Sarah Palin Information Blog

Sarah Palin Web Brigade

  • Upcoming Palin Events

  • Sarah Palin’s Endorsees

  • Sarah Palin Channel

  • Amazing America

  • The Undefeated

  • ‘Stars Earn Stripes’

  • ‘Game Change’ Lies Exposed

  • Good Tidings and Great Joy: Protecting the Heart of Christmas

  • Our Sarah: Made in Alaska

  • America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag

  • Going Rogue: An American Life

  • Other Sarah Palin Info Sources

  • Login/RSS

  • Governor Palin on Twitter

  • @SarahPalinUSA

  • Governor Palin on Facebook

  • SarahPAC Notes

  • RSS SarahPAC Notes

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • SPWB on Facebook

  • SPWB on Twitter

  • @SarahPalinLinks

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

  • Join the SPWB Twibe!

  • Posts by Date

    August 2009
    S M T W T F S
    « Jul   Sep »
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    3031  
  • Categories

  • Archives

  • __________________________________________
  • Top Posts & Pages

  • __________________________________________
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • __________________________________________

Archive for August 14th, 2009

Sarah Palin, the Magician

Posted by Ron Devito on August 14, 2009

Sarah Palin has the kind of influence that equates to power, plain and simple. I engaged in a Twitter conversation yesterday with an anti-Palin, pro-Obama guy. The crazy thing about it is we both went for the jugular, and when it was over, it was like, “All right, catch you later, brother.” “Yep, catch you later, sis. I enjoy debating you.” In other words, hey…it’s all good. I’ll keep fighting, and I have a feeling, he will too.

One piece of that conversation involved his telling me that President Obama doesn’t spend any time thinking about Sarah Palin. I responded by saying, “Well, then he’s a magician also because it’s hard to keep quoting someone you’re not thinking about.”

Now what was I talking about? The president did a Town Hall meeting in New Hampshire a couple days ago…and I was just waiting for it. Sure enough, it came. He couldn’t help himself. He just had to refer to Sarah’s “death panel” statement. I was waiting, and I wasn’t disappointed. Sarah is SO in his head, it’s ridiculous. Although the White House continues to say that they waste not one moment thinking about Sarah Palin, the truth is you can’t keep quoting someone you’re not paying attention to–and then to quote her in a Town Hall meeting! I mean, we knew she was in his head during the campaign, but she has gotten more powerful after losing the election! So anyone who says that Sarah is insignificant is just being dishonest. More importantly, anyone who states that President Obama is not paying attention to Sarah Palin is underestimating him. Yes, underestimating him, not Sarah. Why do I say that? It’s simple: If he’s just half as smart as people say he is, and if he is the politician he appears to be, he’d have to be paying attention to her because he’d be stupid not to. And President Obama may be many things, but stupid is not one of them. Besides, like I said, if he’s not, then he must be a magician because he manages to quote someone he never thinks about!

The sad aspect of this is while he was defending himself against Sarah’s comments, making it appear to be simple fearmongering and screaming “boogeyman!” on her part, people in the meeting were giggling about it. Do you think Sarah backed down? Come on, now. Sarah doesn’t back down when she believes in something. Instead, she released this statement on her Facebook page:

Concerning the “Death Panels”
Wed at 11:55pm

Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore….It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual … or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility… or a hospice program.” [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones…. If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]

As Lane also points out:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]

Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]

So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives…. It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen … should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]

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.” [11]

President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.

– Sarah Palin

[1] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/president-obama-addresses-sarah-palin-death-panels-wild-representations.html.
[2] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[3] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1); Sec. 1233 (hhh)(3)(B)(1), above.
[4] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1)(E), above.
[5] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[6] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html].
[7] Id.
[8] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html].
[9] See http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/letter-congressman-henry-waxman-re-section-1233-hr-3200.
[10] See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf[11] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions.

Well, after Sarah caused such a stir with her statement about “death panels,” after the Obama media got all bent out of shape about it, after the president found it necessary to deny it by misrepresenting what she said as “pulling the plug on Grandma,” we find out yesterday that the end of life provision has now been removed from bill! Now that’s what I call influence. Of course, the president and his people are paying attention to Sarah. When the woman can type something on her Facebook page and get a provision removed, well, what would you call that?! Today radio talk show host and author, Tammy Bruce, called Sarah the 101st senator of the United States because she can “type, type, type, send, and get a change in the Health Care Bill!” Yep, that about says it. But I can do even better than that: Sarah is not only the 101st senator, she’s the magician, for how else could she issue a statement that makes Congress remove something that they said wasn’t in there to begin with?!

Read about the change:

WASHINGTON – Key senators are excluding a provision on end-of-life care from health overhaul legislation after language in a House bill caused a furor.Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.

Read more about this here.

Even though the end of life provision has been removed, Sarah Palin says it’s not enough. Early this morning, Sarah released this new statement on her Facebook page:

Troubling Questions Remain About Obama’s Health Care Plan

Today at 1:11am

I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200). It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to
Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.

As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama’s key health care advisors is particularly disturbing. I’m speaking of the “Complete Lives System” advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff. President Obama has not yet stated any opposition to the “Complete Lives System,” a system which, if enacted, would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential. [1] Why the silence from the president on this aspect of his nationalization of health care? Does he agree with the “Complete Lives System”? If not, then why is Dr. Emanuel his policy advisor? What is he advising the president on? I just learned that Dr. Emanuel is now distancing himself from his own work and claiming that his “thinking has evolved” on the question of rationing care to benefit the strong and deny the weak. [2] How convenient that he disavowed his own work only after the nature of his scholarship was revealed to the public at large.

The president is busy assuring us that we can keep our private insurance plans, but common sense (and basic economics) tells us otherwise. The public option in the Democratic health care plan will crowd out private insurers, and that’s what it’s intended to do. A single payer health care plan has been President Obama’s agenda all along, though he is now claiming otherwise. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what he said back in 2003:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan…. A single payer health care plan – universal health care plan – that’s what I would like to see.” [3]

A single-payer health care plan might be what Obama would like to see, but is it what the rest of us would like to see? What does a single payer health care plan look like? We need look no further than other countries who have adopted such a plan. The picture isn’t pretty. [4] The only way they can control costs is to ration care. As I noted in my earlier statement quoting Thomas Sowell, government run health care won’t reduce the price of medical care; it will simply refuse to pay the price. The expensive innovative procedures that people from all over the world come to the United States for will not be available under a government plan that seeks to cover everyone by capping costs.

Read the rest here, along with the sources she cites.

Sarah Palin has chosen to bypass the mainstream media for now, the media that is so clearly in the tank for Obama, and she’s simply utilizing social networking sites to get her message out–and Tammy Bruce is correct: All Sarah has to do is type and hit send–and it’s all over. Who would have thought one could use Facebook to help win this health care battle? It is clear that Sarah knows more about this Health Care Bill than members of Congress. She knows what she’s talking about, and she is studying experts on the issue.

I have one more thing to say: I bet you those on the far Left regret that Sarah was ever asked the demeaning question, “What do you read?” you know, the question she chose to ignore. Hey, Katie, now you have a whole list of her reading material–and you and the Obama administration don’t like it too much, do you?!

By Adrienne Ross from http://www.motivationtruth.com

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Sarah Palin, the Magician

Posted by Adrienne Ross on August 14, 2009

Sarah Palin has the kind of influence that equates to power, plain and simple. I engaged in a Twitter conversation yesterday with an anti-Palin, pro-Obama guy. The crazy thing about it is we both went for the jugular, and when it was over, it was like, “All right, catch you later, brother.” “Yep, catch you later, sis. I enjoy debating you.” In other words, hey…it’s all good. I’ll keep fighting, and I have a feeling, he will too.

One piece of that conversation involved his telling me that President Obama doesn’t spend any time thinking about Sarah Palin. I responded by saying, “Well, then he’s a magician also because it’s hard to keep quoting someone you’re not thinking about.”

Now what was I talking about? The president did a Town Hall meeting in New Hampshire a couple days ago…and I was just waiting for it. Sure enough, it came. He couldn’t help himself. He just had to refer to Sarah’s “death panel” statement. I was waiting, and I wasn’t disappointed. Sarah is SO in his head, it’s ridiculous. Although the White House continues to say that they waste not one moment thinking about Sarah Palin, the truth is you can’t keep quoting someone you’re not paying attention to–and then to quote her in a Town Hall meeting! I mean, we knew she was in his head during the campaign, but she has gotten more powerful after losing the election! So anyone who says that Sarah is insignificant is just being dishonest. More importantly, anyone who states that President Obama is not paying attention to Sarah Palin is underestimating him. Yes, underestimating him, not Sarah. Why do I say that? It’s simple: If he’s just half as smart as people say he is, and if he is the politician he appears to be, he’d have to be paying attention to her because he’d be stupid not to. And President Obama may be many things, but stupid is not one of them. Besides, like I said, if he’s not, then he must be a magician because he manages to quote someone he never thinks about!

The sad aspect of this is while he was defending himself against Sarah’s comments, making it appear to be simple fearmongering and screaming “boogeyman!” on her part, people in the meeting were giggling about it. Do you think Sarah backed down? Come on, now. Sarah doesn’t back down when she believes in something. Instead, she released this statement on her Facebook page:

Concerning the “Death Panels”
Wed at 11:55pm

Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore….It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual … or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility… or a hospice program.” [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones…. If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]

As Lane also points out:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]

Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]

So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives…. It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen … should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]

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.” [11]

President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.

– Sarah Palin

[1] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/president-obama-addresses-sarah-palin-death-panels-wild-representations.html.
[2] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[3] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1); Sec. 1233 (hhh)(3)(B)(1), above.
[4] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1)(E), above.
[5] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[6] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html].
[7] Id.
[8] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html].
[9] See http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/letter-congressman-henry-waxman-re-section-1233-hr-3200.
[10] See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf[11] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions.

Well, after Sarah caused such a stir with her statement about “death panels,” after the Obama media got all bent out of shape about it, after the president found it necessary to deny it by misrepresenting what she said as “pulling the plug on Grandma,” we find out yesterday that the end of life provision has now been removed from bill! Now that’s what I call influence. Of course, the president and his people are paying attention to Sarah. When the woman can type something on her Facebook page and get a provision removed, well, what would you call that?! Today radio talk show host and author, Tammy Bruce, called Sarah the 101st senator of the United States because she can “type, type, type, send, and get a change in the Health Care Bill!” Yep, that about says it. But I can do even better than that: Sarah is not only the 101st senator, she’s the magician, for how else could she issue a statement that makes Congress remove something that they said wasn’t in there to begin with?!

Read about the change:

WASHINGTON – Key senators are excluding a provision on end-of-life care from health overhaul legislation after language in a House bill caused a furor.Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.

Read more about this here.

Even though the end of life provision has been removed, Sarah Palin says it’s not enough. Early this morning, Sarah released this new statement on her Facebook page:

Troubling Questions Remain About Obama’s Health Care Plan

Today at 1:11am

I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200). It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to
Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.

As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama’s key health care advisors is particularly disturbing. I’m speaking of the “Complete Lives System” advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff. President Obama has not yet stated any opposition to the “Complete Lives System,” a system which, if enacted, would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential. [1] Why the silence from the president on this aspect of his nationalization of health care? Does he agree with the “Complete Lives System”? If not, then why is Dr. Emanuel his policy advisor? What is he advising the president on? I just learned that Dr. Emanuel is now distancing himself from his own work and claiming that his “thinking has evolved” on the question of rationing care to benefit the strong and deny the weak. [2] How convenient that he disavowed his own work only after the nature of his scholarship was revealed to the public at large.

The president is busy assuring us that we can keep our private insurance plans, but common sense (and basic economics) tells us otherwise. The public option in the Democratic health care plan will crowd out private insurers, and that’s what it’s intended to do. A single payer health care plan has been President Obama’s agenda all along, though he is now claiming otherwise. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what he said back in 2003:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan…. A single payer health care plan – universal health care plan – that’s what I would like to see.” [3]

A single-payer health care plan might be what Obama would like to see, but is it what the rest of us would like to see? What does a single payer health care plan look like? We need look no further than other countries who have adopted such a plan. The picture isn’t pretty. [4] The only way they can control costs is to ration care. As I noted in my earlier statement quoting Thomas Sowell, government run health care won’t reduce the price of medical care; it will simply refuse to pay the price. The expensive innovative procedures that people from all over the world come to the United States for will not be available under a government plan that seeks to cover everyone by capping costs.

Read the rest here, along with the sources she cites.

Sarah Palin has chosen to bypass the mainstream media for now, the media that is so clearly in the tank for Obama, and she’s simply utilizing social networking sites to get her message out–and Tammy Bruce is correct: All Sarah has to do is type and hit send–and it’s all over. Who would have thought one could use Facebook to help win this health care battle? It is clear that Sarah knows more about this Health Care Bill than members of Congress. She knows what she’s talking about, and she is studying experts on the issue.

I have one more thing to say: I bet you those on the far Left regret that Sarah was ever asked the demeaning question, “What do you read?” you know, the question she chose to ignore. Hey, Katie, now you have a whole list of her reading material–and you and the Obama administration don’t like it too much, do you?!

By Adrienne Ross from http://www.motivationtruth.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Analysis of Palin Wins — by James Taranto

Posted by Ron Devito on August 14, 2009

This referenced article by James Taranto article speaks extensively about Governor Palin’s two victories in the health care debate this week.

The first victory was to establish and prove the thesis that Obama’s socialized health care plan will lead to rationing. Rationing will cut care to those who are deemed of least economic benefit to society.

That victory was followed by a legislative one…the Senate Finance Committee removed the “end-of-life” provision from the health care bill.

Taranto delineates both victories in detail and shoots down the canard that Sarah Palin somehow has a limited intellect. Quite the contrary, Taranto establishes what we at Accomplishments have known for a long time — that Sarah Palin is very highly intelligent and astute.

Click the URL in the reference to read the article. It will spawn a new window or tab depending on your browser configuration.

References

Taranto, J. (2009, August 14). “Palin Wins: If she’s dim and Obama is brilliant, how did he lose the argument to her?” Wall Street Journal. Retrieved August 14, 2009 from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409904574350400852801602.html

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Sarah Palin: Troubling Questions Remain About Obama’s Health Care Plan. We Give The Final Word (Hopefully) On “Death Panels”

Posted by Gary P Jackson on August 14, 2009

The big discussion in health care, thanks to Sarah Palin, has been those metaphoric “death panels.”

Now, I have to laugh out loud because the NYC/D.C. Beltway “elites” with their Ivy League educations have failed again to grasp common sense!

Now whether this is by design, or stupidity, I’ll let others debate, but it is obvious that education was wasted on those in Washington and in the media.

By now you have heard that key Senators in the Senate Finance Committee are saying they will take out certain “end of life” provisions of Obama’s disastrous health care fiasco.

“See, those death panels we swore were never there, now they’re gone!”

Now, these people actually think they’ve done something!

All better now.

Again, I don’t know if politicians and media are just inherently stupid, or are just playing it on TV.

The end of life “counseling” was troubling, for sure, and we have found cases in Oregon where cancer patients were offered suicide drugs, but not cancer treatments. Oregon has statewide socialist medicine as well as assisted suicide laws. It seems that many progressives are members of the Hemlock Society.

Folks, let me be clear. “Death panels” is a metaphor.

For you educated Ivy League “elites”, media and politicians alike see below:

From Merriam-Webster Online:

* Main Entry: met·a·phor

* Pronunciation: \?me-t?-?fo?r also -f?r\

* Function: noun

* Etymology: Middle English methaphor, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French metaphore, from Latin metaphora, from Greek, from metapherein to transfer, from meta- + pherein to bear — more at bear

* Date: 15th century

1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language — compare simile

2 : an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor : symbol 2

— met·a·phor·ic \?me-t?-?fo?r-ik, -?fär-\ or met·a·phor·i·cal \-i-k?l\ adjective

— met·a·phor·i·cal·ly \-i-k(?-)le-\ adverb

You see, those “death panels” are not the end of life counseling, or anything associated with them.

As Sarah Palin, and many others have been pointing out for weeks now, the condition in every single nation that has socialized medicine is rationing. It’s inevitable!

Now we all know the 45 million or so uninsured number, that the democrats throw around at will, is complete bull. It’s likely less than half that number. Take out the illegal aliens, and those who are only temporarily uninsured due to a job change, and it’s even smaller still.

But let’s use their number (or even half of it)

How in the world are you going to add another 20-45 million people into a health care system without adding a substantial amount of new doctors, nurses, and other workers? How can you add 20-45 million people to the health care system without building new hospitals?

And of course, how can you add 20-45 million people to the health care system without spending a whole lot more money?

The answer is: You can’t!

Obama claims you can and that he will. But that’s a provable lie.

With the government takeover of health care, they will have set budgets. It will end up being first come first served.

Years ago, in Waco, Texas, East Waco, to be exact, there was a great barbecue joint. It was in the rough part of town, but all of the big shots loved to eat there. There was always a line out the door and into the street, at lunch time. And it was only open for lunch.

The place had been there since 1947 and the owner/cook/server/cashier was a real character. You went in, placed an order, which oddly enough, was called “an order.” “An order” consisted of roughly ½ pound of beef, however much bread he grabbed, and a coke! This was served on butcher paper, with no silverware, no napkins, no nothin’! He just served it up, and his helper, would take it, and you, to a long table where everyone sat. Pickles and onions could be had if you asked and if he thought you needed ‘em!

I’m not kidding!

It was heaven if you like good barbecue. Oh, and it came with a little bowl of drippins to dunk the meat in, and there was some serious hot sauce on the table.

Here’s the thing though. The old boy knew how much he wanted to sell every day, and how hard he wanted to work. He always made that much, and no more. You needed to want an early lunch if you were going there. Get there late and you might not get fed!

In fact, it wasn’t uncommon to be out in the street, or just inside the door, and hear him yell at his helper:

“Might as well tell them folks to go on over to the Chicken Shack and get a table, I’ll be over there myself pretty quick!”

That was his way of saying he was about done. Of course, few left, hoping his was playin’ around! But he always had more customers than food.

Why did I just tell you that story?

Well, if we allow Obama and the democrats to take over and destroy health care, we will always have more sick patients than doctors, nurses, hospitals, and money. Always.

So, at some point, folks will sit down and start looking for ways to save money, and cut the back load of patients. They will do this by cutting back on services and denying services to those they determine “not worth the effort.”

And there is your “death panel.”

Will they call it that?

Uhhh, nope.

They will be called “advisory boards” and have names like: “Standards and practices” or “patient care panels” or whatever Orwellian name they can come up with.

Sarah Palin has been hitting Obama really hard on this stuff, and has released another statement on why Obamacare is a disaster waiting to happen. Palin has something that is illegal, evidently, in Washington D.C. or New York City, and that is common sense.

Common sense dictates that the snake oil Obama is trying to sell isn’t going to work. And as we told you earlier this week, Sarah has had her own experience with the federal government and health care. When Sarah Palin assumed the Governor’s office Medicaid was an incredible mess in Alaska. Seniors faced long waits and iffy care. She worked to get emergency funding, and then cleaned up the system. The result was in two short years, she reduced the backlog for Medicaid patients by a whopping 83 %!

Look, it’s just this simple: Who do you trust?

Do you trust a rookie President who has never led anything in his life. A back bench state Senator of no importance, who after only serving 140 some odd days, abandoned his U.S. Senate job to run for President? A man who has never run a city, never run a state, never run a lemonade stand? A man who has never held a private sector job, never made a payroll, never had to worry about a budget, or turning a profit?

Or, do you listen to a proven leader. A woman who HAS run a city, HAS run a state, and HAS OWNED a successful small business for 20 years?

Look, congresscritters sit around and debate stuff. By nature, there are few if any leaders. It’s not much more than a big debate society that can write bad legislation on a regular basis.

As Governor of a state, Sarah Palin’s job mirrored that of the President’s. There is a reason why, in the United States, we generally elect Governors to be President, not Senators or congressmen. Being Governor is to lead. Being Governor is to actually have to accomplish something, rather than give it lip service. The buck stops at your desk.

Sarah Palin has already proven that she understands the health care issue better than most. She’s already had to clean up a big mess caused by a federal health care program that wasn’t working at all. When Sarah Palin warns of the looming disaster America faces if Obama and the democrats get their way, she speaks from first hand experience, not some theoretical mind exercise.

She’s actually been there, done that, and got the t-shirt from it!

With that said, Sarah has released some more concerns. Some food for thought, as it were , about the continuing problems with the Obamacare nightmare.

It’s time for us to defeat this mess, neuter Obama, and get ready to take back Congress in a big way. It’s time to run the democrats out of town for good, and get America back to what made it work, using strong conservative principles and ideas.

Before you read Sarah’s statement, Ronald Reagan, way back in 1961, was part of the famous “Coffee Cup Campaign” to stop socialized medicine. It was a bad idea then, it’s a worse idea now!

Please take time to listen to his short message here.

From Sarah’s Facebook page:

Troubling Questions Remain About Obama’s Health Care Plan

I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200). It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.

As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama’s key health care advisors is particularly disturbing. I’m speaking of the “Complete Lives System” advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff. President Obama has not yet stated any opposition to the “Complete Lives System,” a system which, if enacted, would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential. [1] Why the silence from the president on this aspect of his nationalization of health care? Does he agree with the “Complete Lives System”? If not, then why is Dr. Emanuel his policy advisor? What is he advising the president on? I just learned that Dr. Emanuel is now distancing himself from his own work and claiming that his “thinking has evolved” on the question of rationing care to benefit the strong and deny the weak. [2] How convenient that he disavowed his own work only after the nature of his scholarship was revealed to the public at large.

The president is busy assuring us that we can keep our private insurance plans, but common sense (and basic economics) tells us otherwise. The public option in the Democratic health care plan will crowd out private insurers, and that’s what it’s intended to do. A single payer health care plan has been President Obama’s agenda all along, though he is now claiming otherwise. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what he said back in 2003:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan…. A single payer health care plan – universal health care plan – that’s what I would like to see.” [3]

A single-payer health care plan might be what Obama would like to see, but is it what the rest of us would like to see? What does a single payer health care plan look like? We need look no further than other countries who have adopted such a plan. The picture isn’t pretty. [4] The only way they can control costs is to ration care. As I noted in my earlier statement quoting Thomas Sowell, government run health care won’t reduce the price of medical care; it will simply refuse to pay the price. The expensive innovative procedures that people from all over the world come to the United States for will not be available under a government plan that seeks to cover everyone by capping costs.

Our senior citizens are right to be wary of this health care bill. Medical care at the end of life accounts for 80 percent of all health care. When care is rationed, that is naturally where the cuts will be felt first. The “end-of-life” consultations authorized in Section 1233 of HR 3200 were an obvious and heavy handed attempt at pressuring people to reduce the financial burden on the system by minimizing their own care. Worst still, it actually provided a financial incentive to doctors to initiate these consultations. People are right to point out that such a provision doesn’t sound “purely voluntary.”

In an article I noted yesterday, Charles Lane wrote:

“Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life’s end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it’s good to have a doctor’s perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party — the government — recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.” [5]

I agree. Last year, I issued a proclamation for “Healthcare Decisions Day.” [6] The proclamation sought to increase the public’s knowledge about creating living wills and establishing powers of attorney. There was no incentive to choose one option over another. There was certainly no financial incentive for physicians to push anything. In fact, the proclamation explicitly called on medical professionals and lawyers “to volunteer their time and efforts” to provide information to the public.

Comparing the “Healthcare Decisions Day” proclamation to Section 1233 of HR 3200 is ridiculous. The two are like apples and oranges. The attempt to link the two shows how desperate the proponents of nationalized health care are to shift the debate away from the disturbing details of their bill.

There is one aspect of this bill which I have not addressed yet, but it’s a very obvious one. It’s the simple fact that we can’t afford it. But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Doug Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. He told the Senate Budget Committee last month:

“In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.” [7]

Dr. Elmendorf went on to note that this health care legislation would increase spending at an unsustainable rate.

Our nation is already $11.5 trillion in debt. Where will the money come from? Taxes, of course. And will a burdensome new tax help our economy recover? Of course not. The best way to encourage more health care coverage is to foster a strong economy where people can afford to purchase their own coverage if they choose to do so. The current administration’s economic policies have done nothing to help in this regard.

Health care is without a doubt a complex and contentious issue, but health care reform should be a market oriented solution. There are many ways we can reform the system and lower costs without nationalizing it.

The economist Arthur Laffer has taken the lead in pushing for a patient-center health care reform policy. He noted in a Wall Street Journal article earlier this month:

“A patient-centered health-care reform begins with individual ownership of insurance policies and leverages Health Savings Accounts, a low-premium, high-deductible alternative to traditional insurance that includes a tax-advantaged savings account. It allows people to purchase insurance policies across state lines and reduces the number of mandated benefits insurers are required to cover. It reallocates the majority of Medicaid spending into a simple voucher for low-income individuals to purchase their own insurance. And it reduces the cost of medical procedures by reforming tort liability laws.” [8]

Those are real reforms that we can live with and afford. Once again, I warn my fellow Americans that if we go down the path of nationalized health care, there will be no turning back. We must stop and think or we may find ourselves losing even more of our freedoms.

– Sarah Palin

[1] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions

[2] See http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/14/white-house-adviser-backs-off-rationing/

[3]See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hsqzSKuC44

[4] See http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2M0ODk0OTNkZjkwNGM4OGMyYTEwYWY3ODUzMzFiOTc=

[5] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html

[6] See http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1094&type=6

[7] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/cbo-sees-no-federal-cost-savings-in-dem-health-plans.html

[8] See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574324361508092006.html

Posted in 2012, Barracuda, Conservative, establishment, GOP, government control, Governor Palin, Governor Sarah Palin, influential people, Internet Activism, nationalization, Obama, Obamacare, President, reform, Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, USA., Washington, Woman | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Senate drops end-of-life provision from bill, thanks Sarah Palin

Posted by Ron Devito on August 14, 2009

by Clifton Bazar

From Associated Press:

WASHINGTON – Key senators are excluding a provision on end-of-life care from health overhaul legislation after language in a House bill caused a furor.

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly….

It was only seven days ago that Sarah Palin published a five-paragraph statement on her Facebook page that included two words to describe a questionable provision in the House version of the health care reform bill (HR 3200). Those two words “death panel” set off an instant media firestorm that even caused Obama to twice address the issue himself.

While we can all debate the accuracy of Palin’s statement and her choice of words, we cannot debate the effect it had on focusing attention on the end-of-life provision within HR 3200.

Sarah Palin is keenly aware of the media’s dislike of her. She knew that by using sharp words in a shocking statement would set the media off on a new onslaught against her. In doing so, the media inadvertently focus the entire nation on the end-of-life provision within HR3200. Once the nation started looking at the concept of government involved in end-of-life decisions, a new image emerged of what government run health care would mean, and the people liked it even less.

Some might say that calling Sec. 1233 of HR3200 a “death panel” was hitting below the belt, but when you consider some of the underhanded tactics being used to sell Obamacare it seems pretty fair. Sarah Palin understands that Obama and the Democrats are not playing by Marquess of Queensbury rules and therefore has adapted her own set of political street fighting rules.

Now that Palin has won round one, we all wait to see what her next move is and right on cue, you can read her latest Facebook statement here.

Via: Associated Press

Via: Sarah Palin on Facebook

HR 3200

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Sarah Palin: Troubling Questions Remain on “ObamaCare”

Posted by Ron Devito on August 14, 2009

Following is Governor Palin’s statement of August 14, 2009, as posted on her FaceBook account. It addresses the removal of “end of life consultations provisions” from the bill.

I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200). It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones (Palin, 2009, ¶1).

As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama’s key health care advisors is particularly disturbing. I’m speaking of the “Complete Lives System” advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff. President Obama has not yet stated any opposition to the “Complete Lives System,” a system which, if enacted, would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential. [1] Why the silence from the president on this aspect of his nationalization of health care? Does he agree with the “Complete Lives System”? If not, then why is Dr. Emanuel his policy [adviser]? What is he advising the president on? I just learned that Dr. Emanuel is now distancing himself from his own work and claiming that his “thinking has evolved” on the question of rationing care to benefit the strong and deny the weak. [2] How convenient that he disavowed his own work only after the nature of his scholarship was revealed to the public at large (Palin, 2009, ¶2).

The president is busy assuring us that we can keep our private insurance plans, but common sense (and basic economics) tells us otherwise. The public option in the Democratic health care plan will crowd out private insurers, and that’s what it’s intended to do. A single payer health care plan has been President Obama’s agenda all along, though he is now claiming otherwise. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what he said back in 2003: (Palin, 2009, ¶3)

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan…. A single payer health care plan – universal health care plan – that’s what I would like to see.” [3] (Palin, 2009, ¶4)

A single-payer health care plan might be what Obama would like to see, but is it what the rest of us would like to see? What does a single payer health care plan look like? We need look no further than other countries who have adopted such a plan. The picture isn’t pretty. [4] The only way they can control costs is to ration care. As I noted in my earlier statement quoting Thomas Sowell, government run health care won’t reduce the price of medical care; it will simply refuse to pay the price. The expensive innovative procedures that people from all over the world come to the United States for will not be available under a government plan that seeks to cover everyone by capping costs (Palin, 2009, ¶5).

Our senior citizens are right to be wary of this health care bill. Medical care at the end of life accounts for 80 percent of all health care. When care is rationed, that is naturally where the cuts will be felt first. The “end-of-life” consultations authorized in Section 1233 of HR 3200 were an obvious and heavy handed attempt at pressuring people to reduce the financial burden on the system by minimizing their own care. Worst still, it actually provided a financial incentive to doctors to initiate these consultations. People are right to point out that such a provision doesn’t sound “purely voluntary” (Palin, 2009, ¶6)

In an article I noted yesterday, Charles Lane wrote: (Palin, 2009, ¶7)

“Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life’s end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it’s good to have a doctor’s perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party — the government — recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.” [5] (Palin, 2009, ¶8)

I agree. Last year, I issued a proclamation for “Healthcare Decisions Day.” [6] The proclamation sought to increase the public’s knowledge about creating living wills and establishing powers of attorney. There was no incentive to choose one option over another. There was certainly no financial incentive for physicians to push anything. In fact, the proclamation explicitly called on medical professionals and lawyers “to volunteer their time and efforts” to provide information to the public (Palin, 2009, ¶9).

Comparing the “Healthcare Decisions Day” proclamation to Section 1233 of HR 3200 is ridiculous. The two are like apples and oranges. The attempt to link the two shows how desperate the proponents of nationalized health care are to shift the debate away from the disturbing details of their bill (Palin, 2009, ¶10).

There is one aspect of this bill which I have not addressed yet, but it’s a very obvious one. It’s the simple fact that we can’t afford it. But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Doug Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. He told the Senate Budget Committee last month: (Palin, 2009, ¶11)

“In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.” [7] (Palin, 2009, ¶12)

Dr. Elmendorf went on to note that this health care legislation would increase spending at an unsustainable rate (Palin, 2009, ¶13).

Our nation is already $11.5 trillion in debt. Where will the money come from? Taxes, of course. And will a burdensome new tax help our economy recover? Of course not. The best way to encourage more health care coverage is to foster a strong economy where people can afford to purchase their own coverage if they choose to do so. The current administration’s economic policies have done nothing to help in this regard (Palin, 2009, ¶14).

Health care is without a doubt a complex and contentious issue, but health care reform should be a market oriented solution. There are many ways we can reform the system and lower costs without nationalizing it (Palin, 2009, ¶15).

The economist Arthur Laffer has taken the lead in pushing for a patient-center health care reform policy. He noted in a Wall Street Journal article earlier this month: (Palin, 2009, ¶16)

“A patient-centered health-care reform begins with individual ownership of insurance policies and leverages Health Savings Accounts, a low-premium, high-deductible alternative to traditional insurance that includes a tax-advantaged savings account. It allows people to purchase insurance policies across state lines and reduces the number of mandated benefits insurers are required to cover. It reallocates the majority of Medicaid spending into a simple voucher for low-income individuals to purchase their own insurance. And it reduces the cost of medical procedures by reforming tort liability laws.” [8] (Palin, 2009, ¶17)

Those are real reforms that we can live with and afford. Once again, I warn my fellow Americans that if we go down the path of nationalized health care, there will be no turning back. We must stop and think or we may find ourselves losing even more of our freedoms (Palin, 2009, ¶18).

– Sarah Palin

[1] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions
[2] See http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/14/white-house-adviser-backs-off-rationing/
[3]See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hsqzSKuC44
[4] See http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2M0ODk0OTNkZjkwNGM4OGMyYTEwYWY3ODUzMzFiOTc=
[5] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html
[6] See http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1094&type=6
[7] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/cbo-sees-no-federal-cost-savings-in-dem-health-plans.html
[8] See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574324361508092006.html

Commentary

Governor Palin addresses these core issues with her statement: nationalized health care will lead to rationing. Rationing will cut care to those who are deemed of least economic benefit to society. A government run health care system is not free. It must be paid for and the necessary result is higher spending and higher taxes — the exact opposite of what we need for economic growth. Governor Palin delineated one of several market-oriented solutions to reforming our health care system. Further, though end-of-life consultations has been removed from the bill, the core ideology of “Complete Lives” is and remains the underpinning of Obama’s health care plan.

The difference between Governor Palin and Obama could not be more stark. Reagan Conservatism, and a culture that respects life and human dignity underpins her thought process. Obama advocates socialism, communism and a culture that only values life and human dignity to the extent that it provides a stated level of benefit to society. Obama and his administration are advancing a culture of death.

As with her prior statements, Governor Palin has backed up her statements with references and evidence proving her thesis. Her strategy of posting these statements on her FaceBook page and bypassing the mainstream media is nothing short of brilliant — considering that they usually get even the most basic facts wrong.

References

Palin, S.L.H. (2009, August 14). “Troubling questions remain about Obama’s health care plan.” FaceBook, Sarah Palin. Retrieved August 14, 2009 from: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116979483434

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »