

    As is the custom here, your IP will be banned as I wish to help you keep your promise not to visit this site again. No cheating now and tuning in at work!


    Comment by Anonymous — 8/15/2009 @ 3:35 am

  35. @scrapiron:

    “Palin is the only one with the guts to bring up the death panels. They did exist in the bill”


    No they didn’t exist in the bill, and you’re either talking about something you know nothing about, or you’re a damn liar.

    Prove me wrong.

    Comment by busboy33 — 8/15/2009 @ 4:04 am

  36. ‘Death panel’ is not in the bill… it already exists


    Comment by sninky — 8/15/2009 @ 4:16 am

  37. DumbOkie -
    Welcome to the club. See Rick’s response to my comment 32 on the slippery slope post.
    Having presented an uninformed ‘opinion’ he will never be dissuaded from presenting it ever more forcefully, again and again.
    His response to you seems typical. The strawberries - that’s where he’s got you. He has made his case with geometric logic; his reasoning is irrefutable. He has already steamed over his own tow line and now has left a big Yellow Stain in his reply to you. What next?

    Comment by cranston — 8/15/2009 @ 6:45 am

  38. If the ‘Death Panel’ article above is not enough to refute the slippery slope you said is not there, I give you the income tax in its original form versus what it is today as a prime example of how modern day statism works in this country. Social Security is another. The list is long. Starts out reasonable and the creatures in the cesspool that is D.C. attach, attach attach expand, expand, expand……until the original law is unrecognizable.

    Statism in this country has been introduced incrementally (slippery slope) by progressives of BOTH parties, and death panels (already here in H.R. 1) and rationing (way to cut costs at maximum) are givens if H.R.3200, or any semblance passes, with or without 1233. The structure and the will is already there.

    15 people disagree in another thread and it’s time to start another party? “13 year old girl”. How mature. Flame after flame for disagreeing? Who needs this?

    Ban my IP too. Thanking you in advance.

    Let the flames begin.

    You people really can’t take yes for an answer, can you. I have acknowledged there are slippery slopes in the bill. I have maintained that there are plenty of examples of slippery slopes in government generally. But this isn’t one of them - not by a longshot. And Palin knows it.

    Anyone who believes we already have “death panels” is an idiot. Show me where we have a board set up that would deny medical care to her kid? And why do you fail to acknowledge that we already have rationing by insurance companies? The exact same kind of board you fear so much has existed in the insurance industry for decades. They routinely deny payment for a wide variety of treatments - or do you think no one is unhappy with their insurance company?

    All I’m asking is for people to get a grip for God’s sake. Positing these outrageously stupid outcomes with absolutely nothing presented as proof except “Well, government has been evil in the past and will be evil again,” is illogical, unreasonable, and fallacious. Having a “feeling” is not proof and to believe it is only tags you as an hysteric.


    Comment by sninky — 8/15/2009 @ 8:03 am

  39. I too think Sarah Palin went too far by exaggerating and whipping up hysteria about the end-of-life provisions of the considered legislation. By the same logic, however, President Obama and Speaker Pelosi have been equally shameful by blaming health insurers for organizing opposition.

    Finding reasonable voices in the public debate on this issue has been difficult because both sides are dominated by demagogues.

    Comment by Doug King — 8/15/2009 @ 9:10 am

  40. Palin is the GOP. She’s ignorant, demagogic and hypocritical. That’s the essence of the GOP. That and bigotry.

    Now, Rick is none of those things. He’s not ignorant, he’s not demagogic or hypocritical. He’s not a bigot.

    It’s beyond dispute that the set of all Republicans is closer to Palin, and that only a subset of that set is closer to Moran. The question is why Rick would rather be part of a powerless and despised minority within the party of Palin, rather than declaring himself an independent, or joining a new party effort, or even aligning with Blue Dog Democrats.

    Comment by michael reynolds — 8/15/2009 @ 10:20 am

  41. Palin never had you. Her “death board” claim is hyperbole, but much less of a lie than Obama’s deceptions that he wants to maintain private health insurance. Not that lying less than Obama and the left-wing lunatics who are rapidly destroying the Dems is a very high bar, mind you.

    Palin is just a drop in the bucket in this debate. This monstrosity has been dismantled and exposed more by common citizens than politicians. Say what you will about Jack Murtha, but his pronouncement today that this bill either will have to wait until next year or be scuttled altogether is an astute analyis of the political situation. Murtha knows that Obama and Pelosi are destroying his party. Palin is irrelevant.

    Are you actually making the argument that because Palin’s is “less of a lie” than Obama’s that it’s ok?

    I am sick to death of the argument, “Yeah…but the other side is worse” or “The other side does it so we’ve got to do it too.”

    This is mindless. Conservatives should be dedicated to objective truth - period. I don’t care if the other side lies. The best way to counter a lie is with the truth, not by telling another lie - even if it isn’t as bad as the left in your opinion.


    Comment by obamathered — 8/15/2009 @ 11:01 am

  42. Someone linked to this American Thinker article already, but here it is again: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html

    Here’s a quote: “Daschle’s stated purpose (and therefore President Obama’s purpose) for creating the Council [Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research] is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make. The end result is to slow costly medical advancement and consumption. [Betsy] McCaughey goes on to explain: ‘Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.’”

    Rick and all, how comparatively effective will it be to give you medical treatment? If you are only marginally contributing to society (in the opinion of the FCCFCER), the answer will be “not much.” And when (slippery slope) the public option undercuts and drives out private options, making it illegal to pay for your own, you won’t have much to say about the decision.

    I just can’t believe that you have faith that federal control of individual life decisions will not turn on incremental cost, and will not ultimately turn on you.

    Comment by MochaLite — 8/15/2009 @ 12:53 pm

  43. @obamathered:

    “much less of a lie than Obama’s deceptions that he wants to maintain private health insurance.”

    The bill explicitly, in clear, unambiguous language, maintains private insurance.
    It’s not a debateable point, unless you don’t know how to read English.

    If the bill says “bananas are yellow”, you can’t use wishful thinking to make it say “bananas are purple”. That’s either ignorance, insanity, or deception.

    Comment by busboy33 — 8/15/2009 @ 3:01 pm

  44. First, busboy, there is no “bill.” A mark-up out of committee is what we have and it will bear no resemblance whatsoever to any final legislation. Period. And there are several competing versions floating around. Obama has repeatedly said he wants a single-payer system. As public opinion has turned sharplyu against him, he apparently has forgotten there is a thing called “videotape.” You are engaging in pure partisan hackery. Obama has lied many times recently on this point.

    And Rick: Yes, there is a huge difference between an ex-governor telling a lie and the Democratic leadership lying endlessly and shamelessly to advance legislation. My point wasn’t about moral relativism. It was about the insignificance of Palin’s hyperbolic blast as Obama and the Democrats engage in outright deception even the normally clueless public apprehends.

    Comment by obamathered — 8/15/2009 @ 4:41 pm

  45. I thought Brobdignagian people are supposed to be jolly-another myth shattered as one for example is vindictive and petty.No,I am 64 not 15 and saying goodbye is not a drama queen act,rather is much more polite than you deserve for your childish post.Keep that crow picture you posted after your New Hampshire prediction re: Hillary you will need it for Palin (mmmm perhaps there is an anti-female politican thread?.

    Right. I’ll post the crow pic when I’m in front of the death panel being told I am of no use to society anymore.

    And yes, announcing you are leaving (and then coming back) is absolutely typical drama queen behavior. What next? Are you going to threaten to hold your breath unless I change my mind?

    I mean, what is it with you? You make this super-dramatic announcement for all to see that you’re never going to visit this website again…and then you visit again! That makes you out to be either a blithering idiot or a liar. Which is it?


    Comment by Anonymous — 8/15/2009 @ 5:00 pm

  46. Palin wins:


    James Taranto on Palin and the “death panel” debate.
    One can hardly deny that Palin’s reference to “death panels” was inflammatory. But another way of putting that is that it was vivid and attention-getting. Level-headed liberal commentators who favor more government in health care, including Slate’s Mickey Kaus and the Washington Post’s Charles Lane, have argued that the end-of-life provision in the bill is problematic–acknowledging in effect (and, in Kaus’s case, in so many words) that Palin had a point.

    “If you believe the media, Sarah Palin is a mediocre intellect, if even that, while President Obama is brilliant. So how did she manage to best him in this debate? Part of the explanation is that disdain for Palin reflects intellectual snobbery more than actual intellect. Still, Obama’s critics, in contrast with Palin’s, do not deny the president’s intellectual aptitude. Intelligence, however, does not make one immune from hubris.”

    Golly gee. Perhaps being the mother of a downs kid makes one a bit hyper sensitive to the reality of gubmint rationing of health care, I wouldn’t know for sure, I only had a sister who was severely retarded.

    Comment by cdor — 8/15/2009 @ 5:19 pm

  47. Evidently you (Rick) don’t get it. No one from the GOP said one word objecting to the ‘death panels’ until Sarah brought it up. Then she fought fire with fire and it worked. I’ll bet you High and Mighty so called conservatives are the ones who let your opponents back up after you knocked them down. That’s why we lost the elections.

    Of course no one said anything about death panels, ninny. THEY AREN’T IN THE BILL!


    Comment by bigbugna — 8/15/2009 @ 5:47 pm

  48. Rick’s new meme: “True conservatives value truth over partisanship.”

    Yes, everyone… Rick is the TRUTHSPEAKER!

    Only Rick Moran speaks TRUTH!

    His TRUTHS are TRUTHIER than any TRUTHS known throughout the history of TRUTH!

    Only The Mighty Rick knows **THE TRUTH**!

    Rick Moran: The Truthiest Truther in The History of Truth!

    (Think highly of yourself much, Mr. Moran? Does Jesus Christ often come to you for advice?)

    Jesus died 2,000 years ago. But he gave great advice when he said, “To thine own self be true.” And compared to death panels, and euthenasia, and killing old folks off, I come off looking pretty good while dunces like you look like hysterics.


    Comment by John Rogers — 8/15/2009 @ 6:05 pm

  49. But the bill [H.R. 1 EH AKA "stimulus"] goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

    Still don’t see the death panels. Or anything I haven’t written against. What is it exactly you’re taking me to task for? Jesus Christ read what I’ve written for God’s sake. Yes, there will be rationing. Yes there will be interference by bureaucrats. But how in hell does that lead to death panels? And again, your slippery slope argument fails the most rudimentary rules of logic by saying that people will just sit back and let it happen, that no one will object if nationalized health care ever even got close to something like death panels. Read my slippery slope post. If you did, it went right over your head without even mussing your hair.

    Do you know anything about logic at all? The people advancing death panels are extremely shallow thinkers who cannot logically extrapolate an outcome from the facts to reach a reasonable conclusion based on reality, not emotion. In other words, they are not thinking at all - only reacting emotionally to their fears.

    I am going to say it again; there are plenty of slippery slope arguments in the bill that are not logical fallacies. Stick with those and drop death panels.


    Comment by Neo — 8/15/2009 @ 8:54 pm

  50. [...] debate, with fact checking on the provisions provided by ABC. Also note that Rick Moran’s been taking a lot of heat over his stance on this, but he’s [...]

    Pingback by Noblesse Oblige » Blog Archive » Obama is Failing IV — 8/15/2009 @ 10:01 pm

  51. New York Times headline, front page:

    Rick Moran says Sarah Palin is an Idiot
    but he agrees Dem plan sucks

    I tried to copy Word editing to show first line in huge bold with second line itsy teeny, but it wouldn’t paste here.

    Palin didn’t just say the dem plan sucks. She made shit up about death panels.

    You really that shallow minded that this escapes you? That everything has to be painted in such broad, simple minded strokes that you equate my agreeing with Palin that the plan is bad that I must then agree with the concept of death panels?

    Maybe it’s just that people this stupid don’t visit my website very often.


    Comment by cdor — 8/16/2009 @ 9:26 am

  52. Will Palin notice she doesn’t have Rick Moran’s support? Will she fall on her sword? Will Moran keep up his competition with Charles Johnson?

    Comment by Thomas Jackson — 8/16/2009 @ 3:11 pm

  53. Jesus died 2,000 years ago. But he gave great advice when he said, “To thine own self be true.”

    What??? That would be Shakespeare, not Jesus Christ. Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 3.

    Comment by MochaLite — 8/16/2009 @ 7:25 pm

  54. Tsk, tsk. A little sensitive aren’t we, Mr. Notevenapimpleonaknat’sass? Palin makes a couple of Facebook entries and knocks the Dem game plan for a loop. But hey, she didn’t say what Rick wants said, the way he wants it said, soooo…even though you are seeking the same results, she is an idiot.

    Whatever, bud. You know you’ve lost the argument when you resort to calling names. You probably won’t post this comment anyway. I recommend you go out, have a couple packs of smokes, and calm down. I’ve probably posted 50 times or more on this site. I’ve had respectful exchanges on numerous occassions, and never was overcome by anyones brilliance…yours, mine, or any other poster.

    Comment by cdor — 8/17/2009 @ 9:08 am

  55. “MochaLite Said:
    7:25 pm

    Jesus died 2,000 years ago. But he gave great advice when he said, “To thine own self be true.”

    What??? That would be Shakespeare, not Jesus Christ. Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 3.”


    How do you feel now wiggling at the end of THE BRILLIANT RICK MORAN’S hook? All it took The Superior Intelligence to do was cast that one little piece of bait and you’re wiggling on the deck of his boat.

    I bet you’re feeling pretty dumb now, eh, Mochalite?

    Comment by John Rogers — 8/17/2009 @ 12:27 pm

  56. Palin is a good governor and would make a pretty good president, but her resigning to me was a stupid move. I really think 2012 should be Huckabee/Romney, because we’ll reunite the party.

    Comment by charles — 8/23/2009 @ 5:05 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress