posted May 02, 2010 11:15 AM            

There were even some here..at LindaLand who bordered on "foaming at the mouth in denial". Those who denied O'Bomber's own Dr Death, Zeke Emanuel was advising O'Bomber using his "Complete Lives" theory to deny life saving and life extending medical care to seniors...and others whom Dr Death and O'Bomber would gladly consign to their graves...when effective medical treatments were available.

So, after O'Bomber, leftists everywhere, including here, lied about the provisions of O'BomberCare and O'Bomber and his coven of comrades in the Congress passed O'BomberCare against the wishes of the American people...we find Sarah Palin was right.

It's now ADMITTED...by a proponent of O'BomberCare.

Nor can leftists remain in denial because the assessment is true and it comes straight from the mouth of a leading leftist.

Now the debate over O'BomberCare will be shifted by leftists into new territory in an attempt to convince the American people that "they have a duty to die" to save money under the monstrous O'BomberCare program.

However, the only "duty" Americans are going to accept gladly is to throw O'Bomber, Dr Death and O'Bomber's Socialist comrades in Congress...out of the Congress of the United States, starting on November 2, 2010.

Obama Supporter Krugman Admits "Death Panels" in Health Care Allow Rationing

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
April 7, 2010

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com)

Now that President Barack Obama has signed the pro-abortion health care bill into law, a supporter of his has admitted the rationing components in it. During an appearance on ABC's "This Week" Paul Krugman admits some of the concerns that pro-life groups pointed out during the debate.

Krugman claims accurately that the cost/benefit board established over private medicine by the new health care program will be able to impose “more or less binding judgments” refusing care.

He said these judgments will save “a lot of money” in the context of treating the elderly and people with disabilities and terminal illnesses.

Krugman also said the panel will prevent treatment that isn't “medically” useful.

Wesley J. Smith, an author and attorney who is a bioethics watchdog, noticed the interview.

"No, the money won't be taken out of the hide of patients who want physiologically useless treatment, it will come at the lethal cost to patients whose treatment will be refused because it could work, based on the invidious judgment that the patient’s life is not worth the money to support," he said in response.

"In short, Krugman has admitted that contrary to the many mendacious denials by Obamacare supporters, the new regime will impose rationing," as happens in the UK, Smith added.

"This is akin to imposing a duty to die because when we reach a certain point in life, we will not be able to obtain treatment we want that could keep us going. Indeed, for me, this centralized federal control over what will and will not be provided in medicine–and to whom–is the biggest reason (among so many) why Obamacare is wrong," Smith commented.

Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council also noticed Krugman's comments.

He said that while FRC and pro-life advocates got heat from backers of the government-run health care bill and the mainstream media for the rationing analysis, Krugman's comments validate the concerns.

"Now that the bill has passed, President Obam's supporters are saying similar things," he noticed. "Krugman is saying that Obamacare will lead to government rationing of health care, in order to save money in the system for healthier individuals."

McClusky also noticed the New York Times getting in on the rationing debate, too.

"Yesterday the Administration’s paper of record, the New York Times, had an article (not an op-ed) wondering how to convince the American people the benefits of saying 'No' to certain medical treatments," he said. "They even go on to suggest that certain early warning systems, like those for prostrate cancer, do more harm then good."

McClusky added: "Perhaps that is true – but the only evidence the NY Times offers is an article by the same author. It sounds more like when the federal government tried telling women not to get mammograms until you are much older then currently recommended – it might save money, but at the potential cost of a few lives that otherwise might have been saved by early detection (at least two of my family members would fit that category.)"

With rationing and abortion, pro-life advocates had several sufficient reasons to oppose the health care bill Obama signed.
http://www.lifenews.com/bio3084.html

posted May 02, 2010 01:01 PM            

this:
"No, the money won't be taken out of the hide of patients who want physiologically useless treatment, it will come at the lethal cost to patients whose treatment will be refused because it could work, based on the invidious judgment that the patient’s life is not worth the money to support," he said in response"

is not a quote from krugman but someone who didn't seem to notice the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "WILL" AND "WILL NOT" WORK

posted May 02, 2010 02:52 PM            

The same logic applies to government bureaucrats...which are the very stuff of O'Bomber's "cost/benefits boards". Bureaucrats who are not doctors will determine who will get treated, what treatments they can get or even if they will get treated at all. O'BomberCare will put non doctor bureaucrats between doctors and their patients and these bureaucrats ARE THE STUFF OF O'BOMBER'S "DEATH PANELS".

As Krugman further admits, these "death panel" bureaucrats will deliver...."more or less, binding judgments"...from which there is NO APPEAL, neither to Administrative Law panels or to the Civilian US Court system. They will be Judge, Jury and the the Final Executioner of Americans treatment options under O'BomberCare.

You utterly fail to establish any credible arguments that O'BomberCare doesn't contain provisions for what are in fact "Death Panels". Krugman says bureaucrats will deliver..."more or less binding judgments" on the subject of health care for Americans and especially for the elderly and those with disabilities and terminal illnesses.

Everyone on Earth already has a "Terminal Illness" from which none are immune. The only question is in the time frame...when will they die.

O'Bomber and Dr Death, Zeke Emanuel want to speed up the process by denying treatments which will either cure or extend the lives of senior citizens...to save the government money on their treatment, save money on their Medicare prescription costs and save money on their Social Security payments.

I know there are some so asleep at the switch that they think just because they can't find the words..."Death Panels" in O'BomberCare that there are no death panels.

Still, those of us who oppose the cost raising, insurance premium raising, tax raising, health care rationing aspects of O'BomberCare aren't worried.

Starting in January, 2011, O'BomberCare is going to be defunded, the death panels will be defunded, lots of government bureaucrats are going to be defunded and starting in January 2013, O'BomberCare is going to be repealed outright.

posted May 02, 2010 11:33 PM            

but YOU are the one asserting the death panels are there, because it's been repeated so many times you believe it, or because you are so sure the british let old people die or because you just plain like worrying about chimerae. just one thing lacking - legitimate evidence. that onus is on you.

once more shall i point out that i have family and friends in england. one is 98 and not suffering from neglect in the medical arena. my mother in law has parkinsons and is getting as good treatment there as you would get here, and she is 76 now.

there are horror stories in every system, theirs and ours. that doesn't mean it's because of socialism or lack thereof.

your OP is titled "death panels...admitted", but they categorically were NOT in the sample provided as positive proof.

and if they ARE in there jumping from the frying pan to the fire is not my idea of a solution. the republicans are just as bad. the whole system is riddled with black holes of corruption.

why not FIND the proof you say is there, challenge the bill on facts and get it altered? cause i think you will get a surprise when you ask people to give up their healthcare, just like the people who were protesting it are dead keen to keep their medicare. even if they don't realize it is government run.

it hasn't even gone into effect yet. it is unlikely to be repealed even if every seat in washington has a republican butt in it. it DOES need sprucing up, even the people who voted for it mostly admit that!

posted May 03, 2010 09:20 AM            

I don't give a rat's ass about your anecdotal ramblings about Britain's Socialist health care system.

The reports coming out of Britain tell the story of denied treatment...and death. They tell the story of negligence on the part of so called health care providers...and death...and no access to the court system to hold Socialist bureaucrats accountable. They tell the story of women giving birth just outside hospitals..instead of a maternity ward. They tell the story of critical patients stacked up in ambulances outside of emergency rooms..instead of inside receiving life saving treatment. They tell the story of panels denying treatment to patients and putting people on a regime of no food, no water, no drugs, no nothing to make sure they die. They tell the story of waiting lists to get an appointment with a doctor so long that British citizens die before they ever get to the top of the list. They tell the story and they tell those stories over and over and over...that Socialist health care is a killer.

In Oregon, there is a panel which decides what..if any treatment options will be paid by the state. There, the evidence is in that these bureaucrats make decisions resulting in the death of Oregon's citizens...when there are viable treatment options.

The very same provisions for panels of bureaucrats making life and death decisions with Americans lives ARE in the O'BomberCare bill. These bureaucrats CAN tell physicians what treatments are "approved" and what treatments ARE NOT APPROVED and if NOT APPROVED...they will not be paid for under O'BomberCare...meaning the physician, hospital, diagnostic consultants and any other provider providing any medical services for that patient WILL NOT BE PAID BY O'BOMBERCARE for treating that patient.

O'BomberCare is designed...that's right katatonic...O'BomberCare is DESIGNED to cause rationing of medical care for those with disabilities, those with life threatening illnesses or diseases who are on Medicare, which are most generally senior citizens.

That's exactly what you would expect when you pull half a TRILLION dollars out of Medicare funding. What anyone with half a functioning brain would expect IS RATIONING OF HEALTH CARE FOR SENIOR CITIZENS.

Sarah Palin was right. Sarah Palin remains right. There are what amounts to "DEATH PANELS" in O'BomberCare...and they are there to deny treatment for Medicare patients...BASED ON A COST/BENEFITS RATIO DETERMINED BY AGE AND DETERMINED BY BUREAUCRATS, NOT BY DOCTORS.

posted May 03, 2010 10:24 AM            

Krugman actually agrees with some of your Obama issues JW [this isn't one of them] and he is a Nobel laureate.

quote:

---

No, Krugman doesn't think there are death panels

March 30, 2010 12:41 pm ET by Matt Gertz

I was somewhat shocked to turn to The Fox Nation this morning and see the following headline:

"Wait a sec," I thought. "Nobel laureate Paul Krugman thinks there are death panels in the health care bill? That doesn't sound right."

And, of course, it isn't.

Fox Nation is linking to a clip from Krugman's appearance on ABC's This Week last Sunday. In the clip, Krugman expresses frustration with a right wing that simultaneously screams about how the recently-passed health care legislation has death panels to kill old people, and claims that the bill won't save money. Krugman notes that this is contradictory: If we were killing old people instead of providing them with health care, obviously we would save money.

Jake Tapper chimes in, tongue planted firmly in cheek, to say, "Death panels would save money, theoretically." The panel laughs. Then, moving on to things that are actually in the bill, rather than the illusory death panels, Krugman says:

The advisory path, which has the ability to make more or less binding judgments on saying this particular expensive treatment actually doesn't do any good medically and so we're not going to pay for it, that is actually going to save quite a lot of money. We don't know how much yet. The CBO gives it very little credit. But most of the health care economists I talk to think it's going to be a really major cost saving.

Why am I so sure that Krugman isn't admitting the existence of death panels in the health reform legislation? Because he's previously referred in his column to the death panel claim as a "complete fabrication," a "smear" (twice), and "lies" (three times), and stated that it's being promoted by a "lunatic fringe."

That "lunatic fringe," of course, is alive and well at Fox Nation and Fox News, which have consistently promoted the death panel myth.

---

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003300019

On the Krugman blog:http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/journamalism/

posted May 03, 2010 11:22 AM            

They intend to save money in the Medicare system by rationing health care for senior citizens...to the tune of half a trillion dollars. That's $500,000,000,000...500 Billion dollars.

Rationing of health care means consigning senior citizens to death...and those rationing decisions will be made by government bureaucrats who are not doctors but who will make decisions on how much treatment costs vs how long the patient is likely to live.

Statistical charts of life expectancy will be used to determine how long senior citizens are expected to live. The problem with life expectancy charts is that they don't tell anyone how long a particular person is going to live.

Further, the longer one lives...the greater their life expectancy becomes.

For instance.

A child born in 2005 has a life expectancy of 77.8 years. That's all races and both sexes.

A person reaching 65 years of age in 2005 has a remaining life expectancy of 18.7 years...or age 83.7.

A person reaching 75 years of age in 2005 has a remaining life expectancy of 12 years...or age 87.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus08.pdf#026

Some are going to live longer than expected and some will not live as long as statistical charts predict.

The problem with bureaucratic bean counters is that they don't know who is going to live longer and who isn't. If they have their way...and O'BomberCare will make sure they have their way...they will calculate that someone who is 76 years old only has about a year and a half to live anyway...AND why waste money treating them.

Now, no more lying about O'Bomber's Cost/Benefits Boards. These are the "death panels" and these Cost/Benefits Boards are in O'BomberCare. The authority to create and fund these Cost/Benefit Boards is found in the so called Stimulus Bill...and the actual framework and authority over life and death decisions for these Cost/Benefits Boards is found in the O'BomberCare Bill.

As Krugman said, there is no appeal from the decisions of the Cost/Benefits Boards. Their "Decisions" are binding...and FINAL.

Krugman screwed up big time. He was trying to make the point that Republicans were complaining that O'BomberCare is going to cost more. That's when he started talking about Medicare savings and talked about THE BOARDS whose decisions are "MORE OR LESS BINDING".

What? Is there someone here who thinks Krugman was talking about these BOARD'S decisions about doctors wearing purple doctors smocks...BEING MORE OR LESS FINAL?

posted May 03, 2010 11:32 AM            

she died a year later. did the dentist kill her? or did he make the decision that was the least of all evils?

your "stories from britain", jwhop are all anecdotal as well. you seem unable to understand that the "news" concentrates on the "bad news", the titillation of people's insecurities, ie the sensational...

so if you want to cancel out what i have seen with my own eyes by using stories out of largely sensationalist news rags, i will rule YOUR anecdotes as inadmissable.

posted May 03, 2010 12:08 PM            

If you don't mind, I'll take their word over your anecdotal accounts.

Something which didn't happen...which is your take on the utter corruption, inefficiency and deadly results of the British Socialist Health Care system....cannot be sensationalized.

It could be totally made up..fake names of people who do not exist, hospitals which do not exist, policies which do not exist, administrators who do not exist, MPs who do not exist...but katatonic, I don't believe that for even a second.

I find your mother's dentist's rationale for extracting teeth rather than repairing them to be totally bizarre.

posted May 03, 2010 12:41 PM            

funny, isn't that exactly what you are worried about with our new healthcare bill?

not sure what you don't get about how the press concentrate on BAD NEWS and sensationalism rather than telling us what is GOOD about anything. those stories are anecdotes just as mine are. difference? mine are not used to sell papers. and if you think i feel the need to lie to convince you of anything you are way off base!! carry on with your delusions if you insist, by all means. the fact remains that there are plenty of horror stories right here in our own "free market" medical system. six of one, half a dozen of another. an ounce of prevention saves you having to endure the cure!

posted May 03, 2010 01:53 PM            

Yes it is. But let me ask you....why would Americans want to import British health care attitudes...they're not going to live long enough for it to matter what kind of care we give them...or whether we give them no care at all...by permitting O'BomberCare to actually go into effect?

posted May 03, 2010 02:45 PM            

But, if my private insurance company EVER reneges on the terms of my policy, they will find themselves in a Court of Law defending themselves against charges of Breach of Contract, Fraud in the Inducement, Fraud in the Execution, specific demands for payment for every single malady which ensues from their breach of contract AND Punitive Damages which will go far beyond monetary costs of providing what they promised to begin with.

But, that's not the proper perspective.

The proper perspective is...why would I permit senior citizens and the disabled to suffer medical murder at the hands of O'Bomber and Dr Death...to reduce Medicare costs for the government. Medicare costs, the payment for which have been payroll deducted from their paychecks for all or most of their working lives?

Get back to me when you can answer that question.

Your credibility as an enlightened or even compassionate individual is destroyed for even suggesting I can escape...while leaving others to suffer death at the hands of O'BomberCare.

All should escape by shiiitcanning this monstrous piece of crap.

posted May 03, 2010 04:24 PM            

So if there are people who have had their insurance companies deny treatment, after having in good faith paid their premiums, what in your opinion should be done? Should they have their money refunded, should they sue? What actions can they take? I hear of parents who have children, who get proceedures denied, after they do pay every month (I don't have any specific one's right in front of me) what can they do? Like the little boy who had (I think) cancer, and the insurance company didn't want to pay for his radiation or something like that.

posted May 03, 2010 05:41 PM            

Of course, the insurance policy should be read closely...before agreeing to accept the terms but if an insurance company is in violation/breach of their agreement...then they should be sued...every time, by anyone who is injured by their actions. Not only should they be sued but punitive damages should be sought in addition to actual damages because corporations not honoring their contracts is against public policy and against the public interest.

One other thing.

Courts will construe contracts most aggressively against the party who wrote the contract. In these cases, it's always the insurance company who wrote the document AND if there are any gray areas in the contract, any language which is unclear or contradictory as to what it means, Courts will hold against the writer of the language...because they wrote it, had control over what it says and if it's unclear, they had the opportunity and duty to make it crystal clear. Courts will rule against the party who wrote unclear or contradictory language into their contract...if that language is at the center of disagreement between the parties.

posted May 03, 2010 06:30 PM            

quote:

---

The proper perspective is...why would I permit senior citizens and the disabled to suffer medical murder at the hands of O'Bomber and Dr Death...to reduce Medicare costs for the government. Medicare costs, the payment for which have been payroll deducted from their paychecks for all or most of their working lives?

Get back to me when you can answer that question.

---

posted May 03, 2010 09:37 PM            

This is going to cause rationing of health care to senior citizens who will simply be refused treatment by O'Bomber's death panels.

Further, nitwit bureaucrats are in no position to decide what treatments are effective and which are not. That's the reason American citizens go to DOCTORS for treatment for illnesses and diseases and don't go to NITWIT BUREAUCRATS.

Well then, good for your Grandfather.

But notice acoustic...IT WAS YOUR GRANDFATHER WHO MADE THE DECISION NOT TO HAVE THE SURGERY. IT WAS NOT SOME NITWIT BUREAUCRAT GETTING BETWEEN YOUR GRANDFATHER AND HIS DOCTOR.

posted May 04, 2010 12:20 PM            

quote:

---

But notice acoustic...IT WAS YOUR GRANDFATHER WHO MADE THE DECISION NOT TO HAVE THE SURGERY. IT WAS NOT SOME NITWIT BUREAUCRAT GETTING BETWEEN YOUR GRANDFATHER AND HIS DOCTOR.

---

True, and I agree that it was good for him to do what he wanted.

posted May 04, 2010 01:30 PM            

But, the talk in America is not about "quality of life", it's about medical freedom with patients and their doctors making decisions about their health care and NOT NITWIT BUREAUCRATS who would refuse them treatment to save the government money in the Medicare system, in the prescription drug program and in Social Security.

Now, if we really want to save some money. Let's euthanize nitwit bureaucrats working in government. That would seriously reduce the bloated government payroll...not to mention savings in pensions and savings on their health care insurance.

After all, once the "Premise" is accepted that it's right and proper to save the government money by effectively killing citizens by refusing medical treatment they've paid for... or in the case of "those whose 'quality of life' don't meet the standards of the euthanasia crowd...to starve and dehydrate them to death; well then, the Premise being accepted, it's only a matter of choosing targets for euthanasia.

I choose nitwit government bureaucrats and members of the "death club", euthanasia enthusiasts.

56% of Americans are not just opposed to O'BomberCare. They want O'BomberCare REPEALED outright.

I disagree that government bureaucrats won't oppose doctors recommendations as to treatment options for their patients.

posted May 04, 2010 02:13 PM            

quote:

---

That's the reason they attempted to slip talks with patients doctors about "end of life issues" into the health care bill(s).

---

We've already been over the benefit of this, though. Without this, your current insurance will pull the plug without a care about ANYONE's consent. If you do the end of life counseling you can voice your choice ahead of time, and it's legally binding. There's nothing wrong with end of life counseling.

quote:

---

The euthanasia crowd has attempted to make health care about "quality of life".

---

That's false. It's not a euthanasia crowd. "Quality of life" is essential moral consideration. If no reasonable quality of life can come from a procedure, why do it? There's no logic to that course of action.

quote:

---

O'BomberCare gives these non doctor bureaucrats

---

posted May 04, 2010 06:00 PM            

the point of choosing your own answers to the questions you may not be able to answer is so no one else can do it for you. it does not remove the right to change your mind if you are capable of choosing. i have seen people choose to override their instructions...

the fact is that just making provisions for what you want done on your behalf ahead of time saves a great deal of money in itself. the decision-making process can be expensive if done by a panel of "experts" and relatives instead of by the person concerned.

posted May 05, 2010 10:43 AM            

America has already decided they don't want government geek bureaucrats or government paid doctors attempting to pressure them to end their lives.

"Quality of life" is an issue which falls squarely on the individual. YOU may decide "your quality of life" doesn't meet your expectations and decide to end it all.

However acoustic...and anyone else from the medical murder enthusiasts of the euthanasia crowd....IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS TO DECIDE WHEN SOMEONE ELSE'S QUALITY OF LIFE DOESN'T MEET THEIR expectations.

That's one of the worst problems with long nosed, busy body leftists. They think they get to make personal decisions for others. They think they get to make decisions about what you eat, how warm or cool you can keep your home, what you can wear, what you can drive, how much money you can make, how long you should live... and a range of other decisions which is absolutely none of their business.

These busy body leftists need to leave the United States and take up residence in a Socialist Mecca. There, a long nosed, busy body leftist will make every decision FOR THEM. They're never going to be happy in the United States where their loony-tunes nonsense is rejected by Americans.

Just looking out for you acoustic. Don't you think you would be much happier having a busy body Socialist making every decision for you...in say, Cuba, North Korea. Venezuela or perhaps Europe? Just think of it acoustic; you'd be relieved of all responsibility to actually think.

You're going to be a hell of a lot more unhappy on November 2nd acoustic.

posted May 05, 2010 11:08 AM            

quote:

---

The so called "benefit" of government paid doctors having a little talk with their patients about "end of life" issues..every 5 years...benefits government, not patients.

---

No. It has negligible affect on the government. It has every benefit for the patient and the patient's family.

quote:

---

However acoustic...and anyone else from the medical murder enthusiasts of the euthanasia crowd....IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS TO DECIDE WHEN SOMEONE ELSE'S QUALITY OF LIFE DOESN'T MEET THEIR expectations.

---

There is no medical murder euthanasia crowd. You're being ridiculous and dramatic.

quote:

---

That's one of the worst problems with long nosed, busy body leftists. They think they get to make personal decisions for others. They think they get to make decisions about what you eat, how warm or cool you can keep your home, what you can wear, what you can drive, how much money you can make, how long you should live... and a range of other decisions which is absolutely none of their business.

---

Another ridiculous statement.

posted May 05, 2010 11:40 AM            

The stated purpose of O'BomberCare is to reduce the costs of dispensing medical services.

The idea that government paid doctors, following the guidelines of O'BomberCare..which is to save money on treatment options..via O'Bomber's Death Panels...are going to counsel their patients on "end of life issues" for the "patients" benefit...is ludicrous in the extreme.

America has already decided they don't want government paid doctors or non doctor euthanasia enthusiasts pressuring them to go home without treatment and die...quickly.

It's not too late for you to make your escape from America before Americans return America to a Constitutional Republic...instead of the Socialist gulag non thinkers like you prefer.

Yeah acoustic, I saw your post on LC and thought it best to fire a shot over your bow before you started yet another argument you are intellectually incapable of finishing.

posted May 05, 2010 11:51 AM            

quote:

---

The idea that government paid doctors, following the guidelines of O'BomberCare..which is to save money on treatment options..via O'Bomber's Death Panels...are going to counsel their patients on "end of life issues" for the "patients" benefit...is ludicrous in the extreme.

---

Perhaps you should consult your doctor on this.

quote:

---

Yeah acoustic, I saw your post on LC and thought it best to fire a shot over your bow before you started yet another argument you are intellectually incapable of finishing.

---

I don't have any trouble finishing arguments, and you're delusional if you think you have the power to dissuade me from something.

I'll always get the moderator mandate from the people, because I'm always the one talking sense from the middle of the storm. There's no better mod currently, and I can do so without the title as I have throughout my time here.