Palin: ‘Death Panels’ Aren’t Literally Panels of Death

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jason Hancock and WashIndependent, TMC Member Feed. TMC Member Feed said: Wash. Independent: Palin: ‘Death Panels’ Aren’t Literally Panels of Death: .. http://bit.ly/njtnh [...]

Wow, some great followup by Rich Lowry there too. No, wait, I was thinking of MIRROR UNIVERSE RICH LOWRY!!!!

Lets see, literal vs figurative. USSR was a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, not a Soviet Empire, though in practice it was empirical in ambition and governance. I don't recall, any Soviet leader being diagnosed with a mental illness or worshiping Satan. Some would call their actions noble and humanitarian, others evil. Bit dubious on the evil part. From a fact check point of view, Regean got it wrong. From a rehtoric pointing out the obvious, he got it right.

Same thing with Palin. There is no panel titled “Death Panel”. However, there is a Comparative Effectiveness Research panel, that is designed to find ways to lower cost. Even before this HCR bill has passed, new guidelines have been released raising the age for Mammogram screening purely for cost purposes and not with studies demonstrating lack of effectiveness. So yes indeed, there are “death panels” which exist even now, driven by devaluing human life to dollar figure … wait, sounds a little bit like that old “evil empire”. Hmm.

Devaluing human life is a universal concept, that finds a home in many places, including this administration and congress.

[...] a comment » Breaking: 2012 Republican frontrunner Sarah Panel says <a href="“>”death panels” neither “panels” nor “deadly”; adds Soviet Union not really “evil.” [...]

“new guidelines have been released raising the age for Mammogram screening purely for cost purposes and not with studies demonstrating lack of effectiveness”

Here is an article in Forbes that sites a Georgetown University study:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/16/mammograms-can…

From that article:

“Overall, they found that starting screening at age 40 instead of age 50 would save relatively few additional lives. To prevent one additional breast cancer death, 1,000 women would have to get mammograms starting at age 40 vs. age 50. But doing this would result in roughly 500 of the 1,000 women getting false positive results at least once, and 33 of them getting unnecessary biopsies, says Jeanne Mandelblatt of Georgetown University, who led one study combining the results of the computer models. “

So that's half of the women getting false positives and 33 getting unnecessary biopsies. Not to mention the mental anguish these women would face, for nothing. This was the first site I went to from a Google search. The studies are out there, you just have to look for them.

Here's another:

http://www.ajho.com/benefits-of-cancer-screenin…

“92% of women overestimated the benefit of mammography screening by at least one order of magnitude or reported that they didn't know”

This one does not deal specifically with the recent findings, but shows us that people overestimate the effectiveness of screening.

My above post is in response to yours. For some reason, it didn't nest under yours as a reply.

“Death panels” was a term created by insurance industry lobbyists, who taught it to the town hall screechers. The insurance lobbyists very specifically said that everyone over age 65 would have to face a panel of bureaucrats every five years, in which they would have to justify their continued existence, Those that failed to be persuasive enough would be euthanised. There was none of the subtlety now being placed on it by Republicans. The people who showed up at the town halls believed in the industry-created idea of real death panels.

It was a complete and total lie. Palin repeated it.

Now we are being told that “death panels” really meant that some people wouldn't get mammograms, which is obviously why these town hall screechers were so upset. They cared very deeply about mammograms, right?

I guess this is why, in the summer, Palin pointed to the optional End-Of-Life Directives as “proof” of the “death panels” existence. Because she was really talking about mammograms, and that media just distorted what she was trying to say.

“Even before this HCR bill has passed, new guidelines have been released raising the age for Mammogram screening purely for cost purposes and not with studies demonstrating lack of effectiveness.”

Perhaps in a parallel universe. The actual recommendationw as based entirely on studies of effectiveness, and didn't actually consider cost. From a fact check point of view, you got it wrong. From a rhetoric pointing out the obvious, you got it wrong. In short, no matter how we measure it you are just plain wrong

What we're seeing here is a dangerous use of the english language.

The teabaggers have been using Communism, Fascism, Socialism and even a reference to a “1984″ concept-Oligarchy. They display behavior consistent with certain aspects of one form, to decry or discredit another. It's all over the place!

So many things in recent months have been taken so far out of context by the baggers, it's hard to know what they want anymore. The only things you can be sure of is that they foster hate and fear. As much as I hate to admit it, there is still a knee-jerk reaction to all this confusion, with a great many people in this country.

People like Sarah Palin are extremely dangerous to the stability of this country. While it's a fact she'll never see the White House from the inside, her ridiculous and insane comments are taken seriously by those predisposed to fear.

I had a lengthy “discussions” with a teabagger over his language of referring to Obama's policy as “Fascism”.

Well, I shouldn't have bothered. He is technically competent, but I don't know how he had passed his humanities classes in college.

Here is trade article on this issue with more domain specific insight:
http://www.auntminnie.com/index.asp?Sec=sup&Sub…

Although the study attempts to paint a picture that there is a vast difference in cost/benefit in earlier screening, we are still left with an impression that cost is involved. This furthered by an editorial by Dr. Karla Kerlikowske at San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center which accompanied the report that states:
“About two additional breast cancer deaths are averted per 1,000 women who receive screening annually,” Kerlikowske said. “Annual screening increases costs, which includes doubling the number of mammography examinations, false-positive results, and breast biopsies, and increases the chance of overdiagnosis.”

Note the increased cost. A rebuttal to the findings is given Dr. Constance Lehman, medical director of radiology and director of breast imaging at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance. “According to the ACS, 17% of breast cancer deaths in 2006 were among women who were diagnosed between ages 40 and 49,” Lehman said. She says, “We know that digital mammography significantly improves the detection of cancer in young women and in women with dense breast tissue. These well-documented facts are not included in the analyses that led to the change in recommendations.”

So the the facts have counter facts. In this case, it cannot be denied that costs are a significant factor. However, proponents will focus on cost to patient health with unnecessary treatment/exam. Those opposed will point to increased benefit and blame financial costs as the reason for the new recommendations.

In short, this issue is anything but clear.

cheap ugg boots

discount ugg boots

ugg classic tall

buy ugg classic cardy boots

sale ugg boots

classic ugg tall boots

ugg classic short boots

classic ugg cardy boots

ugg bailey button

bailey ugg button boots

ugg mayfaire boots

ugg boots mayfaire

ugg argyle knit boots

ugg crochet boots

ugg baby bootie

ugg infant boots

ugg nightfall boots

classic ugg sundance boots

classic ugg nightfall boots

ugg rainier boots

ugg stripe cable nit boot

women's ugg boots

ugg women lo pro boots

ugg classic tall chestnut

ugg grey classic tall boots

ugg classic mini boots

ugg christmas special offer

ugg christmas promotion

purchase ugg boots

This lady is so dumb that she scares me. How has she done so well? I admit that i follow her because i am fascinated that such a dummy can survive at her level.

[...] panels” aren’t really “panels of death,” just like the Soviet Union wasn’t really an evil empire … see how that [...]

What most of you are failing to understand is that “death panel”, “communists”, and those pesky “1984″ references are not meant to be taken literally. They are representative of what most conservatives suspect will be the end result of the policies/efforts being discussed.

Government intervention in health care will lead to government RUNNING the healthy industry, which will in turn lead to the necessity of establishing a bureacracy to determine the appropriate levels of care for individuals – in short, “death panels”. Any bureaucratic body that may make a decision to disallow a life-saving procedure would be, by definition, a death panel.

Obama seems to think every problem can be solved by increased governmental interference. Use that logic as a leader and you get a populace controlled by the governing body – a communist country. Do it halfway and “socialism” really isn't a bad name for it.

No one believes our country will ever magically turn into Oceania – instead, we'll become similar to it, one small step at a time. The 1984 references are meant to invoke the image of what each of those small steps will lead to.

In other words, don't be stupid. No one really thinks that Sarah Palin suspects death panels of lurking in her backyard and peeking in the windows. To try to explain her comments in that fashion is beyond ridiculous and is merely a tool used by her detractors.

What most of you are failing to understand is that “death panel”, “communists”, and those pesky “1984″ references are not meant to be taken literally. They are representative of what most conservatives suspect will be the end result of the policies/efforts being discussed.

Government intervention in health care will lead to government RUNNING the healthy industry, which will in turn lead to the necessity of establishing a bureacracy to determine the appropriate levels of care for individuals – in short, “death panels”. Any bureaucratic body that may make a decision to disallow a life-saving procedure would be, by definition, a death panel.

Obama seems to think every problem can be solved by increased governmental interference. Use that logic as a leader and you get a populace controlled by the governing body – a communist country. Do it halfway and “socialism” really isn't a bad name for it.

No one believes our country will ever magically turn into Oceania – instead, we'll become similar to it, one small step at a time. The 1984 references are meant to invoke the image of what each of those small steps will lead to.

In other words, don't be stupid. No one really thinks that Sarah Palin suspects death panels of lurking in her backyard and peeking in the windows. To try to explain her comments in that fashion is beyond ridiculous and is merely a tool used by her detractors.

Thanks for this interesting post,i like it.