Death Panels

Approval Rate: 43%

43%Approval ratio

Reviews 12

Sort by:
  • by

    canadasucks

    Fri Mar 26 2010

    . . .otherwise known to the literate as the existing insurance company policy that allows companies to drop people when they actually get sick. . .which is what the present administration wants to halt. . .next. . .

  • by

    abichara

    Fri Mar 26 2010

    Contrary to urban legend, there are no provisions in this bill that specifically mandate end of life counseling, nor are there any "death panels" that make decisions on these matters, independent of the patient's will. Sarah Palin fueled this one by taking the bill directly out of context. They also cited some comments that Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Rahm and a medical advisor of the White House) made, who backs euthanasia as a treatment option. The bill does have provisions for end of life care, but they are not required. What it does is it allows the government to pay for medical visits that deal with different treatment options once you get old. Here's a good example of how politics involves creative reinterpretation's of the facts. The bill doesn't seek to euthanize Americans or any such thing.

  • by

    fitman

    Fri Oct 02 2009

    Haven't you heard? The libs want to kill your mother! ;-)

  • by

    pmt412b5

    Mon Sep 14 2009

    Rationing will always occur - it occurs now. But the current criteria is money: In my research into the Japanese mafia, I came across this story of a crime boss who was in need of a liver transplant. By pouring money into the hospital, he jumped ahead of a line of 30 americans, who all died because the liver supply is that limited. This occurs with insurance as well, with people who spend more getting the best and quickest coverage. Welcome to your current death panels: its called line jumping on limted resources by means of money.

  • by

    gris2575

    Sun Sep 13 2009

    They already have this. Only it is the Hospital Administration who makes the decision, not the Government. Too many sick and injured and not Enough Organs to go around. When you think about it, there is something Disturbing about a Group who decides which Human being is worth More than another. But until there are more donors and in some cases more funds, then this will always be a Problem. Sad. I am glad it is not me who has to make the Decision. Under the new Plan, I am not sure who will be deciding, but I would rather it be the Hospital than the Government. Those mooks can't manage a Jelly Doughnut, let alone something as Life and Death as Health Care.

  • by

    goldengrain

    Sun Sep 13 2009

    This is the dumbest thing I ever heard of. I could think of a few nasty things to say, but will not. One of the reasons why I am for end of life counseling is that my father could have used a heart transplant, but they only do those on young people because not enough people remember to donate their body to medicine when they die. Few doctors are going to ask you to consider doing this on your deathbed. So, counseling would probably make a lot more organs available and save lives.

  • by

    djahuti

    Sat Sep 12 2009

    Who reanimated the Barbie?

  • by

    numbah16tdhaha

    Sat Sep 12 2009

    Knowing what you know about politicians, which of these scenarios do you find more likely? Option A: treat all and spend alot of money Option B: ration care, let some people die and save some money Hmm...

  • by

    wiseguy

    Sat Sep 12 2009

    It's obvious to anybody with half a brain that rationing will no doubt happen. If not, why have a panel of bureaucrats at all? This is what happens when the democratic controlled government get their mitts on something. I guess I should add that care is already being rationed.

  • by

    rickytickytapp_y

    Sat Sep 12 2009

    Keep the govt out of our lives. They should not be able to judge us that way.

  • by

    dgbingham

    Sat Sep 12 2009

    This shows how stupid the American public is.

  • by

    evergrowing

    Fri Sep 11 2009

    All government care is rationed care. That's the point she was making. She knows that "death panels" aren't in the bill - she's using hyperbole to make a point. (And no - I'm not a big Sarah Palin fan - disliked her when she was running, but appreciate her raising this issue.) As an ex-Canadian, I can tell you first hand that their health care system rations care in life and death situations. My step-father was not granted a simple operation that would have been done in the U.S. immediately. It cost him his life when his aorta ruptured, leaving my mother a widow for the second time. People die on waiting lists. The UK and France aren't any better. America - you really don't want this!