• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Palin Endorsed End Of Life Counseling As Governor

sam_w

sam_w

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
724
Reaction score
279
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
For ‘Death Panels’ Before She Was Against Them? Palin Endorsed End Of Life Counseling As Governor

In recent weeks, right-wing groups have been pushing the myth that health care reform will somehow kill seniors. One of the most high profile voices pushing this lie has been Sarah Palin, who claimed President Obama will institute bureaucratic “death panels.” Today, again on her Facebook page, she continued the attack. Though some Republicans have rebuffed this absurd, inaccurate notion — like Johnny Isakson (R-GA), who called such talk “nuts” — others, like Newt Gingrich, have piled on to agree with Palin.

However, on April 16th 2008, then Gov. Sarah Palin endorsed some of the same end of life counseling she now decries as a form of euthanasia. In a proclamation announcing “Healthcare Decisions Day,” Palin urged public facilities to provide better information about advance directives, and made it clear that it is critical for seniors to be informed of such options:

WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions. [...]

WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to volunteer their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaska’s citizens with advance directives.

WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives.​

Though this proclamation is now deleted from the Alaska governor’s website, it shows that Palin’s current fear-mongering is purely political. Palin is not the only conservative leader completely flip-flopping on this issue. Merely months ago, Gingrich too endorsed end of life counseling. At a conference in April of this year, Gingrich said advance directives can “save money” while also helping to “decrease the stress felt by caregivers.”
Click to expand...

:rofl Crass shameless dishonest and deception. Any surprise with Caribou Barbie? To think there are some that still follow this loser.
 
That woman is like Dick Cheney...you can tell she's lying because her lips are moving...
 
Did Palin propose that elderly Americans be denied medical care, because they weren't worth the investment, like PBO wants to do? Show me where she did that and I'll agree with you.
 
apdst said:
Did Palin propose that elderly Americans be denied medical care, because they weren't worth the investment, like PBO wants to do? Show me where she did that and I'll agree with you.
Click to expand...

Sorry, fail. Your goddess is a moron, a liar, and a hypocrite.
 
apdst said:
Did Palin propose that elderly Americans be denied medical care, because they weren't worth the investment, like PBO wants to do? Show me where she did that and I'll agree with you.
Click to expand...

Only ones proposing that are the right, since they are seeing the boogie man everywhere where it is not and making up crap along the way.
 
PeteEU said:
Only ones proposing that are the right, since they are seeing the boogie man everywhere where it is not and making up crap along the way.
Click to expand...

I think it is hilarious that the right actually thinks that we on the left would actually want death panels, or telling granny she has to die.
 
apdst said:
Did Palin propose that elderly Americans be denied medical care, because they weren't worth the investment, like PBO wants to do? Show me where she did that and I'll agree with you.
Click to expand...

Tell you what...

You show us exactly where the health care bill wants to do this and you won't look so foolish clinging to a talking point that has been debunked numerous times.
 
I'm not lending any credibility to the notion that Obama's plan will euthanize seniors when they get too expensive however how in the world would that notion be at all similar to advising patients to think about and put in place advance directives? :confused:
 
PeteEU said:
Only ones proposing that are the right, since they are seeing the boogie man everywhere where it is not and making up crap along the way.
Click to expand...

That's your retort? Are you serious?


hazlnut said:
Tell you what...

You show us exactly where the health care bill wants to do this and you won't look so foolish clinging to a talking point that has been debunked numerous times.
Click to expand...


It's never been debunked. All the info you need is in Section 1233 of HR 3200. Now, if you can show where that section DOESN'T say that, then you win. That should be easy enough. Right?
 
talloulou said:
I'm not lending any credibility to the notion that Obama's plan will euthanize seniors when they get too expensive however how in the world would that notion be at all similar to advising patients to think about and put in place advance directives? :confused:
Click to expand...

No one said euthanize. That's an addition to the context from, well, you-know-who.
 
talloulou said:
I'm not lending any credibility to the notion that Obama's plan will euthanize seniors when they get too expensive however how in the world would that notion be at all similar to advising patients to think about and put in place advance directives? :confused:
Click to expand...

A.) There is no provision telling people how to die, only a provsion on paying for someone to talk to a doctor about end of life options, otherwise known as a living will.

B.) This has been part of Medicare for some time now, they are simply adding this provision to the current bill to insure it is included

C.) It was a Republican, not President Obama who put this in the current bill

D.) This also happens to be a provision currently that is well received by Medicare recipients.

E.) This is a shameless and despicable act by (R)epugnants who are so void of ideas that they can only offer fear mongering. If that is all they can offer the people, then they are a party that needs to die so that a true legitimate party can arise that will offer ideas.
 
sam_w said:
A.) There is no provision telling people how to die, only a provsion on paying for someone to talk to a doctor about end of life options, otherwise known as a living will.

B.) This has been part of Medicare for some time now, they are simply adding this provision to the current bill to insure it is included

C.) It was a Republican, not President Obama who put this in the current bill

D.) This also happens to be a provision currently that is well received by Medicare recipients.

E.) This is a shameless and despicable act by (R)epugnants who are so void of ideas that they can only offer fear mongering. If that is all they can offer the people, then they are a party that needs to die so that a true legitimate party can arise that will offer ideas.
Click to expand...

I got a C-note for the first person who posts language from the actual bill that proves Palin wrong. You must provide section, paragraph, line and page numbers.

Anyone got the balls for that one?
 
I think we are all missing an important element here, and that is: Consider the source? thinkprogress? are you ****ing serious? The only way faster to ridicule is to quote Fox! :lol:
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
I got a C-note for the first person who posts language from the actual bill that proves Palin wrong. You must provide section, paragraph, line and page numbers.

Anyone got the balls for that one?
Click to expand...

I posted the section of the bill pertaining to end of life consultations in the other thread you started on this issue. Would you like me to PM you with my mailing address so you can send me the money?
 
goldendog said:
That woman is like Dick Cheney...you can tell she's lying because her lips are moving...
Click to expand...
Why don't you give your stale rhetoric a rest?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I posted the section of the bill pertaining to end of life consultations in the other thread you started on this issue. Would you like me to PM you with my mailing address so you can send me the money?
Click to expand...

No, you posted a link, in another thread, to the entire bill. Kindly transcribe the info here, for all to see and analyze, with your explanation of how Plain's wrong and we'll see if it's winner-winner, chicken-dinner.

I'm sure this will be your last post on this thread.
 
Once again, here you go:

Here is the section you are referring to:

(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
9
‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.
‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--
‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;
‘(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).
‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State--
‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and
‘(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).
‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that--
‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;
‘(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and
‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.

Read, read it aloud if it helps it sink in, no where in that section is there anything remotely described like a government death panel deciding who lives and who dies.

It is just like I described it earlier, nothing but a provision for physicians, specifically doctors or nurse practitioners to be paid for time they spend discussing medical end of life issues with a patient. It then states that any consultation they are given must fall under the guidelines of the state laws the physician practices in. Thats all it does. In fact, it will only pay for such a consultation with your physician once every 5 years.

So your Goddess of Ignorance and Annoying Accents that never misses a conceivable opportunity to whore her special needs child out for political gain, is indeed a liar, or just crazy. I guess if she actually believed the government was out to kill her kid that would make her just insane so it is possible that she is insane rather than a willfully ignorant habitual liar.

Personally, as someone that is from the south and thus has been around plenty of white trash in my life, I think she is just the stereotypical white trash with money and a microphone, but thats just me.
 
Last edited:
DarkWizard12 said:
I think we are all missing an important element here, and that is: Consider the source? thinkprogress? are you ****ing serious? The only way faster to ridicule is to quote Fox! :lol:
Click to expand...

And think of your response, you did not read the article, or more importantly the links supporting the article. You get an F
 
Don't worry, Palin would only recommend that kind of counseling for liberals. :mrgreen:
 
But, what about this little part, here?

‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings;
Click to expand...

Exactly, what legal barriers have to be addressed concerning life sustaining treatment?

As far as I know, there's not a single law that prevents doctors from saving life. Do you know of one? Of course you don't and therein lies the reason for the language in that part of the bill.

You lose. Ok...next?!?
 
Zeke Emanuel on Sarah Palin’s Accusation of 'Death Panels': 'It’s An Absolute Outrage'

An opponent of euthanasia, Emanuel says he “abhor”s people “cavalierly distorting those writings and the work that I’ve done over 25 years to help improve medical care in America for vulnerable people who often have no voice.”

In fact, as an academic he looked into the notion of euthanasia when the “Right to Die” movement started gaining attention and he says he’s been “very solidly consistently against it.” The misperception was prevalent, he says, that those seeking assisted suicide did so because they were “writhing in pain,” when in fact the main motivation for those seeking voluntary euthanasia was depression.

One of the passages written by Emanuel and used as evidence by Palin and others that he would favor withholding medical care from those who aren’t productive members of society include a 1996 contribution to the Hastings Center Report, in which he said that under the “civic republican or deliberative democratic” construct, “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason."

Is he saying, as Palin and others have suggested, that those who aren’t “participating citizens” should have no guarantee to health care?

“No,” Emanuel says, “and I think I made it pretty clear I wasn’t endorsing that view, I was analyzing that perspective and what it might mean in practical terms. The rest of the text around that quote made it made it pretty clear I was trying to analyze it and understand it, not endorse it.”
Click to expand...

Emanuel acknowledges that philosophical treatises can be difficult to consume and might lend themselves to this kind of misinterpretation. People in the world of academia “tend to know your whole body of work, and when they make a response it tends to be to one line of argument in context.” But that said, “a lot of philosophy can sometimes seem extremely abstract to people and hard to follow -- even well-educated people.” He says sometimes he has trouble following a philosophical article. “They’re not necessarily the easiest thing to read.”
Click to expand...

Expecting someone like Caribou Barbie to understand philosophical treatises? Hell a menu at Denny's restaurants is probably more than she can handle.:rofl
 
apdst said:
But, what about this little part, here?



Exactly, what legal barriers have to be addressed concerning life sustaining treatment?

As far as I know, there's not a single law that prevents doctors from saving life. Do you know of one? Of course you don't and therein lies the reason for the language in that part of the bill.

You lose. Ok...next?!?
Click to expand...

Directly after the line you quoted:

and
‘(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).
‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that--
‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;
‘(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and
‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.


The legal barriers that have to be addressed according to the section on this issue are state laws regarding end of life decisions and living wills.

For example, in some states you can expressly state in a living will that you do not want anything beyond a respirator in the event you are in a coma with no hope of recovery. In other states, the laws differ. Thats all it means. It basically is saying that this section will be restricted by the laws of the state the practitioner practices in.

Perhaps if they had a paraphrased version of the bill with cartoon characters acting out the various sections of it Palin would have been able to comprehend it better.
 
Last edited:
The problem is the bill is like 1000 pages long and hardly anyone is going to read it. Instead they're listening to radio and getting all hysterical. It doesn't help matters much though that there are sound bites of Obama talking about his grandmom and how much chronically ill and terminally ill people cost and how there are moral questions as to whether we should pay for things like his grandmom's hip replacement. Freaking the 'ol timers out. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom