Amazing that the president can cheer on the current health-care bills while stating this week: “I think it is important, though, to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702...

http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/os/cerbios...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318915075926...

As you'll recall, Congress had no time to read the stimulus bill so we can hardly be faulted for not knowing the contents!

Amazing that the president can cheer on the current health-care bills while stating this week: “I think it is important, though, to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702...

http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/os/cerbios...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318915075926...

As you'll recall, Congress had no time to read the stimulus bill so we can hardly be faulted for not knowing the contents!

2) It's an OP ED. It's one man's opinion.

3) Palin brought valid points up for discussion.

4) Is Obama's statment that Americans bitterly “cling to guns and religion” any more an example of healthy discourse than using the term “death panels?” Obama's comment was very rude and insulting towards a lot of Americans. It put people on the defense. Palin merely created a type of catch-phrase to describe her interpretation of the amendment. I see no degradation of public discourse in her statement, although I do see it in Obama's.

I believe that this administration does many things in very subtle, underhanded, and “behind closed doors” ways. It's pretty sly of them to begin rationing in the stimulus bill, where not many people would look to find evidence of “death panels” or the sort. I doubt that many people even know about this. Perhaps we've all been duped into believing it'll be in the health care bill. When it's not, there will be less outcry and more support. But alas, here it is in the stimulus bill, where no one would think it would be.

The above quote is from an OP ED. It's one man's opinion. He's also a Democrat pushing for the health reform bill.

Palin's comments regarding Medicare were valid due to the fact that if this bill passes, cuts will need to be made somewhere due to the high cost of the bill. Both the current Senate and House bills plan on cutting $400 billion from Medicare (which will surely be higher since govt. always gives numbers that underestimate the true numbers in the end).

Our society does not exactly place a high value on the elderly. When a Democrat talks about end-of-life counseling (done by govt. officials) in a govt. plan that will expand govt. decisions and make monetary cuts, there is cause for concern. Esp. when you consider the mentality of some that the life of an elderly person is not worth saving in comparison to the life of a young person. And also considering that the elderly often need costly medical care.

It's not that difficult to realize that there are people in this world who believe that the elderly should be assisted and helped in ending their lives as a means of saving money. I don't know if that was necessarily Bleumauer's motive for writing the amendment, but Palin did bring about some discussion on something that is valid and should be discussed.

As for her saying “death panels,” there is nothing different in that kind of discourse than there is with Obama talking about Americans who bitterly “cling to their guns and religion.” Is there?

How does one say, “Obama is not doing a good job,” in a manner that will please him or his supporters? It's a statement of opinion that is perhaps based on factual evidence, and speaking one's mind in this manner does not cause discourse to “deteriorate.” It's the exercise of free speech, and in this nation, we are allowed to criticize our Presidents and speak out when we disagree with their agendas. Both Democrats and Republicans do it. And Bush was vehemently criticized for the 8 years he was President. The difference is, he rose above it, he did not try to silence it, and he endured it.

Sometimes I think some Americans would prefer that we be more like Cuba or China where free speech is suppressed. I am certain our administration would prefer it, as long as those suppressed are opponents or “dissenters.” I do not see the Obama administration encouraging criticsm, accountability, or dissent. After all, it wasn't long ago that conservative critics of Obama were considered to be “extreme right-wing terrorists” according to the Dept. of Homeland Security.

I have never ceased to be amazed at the depths of hatred towards Palin. I saw her interview on O'Reiley (which was exellent), and they discussed the motive behind the furor. He believes it's due to her outspokenly pro-life stance. My suspicion is that it's a combination of things but primarily that she's female, conservative, Christian, and pro-life. Conservative pro-life Chrisitans are most definitely some of the most despised people in this nation, and Palin, who is unashamed and unintimidated by her critics, makes her a “threat” because she speaks for them.

Of course, she also criticized Obama, and she did it with a wink, smile, and a lot of applause, and it angered them. They've never quite gotten over it.

This is my last post on this topic. Thank you for helping me demonstrate exactly how public discourse continues to deteriorate when debaters fail to stay on topic.

Also, why worry about “a reliable source” telling you this or that. We're all on the net and can easily check who said what. I won't ask you to provide the link since you're already off topic.

It appears you have chosen options b.
and d. insofar as you have not argued against Ms. Palin's obvious misrepresentation (type b) and introduced a new subject–bureaucracy and the relative abilities of private corporations vs. the government to assess properly what society as a whole can make available to anyone (type d).

I would ask, if you cannot admit that Ms Palin was grossly deceptive about a topic vital to caring for the citizenry, please leave the discussion as we are dealing here with Ms.Palin's responsibility for deteriorating public discourse not the new subjects you wish to introduce.

Britain's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is a comparative-effectiveness body that has an outstanding record in not only controlling the costs of treatment but also in rationing treatment.

Personally, I would rather argue my case for treatment with a private insurance company concerned about profits than with a government bureaucracy that's managed Medicare into a $37 trillion unfunded liability.

The comparative effectiveness research is a very necessary
discussion which will entail evaluations of medical procedures for maximizing the effectiveness of limited resources in the light of ethical standards. If that sounds like rationing to you, the same considerations are made by private health insurance companies except with profit as their major determinant.

Please read the referenced material with an open mind before trumpeting the Republican talking points to us, or when you do at least say so.

This is the “panel” about which Palin and others have expressed concerns, specifically to what extent will this Council advocate rationing of services and procedures and be empowered to do so.

Where has the dignity of the office of the president gone?