For political charges to stick, they've got to correspond to some discernible reality. They have to track with what an average voter experiences -- or believes -- is within the realm of the possible. During the presidential campaign, voters rejected John McCain's contention that President Obama was a radical socialist who palled around with terrorists because the Obama voters knew from the campaign and the primary did not seem like a rabble-rousing Eugene Debs.
Over the weekend, Gov. Sarah Palin, former Speaker Newt Gingrich
and others seized on a few lines from one of the major health care
bills to try and encapsulate the Democratic Party's entire approach to
health care. As Palin wrote on her Facebook page,
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society.
There are several immediate problems with this, not the least of which is Palin's chosen format. Facebook is not generally a place where serious political charges are lobbed. And Palin, having abdicated her elected executive position a few weeks ago, lacks the automatic standing to be a valued participant in the health care debate. If you're Sarah Palin, and you face an American public that is skeptical about your intellectual bona fides, you've got to choose your spots more carefully. Reading the post, it's hard to see what Palin actually meant. Her political spokesperson later confirmed that Palin was referring to the principle of "community standards," which she linked to a New York Post piece about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a noted cancer physician an a presidential adviser on health care economics and the brother of the Chief of Staff. (Emanuel is also an occasional contributor to the Atlantic.)
Emanuel,
in a few journal articles and an Atlantic feature, has written about
the enormously complex emotional, social and economic decisions that
individuals and the health care system confront whenever someone begins
to die from a terminal illness. Emanuel's thesis adviser at Harvard was
Prof. Michael Sandel, a noted communitarian who has argued that our
political debates bracket gut-level values to our detriment. Emanuel writes in
the tradition of a communaritan who believes that procedural liberalism
-- the reigning philosophy of government today -- does not allow for
priorities among health care services because it "cannot appeal to a
conception of the good." Emanuel writes: "But without appealing to a
conception of the good, it is argued, we can never establish priorities
among health care services and define basic medical services." Emanuel
sketches out a "civic Republicanism" telos -- that is -- our health
care decisions as a society should be yoked to a system that
"promote[s] the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy
future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills,
and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public
deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic." He notes that
such a system would deny "services provided to individuals who are
irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens."
Emanuel
is setting up a contrast: our health care system today treats everyone
equally -- as if they ought to have equal access to every possible
procedure or treatment. To most of us, the status quo seems intuitively
right. Everyone is equal -- equal under God -- Emanuel doesn't say
this, but he might as well -- and therefore it would be evil to make
distinctions. What Emanuel is arguing, here, is that this liberalism
substitutes one goal -- equality -- for another -- a healthy society --
and that substitution may be responsible for the limited choices that
policy-makers confront. He also points out a trade-off between
providing a basic level of coverage for all and providing the
opportunity for anyone with some coverage to get every possible
benefit, treatment and procedure.
Sarah
Palin and Newt Gingrich aren't debating the moral philosophy of John
Rawls, whose formulations Emanuel borrows. They're taking Emanuel's
academic point about health care values, assigning it to Emanuel as if
Emanuel were advocating for something he isn't, then jumping over the
entire health care colossus, and they assign this distorted belief
to Barack Obama by implying an argument that actually disproves the
linkage they are trying to make.
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Gingrich, who hasn't always defended Palin, decided to take the bait.
Didn't matter that the "death panel" about which Palin spoke wasn't in
the health care bill -- (not even in any of the four or five bills that
Gingrich subsequently referenced.) Didn't matter that the provision in
question simply allows the government to pay for end-of-life and
Hospice discussions with your doctor -- something that virtually
everyone with Medicare wants because they often can't pay for lawyers
to advise them about the process, specific language about which that was written by a pro-life Republican.
"I think people are very concerned when you start talking about cost control," Gingrich said.
"You're asking us to believe that government can be trusted. Communal standards historically is a very dangerous concept."
"You're asking us to believe that government can be trusted. Communal standards historically is a very dangerous concept."
Gingrich
is conflating Palin's tertiary fear about Emanuel with the provision in
the health care bills that would establish panels of experts to evaluate procedures for their effectiveness. (As Harold Pollack notes, end of life care would not be a priority for these panels anyway.)
Gingrich
alleged that Emanuel is an advocate of euthanasia and wants doctors to
bring cost-benefit decisions into their end-of-life counseling
sessions." Actually, Emanuel's research shows the opposite.
Let's
say a doctor begins to counsel a patient with terminal pancreatic
cancer. Right now, the health care system incentivizes doctors to keep
that patient in a hospital and on chemotherapy until the day she dies.
Late-stage pancreatic cancer is almost always fatal, and the chances
that the patient will go into remission are very slim. The doctor has
no incentive to tell the patient that hospice care may well be a better
alternative. The last few months of life would be much more
comfortable. Hospice care costs more than hospital care in most
circumstances, Emanuel found -- and so the end-of-life counseling that
a doctor provides has little to do with saving money. If there is any
cost-benefit analysis in this scenario, it's simply that the patient
may value comfort at the end of her life over aggressive, painful
treatments that aren't likely to work (and might actually hasten death
if they don't).
Even if you're familiar with the facts -- Emanuel opposes euthanasia,
he favors giving families more information about end of care decisions
(because families often want this information and don't know enough
about the future to ask about it), he understands the difficulty in
convincing people to think about the costs and benefits of treating
their dying loved one at the end of their life, and he is not writing
the health care bill -- Gingrich's follow-on to Palin's attack is
simply an exercise in unreality.
"Reading the post, it's hard to see what Palin actually meant."
Really? I think it's pretty easy. She meant to scare people into thinking that Obama's plan was to send Trig, Stephen Hawking, and grandma and grandpa to the gas chamber.
Palin, Gingrich, and the rest are pursuing an unbelievably cynical strategy of lying outright. And instead of calling them out for their obvious and intentional lies, the media continues to equivocate the two sides and give us the tired "he said, she said" crap.
Lets just call them for what they are. Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich are "Political Terrorists."
Its not excessive, the definitions fits just right.
Do Palin et al really have a choice but to lie and misrepresent? Consider that they have nothing productive to counter offer, so must resort to dubious, atypical or unreal case examples to attack from and can only put forth a repackaged (i.e. disguised) status quo.
The usual republican lies. What do all these old people at these town hall meetings who are against government health care think Medicare is? If you can't fight using the truth -lie. That's the republican way!
Here's a good video of Obama addressing the "death panels" at a town hall today:
http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2009/08/obama-addresses-death-panels.html
Marc,
That was such a moving piece. If I were a professor, I would use this article as an example of a journalistic piece that skirts the issue at hand:
Obama is for a single-payer system. A single-payer system rations care. A gov't board will decide what is and isn't efficient.
But that is an inconvenient truth. You and Linda Douglass can keep telling us that 2 + 2 + 5, but some of us aren't buying it.
You can only use Sarah Palin as your whipping post for so long. Perhaps you should consider holding all politicians to the same standard of truth. Oh wait, I forgot: the end justifies the means, no?
Sadly, no, Obama doesn't advocate for single-payer. And no, other countries that actually do have single-payer systems aren't euthanizing old people either.
Single payer is not on the table. I'd much prefer it, and it's a shame, but this has been true since before the Democratic primary. So arguing that Obama is secretly implementing single payer when the plan congress has presented is not single payer is--well, it's not even silly. It's just stupid, as stupid as Palin's blithering about the death panel come to steal her baby.
Health care is rationed right now, by insurance companies. If you can pay for what you want--physical therapy, mental health counseling, extra MRIs, experimental treatment, whatever--out of pocket, you can have it. This will not change with a public option (on the table) or with single payer (which I'd like to see us have someday). The pretense that we now have a system that provides unlimited access to all health care to everyone regardless of means is, again, just stupid. The pretense that you can have whatever you can pay for now, but secret death squads won't let you order that gingko bilboa if we have a public option--again, stupid.
And 2 + 2 + 5 = 9.
fyi: there is a difference between single payer and a public option. Obama actually addressed your single payer concern in his town hall today. I suggest taking the time to watch what he has to say on the topic.
Charles, there is a reason you are not a Professor. See your uninformed post above.
Whatever Obama's personal opinions about single payer, which I favor, it is not under consideration.
I would rather have a gov't board--which at least has some some direction from elected officials who may worry a little about their jobs if they tick off too many people--to make healthcare decisions now being made by unaccountable private businesses with profits-trump-all else motives.
Every plan has to ration care, based on premiums or taxes, or it will go bust. The alternative is private companies raising premiums high enough to avoid rationing or public officials raising taxes or upping deficit spending to do the same. How long do you suppose those could go on?
President Obama has said he wants a single-payer plan and wants a government-run plan, aka the public option, to be the intermediate step to calm the fears of the populace. His town hall comments yesterday were one giant whopper.
http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2009/08/the-public-option-trojan-horse-for-single-payer.html
In any event, a government-run plan inexorably leads to a single-payer system. A government "competitor" which has access to unlimited capital, pays no taxes, and writes the rules always wins. Liberals make the same observation about Wal-Mart and it has far fewer powers than the federal government. In some ways, I really don't disagree with them. Why is your Wal-Mart analysis not on point now?
Oh, that Marc Ambinder ... wow, he's such a stickler for detail. He really dots the "i's" and crosses the "t's" when it comes to political persona with whom he disagrees.
Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if Mr Ambinder would apply this same attention to detail across the political spectrum and hold leftie politicians just as accountable?
You think Palin was trying to scare people? Fine. Now tell me what Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Rahm have been trying to do.
How is that double standard working out for you, Ambinder? Doesn't it ever bother you when you're out on the town in the Beltway having one of those Mojitos in Georgetown?
Obama--except for McCain's slander of him after McCain went over to the dark side--Pelosi, Reid, or Rahm were not mentioned in the article being discussed. Try to stay on topic and post your defense of Palin and Gingrich.
Gingrich said, "Communal standards historically is a very dangerous concept." Does he not believe in the 10 Commandments or the Constitution/Bill of Rights? Lack of communal standards is a very dangerous concept!
If you read Zeke Emanuel's writings from several years back, it will shed considerably more light on and about what he really believes. It is not what is being said, here with.
And if we read his writings in their original Cuneiform, they spell out "Paul is Dead" over and over again. Somebody should definitely look into that.
Zeke Emanuel is NOT authoring any of the HC bills in Congress, so your fixation on his academic writings (if you could even comprehend what they're actually saying) is of little relevance to the debate going on over the bills that have actually been proposed.
Wow. This reads like a treatise. Kudos on the level 80 geekery. I, for one, learned some stuff.
As noted, end of life decisions are incredibly complex and personal, and it's a shame to seem them cartoonified into ginormous fear mallets.
That said, I'm not sure I see our current system as treating people "equally". At least not within the framework through with I view equality.
Palin got her 15 minutes of fame and is determined to stay in the limelight by being stupidly outrageous. She should be a fiction writer. Wherever did she get the idea of death panels resulting from health care reform? From Medicare, Medicaid? The idea is an insult to the American people's intelligence and sensibility.
Thank you, Marc. Just to add, those of you who choose to believe what Sarah Palin says in spite of the numerous fact checks might be interested in reading this interview:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/is_the_government_going_to_eut.html
Klein interviewed a Republican senator, Johnny Isakson, from Georgia. He's not a leftie. And here is the relevant direct quote from the interview:
Klein: How did this become a question of euthanasia?
Isakson: I have no idea. I understand -- and you have to check this out -- I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up.
It's amazing how many people believe such nonsense, as Palin's, then they go out and vote and screw themselves and most of the rest of us.
Charles - right now, insurance companies ration health care. They do this by denying coverage for 'non-standard or experimental procedures', not covering pre-existing conditions, by structuring deductibles, co-pays and annual/lifetime maximums to ensure that certain procedures are unaffordable (except for the wealthy) and through their rate structure. Insurnace companies' first obligation is to their shareholders, second to their customers who happen to be other profit-conscious corporations, and thirdly to their claimants (that's where you and I fit in). Unlike auto and homeowners insurance, very few people buy individual health insurance so, as individuals, we have almost nothing to say about cost and coverage. It's all between the health insurers and intermediaries who do not have individuals' (as claimants and customers) interests as a first priority. What if we bought automobiles the same way? What if your company bought automobiles for its workers? You would have only a few models to choose from - they would have to fit the employer's cost containment objectives and would be priced so that the auto manufacturer would enjoy a nice profit. They might drop certain features from time to time such as seat belts, etc, etc. The legacy system we have is stupid. Employers should not be responsible for workers' health insurance. A different system is necessary, one that hopefully will continue to allow private insurance companies to thrive but with standards that promote quality care for their insureds.
Ezekiel Emanuel, whose brother is the President's chief of staff, describes in the article his method of "Complete Lives System": It "produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated." This may be justified by public opinion, since "broad consensus favors adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over very elderly people." He goes on to explain cold-bloodedly why the "death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl," etc., in a clinical exercise of psywar.
--
Source: http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2009/090804ezekiel_fascist.html
Lol, a Larouchie!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_movement
I for one am sick of politicians who use fear as the means to achieve their nefarious ends. To justify massive spending and changes in our way of life based upon nothing but completely unjustified statements with no basis in fact is just wrong.
But enough about global warming.
Way to go, Sarah! Anything that makes liberals' heads explode is not only funny, it's also a great way to expose them for what they really are.
What's the key to understanding the lunatic left? Glad you asked.
Whenever they're criticizing and demonizing others, you have to understand that it's nothing but PROJECTION. Fear-mongering and lying are so engrained in their brains, when they see Republicans scoring points against their agenda - they assume that it must be the result of the very tactics that they use every day.
You see, liberals know that the only way they can advance their agenda in the land of the free is through lies, deception, fear, and division -and they drink this Kool-Aid with all the gusto of a Jonestown cultist. These people's psychological underpinnings are based entirely upon the "ends justifying the means" - truth and objective reality are just silly tales told by an old white man.
Bottom line? Every criticism regarding the "right's" tactics, motives, and intelligence? Projection - they're telling you about themselves.
JoeCrandall, you criticize the left but first you write
"I for one am sick of politicians who use fear as the means to achieve their nefarious ends. To justify massive spending and changes in our way of life based upon nothing but completely unjustified statements with no basis in fact is just wrong." Umm hello - you seem to be in denial that Sarah Palin made a completely unjustified statement with no basis in fact. Does that make her wrong or are facts only important for liberals, but not conservatives?
Aside from this, there's so much wrong with your post that I don't even know where to begin. If you don't believe the health care system needs reform (and it sounds like you view this as having no basis in fact), then there's really nowhere to go with this conversation. And you only lend credence to those of us who believe many people on the right aren't interested in solving problems.
Hmm - interesting. The fact is, people on the right ARE interested in solving problems - that's the real underlying issue between the left and the right. The left is incapable of separating their perception of reality from their own internal psychology. The right is capable of taking a sober, practical, and pragmatic view of the world, based upon objective information, data, historical experience, and analysis of same, and then (and only then) developing a solution to problems that actually exist. The left is interested in achieving utopia, now, and lurches from one "cause" to the next convinced that they are tantalizingly close to achieving their visions.
Y'know, I learned just about everything I needed to know about Obama by watching The Music Man when I was a kid. The con man comes to town, and he's looking to hustle the gullible townsfolk. So what does he have to first? He's got to convince the town that he's the only one who can get them out of the "trouble" that they're in.
And let me burst another bubble for you - you honestly believe that Obama and the rest of these politicians are truly interested in helping people - that they really represent your interests. The fact is - they're interested in grabbing money, power, and influence, and they're willing to tell useful idiots like yourself whatever it is you want to hear to help them do it. Why are they interested in federalizing healthcare? Because that means trillions of dollars, and all the power that goes with it, will be flowing through Washington, DC - and they get to be in control of it. That's all this is about - and the founders of this country understood all too well that power corrupts, and absolute power . . . well, YOU know the rest. Health care, controlled by the feds? I honestly don't know why it is we're having this debate AT ALL - this should all be left to the states and to the people.
Really? Is Sarah Palin really taking a "sober, practical and pragmatic view of the world based on objective information, data"? Please don't tell me you actually think this is credible in any sense. Also difficult to take you seriously when you say you use fictional musicals to judge reality but then say that the left's perception of reality are false...I don't need to watch "Music Man" to figure out what's going on in the world, I figure it out by reading news accounts and watching people on both sides of the aisle talk.
Finally, if you believe things should be left to the states and to the people, can you at least admit that conservatives are not consistent when it comes to concern for states' rights? Stop butting into my state and others when we allow gay marriage. Stop trying to pass FEDERAL legislation to get your concealed weapons into our states without any regard for our state rules. Oh and next time you whine about the awfulness of the federal government, just think about what you'll be using after age 65...that terrible government program known as Medicare!
If Teri Schiavo had been counseled regarding end-of-life decisions and had signed a document affirming that she wished to be kept alive at all costs--which some people do and would not be surprising for a young woman--she would still be alive today. She would be horribly brain-injured and fed through a tube and dealing with pressure sores and contractures. But she would be alive today.
And not a single liberal, left-winger or health-care-planner in the world would object.
The lack of that signed document was the basis for the entire controversy. And the right-wingers have a problem with paying doctors to interview their patients about end-of-life?! That is how much wingnuts love their paranoia.
It's truly amazing you spent the entire article PROVING Sarah Palin's point, but you summarize by saying she is not dealing in reality, leaving the impression that her "Death Panel" statement was made in a reckless and irresponsible manner.
The talking points of the Left are so in lock-step that every single article fails to post her Facebook statement in it's entirety, and on every commentary they keep stating her idea of a "Death Panel" is not in any of the Congressional HealthCare Bills, that she is just LYING, or trying to fan the flames by being dishonest. NOWHERE in her statement does she refer to the "Death Panel" as being in the Congressional HealthCare Bills. Once again the Left sees an obvious opportunity to play "Gothca" on Sarah Palin by connecting two things she did not connect.
Marc, I've got to give you some credit, you at least made a genuine attempt to reach out to your readers to try to explain what Sarah Palin was alluding to. By doing so you actually proved her point. Anyone who continues to point to her "Death Panel" statement and connects it to the HealthCare Bills being offered, or tries to imply that she is speaking about Euthanasia didn't read her Facebook statement in it's entirety or is choosing to pretend they didn't read it.
Marc, I'll show you how you proved Sarah's point. Her "DP" statement is directed at the inevitable conflict every Government run healthcare SYSTEM runs into: Cost containment vs. medical services provided. "DP" exist now in many if not all Government run HealthCare Systems. Patient's medical decisions are weighed against a "Healthy Society".
Two things are present that no one is bringing to the debate and is part of Sarah's "DP" Our Federal Government has no way to pay for this SYSTEM. They can raise taxes as irresponsibly as it has chosen to print money, but over generations the revenue received will shrink and those dollars will have to compete at every bloated and near collapsing program the federal government runs. The programs are endless. E.G. someone's future medical procedure will have to compete against the pinstriping for the newest Gov't Car. My point is RATIONING is inevitable. This is where the "Death Panel" comes in.
Ezekiel Emanuel is the person who Sarah is referring to when she speaks of a "DP", not a Congressional Bill. Without getting into a debate about his influence with PR. Obama, we know he has a voice in his administration. Sarah Palin states: "The America I know and love." Marc you state "Our healthcare system today treats everyone equal. Where every person has equal access to procedures and treatments (obviously if you can afford it or make it your financial priority.). Everyone is equal - equal under God) This is the America Sarah Palin is referring to. You continue: Emanuel draws a contrast between the individual and the obligations of the Gov't(it's people) have to maintaining a "Healthy Society" with a Gov't run healthcare present. So what Emanuel is referring to is each person has a different VALUE QUOTIENT to the "HS". If you are less productive to the STATE your VQ is less. Therefore as Emanuel has stated "That such a system would deny services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens."
So it is easy to see a elderly patient arriving for her end-of-life counseling session, needing by-pass surgery, only to be told NO, you used up your alloted VQ, so here is an inexpensive Nitroglycerin Pill, and by all means wash it down with your favorite scotch. Maybe you will be lucky to make it to the next interview. In truth these every Five year End-Of-Life Interviews are not about end of LIFE, they are about end of your MEDICAL CARE. The "Healthy Society" you and Emanuel refer to does not care about your HEALTH. "HS" only cares about your VALUE QUOTIENT.
Marc, you so casually reveal "Emanuel writes in the "tradition" of a communitarian (you mean Communist? or STATIST?), who believes that "procedural liberalism" -reigning philosophy of government today. I don't think Sarah Palin sees this as the America she knows. Sarah's America of Equal-Under-God as you say it: "It would be EVIL to make distinctions" between individuals or to have a VALUE QUOTIENT for patients. You continue: "What Emanuel is arguing here is that Liberalism substitutes one goal -equality- for another a "HEALThY SOCIETY"
Need I say more. In Sarah Palin's America, the one that has existed up until the arrival of Obama, sees the idea's of the Communitarian, who believes that the Federal Gov't needs to control healthcare, and thus all priorities are to be guided by what the Gov't decides is best for the SYSTEM, are evil concepts. The person, certainly a person who's productivity is hampered by a handicap is thought to be of lesser value to the SYSTEM, and thus his or her part within the SYSTEM must be marginalized. This is why Sarah choose her son Trig and not one of her daughters, along with her elderly parents in her Facebook statement. Sarah like the rest of us wants to know who is making the decisions of who gets what in this SYSTEM. If Ezekiel Emanuel is in charge, it is clear there will be a "Death Panel". There will be no medical treatment available for you if a bureaucrat, not a doctor, states so.
Marc, thank you for exposing what Sarah has already known. That Statists are the antithesis of the America that she and many have known and loved. Her statement on Facebook was directed to the Americans who believe in the same America she does. They also see the "Death Panel" and the evil behind a Federal Gov't run HealthCare SYSTEM.
I haven't read the adjoining Comments yet. I'm sure Sarah will be attak mindlessly, without anyone of them having read her actual Facebook statement. Anyone who took the time to read it knows when speaking of the "Death Panel" she was not referring to the the Congressional Plan. Anyone who states so should be ignored.
I took the time to read your whole post and gotta say, it doesn't make a whole of sense. Sarah Palin WAS specifically talking about the bills in discussion, although I'm willing to believe that she didn't read any of them. Not to mention, other Republicans are sensibly backing away from Sarah's comments. I think we have the right to criticize her for being inaccurate and inflammatory. You can choose to ignore facts but there are no death panels in the legislation. Of note, Alaska's Republican Senator, who presumably also loves America (shockingly, most of us do - loving Sarah Palin and loving America are not the same thing just FYI) said that while she has lots of issues with health care reform, there are no death panels in the legislation.
http://www.adn.com/life/health/story/895431.html
First appointment to Death Panel.
See:
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/paula-abdul-named-to-obama-death-panel/
Mr. Ambinder: Please fix the link to Gov. Palin's statement in your comments. It's actually a link to a 1997 Atlantic article.
your statement on pancreatic cancer is as incorrect as President Obama's calumny on doctors performing unnecessary tonsillectomies was a couple of weeks ago.
I have had the misfortune of losing my father, his sister and one of my mother's brothers all to pancreatic cancer.
In all three cases, they were counseled that hospice care was there best choice.
In our survivors' class, we are told that over 80% of pancreatic cancer patients die at home, surrounded by their loved ones, their pain mediated by hospice professionals.
You are better at what you do than to lazily rely on such muddleheaded anecdotalism.
Heh. Get snippy about Palin, will you? Imagine that tart, using Facebook of all places, where she has immediate access to only about 1,459,714 eyeballs -- of the lowest form of people: Facebook users who sign up to read her notes! My gosh, you even have to click a button that says, "Become a supporter". Kinda gives you the vapors, don't it?
If she were seriously trying to influence the electorate, she would write columns for prestigious outlets like "The Atlantic", where folks like Marc Ambinder have dozens of readers. But they're the right kind of readers: leftists.
Oh, and Marc, you wrote, "about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a noted cancer physician an a presidential adviser on health care economics and the brother of the Chief of Staff." I think the "an" should be "and". I know when you talk quickly, it sounds like you would write "an", but "and" is correct. "An" is a part of speech called an "article", and "and" is a "conjunction". You should really master these details if you want people to take you seriously.
BBB
Obama is, in fact, advocating a single-payer system, trojan horse style.
When the "public" option becomes the only option, can I then call it "single payer" or is there another marketing term you all prefer?
Too bad Armbinder can't write a serious article about the subject, and too bad there's so many flacks that think he's "right on"
It's a tiresome job to wade through the ad homs about Palin and Gingrich (I guess Marc gets paid by the word, which is why we have to suffer his whining about Facebook)
Dr. Emanuel in Lancet 2009 wrote about how to distribute scarce healthcare interventions throughout a population.
His preferred solution is to govern that distribution by age and prognosis. So the young (less than 10) get a small share of the interventions. Those over 40 get a declining share. By 65 it looks like (notionally) that people get about 1/5th the interventions that the 25 year old gets.
So are we talking about end-of-life care? No. We are talking about who gets care and who doesn't. Ok?
Are we talking about euthanasia? No. (Although, Obama has talked about giving people the pain pills)
As we all know now, Emanuel is Sen. Advisor for Health Policy for the OMB.
So, there you have it (sorry for the ad hom Marc)