Gingrich defends Palin on "death panels" claim

The Supreme Court once ruled that screaming "fire" in a crowded theater just for the shockvalue of it would not be protected by the First Amendment. Why can prominent politicians scream into America that equates to saying that President Obama is planning to include euthanasia in his health reform. I am no Obama fan, but I am sure that Barack Obama is not insane.

The type of hyperbole demonstrated in Palin’s words is characteristic of both the Democrats and Republicans and are a disservice to the people they have sworn to serve. The United States needs some kind of healthcare reform. Instead of both sides making grandiose statements crafted to shock and inflame, why don’t they roll up their sleeves and get to business reforming healthcare?! They need to determine what is wrong in this healthcare package and work to fix it. Palin’s words and those using such hyperbole don’t do anyone service. Of course there are not going to be “death panels” however, putting medical decisions in the hand of bean counters to determine what procedures shall be paid for and thus performed is putting the power in the hands of the wrong people. Many voters don’t read each and every page of the bill and some voters don’t understand all the verbiage. In many ways they rely on their “leaders” who are paid to do that, watch out for their best interests. Calling something a “death panel” stops further discussion. Of course no one wants a death panel but with a little tweaking of the bill, death panels or their equivalent will be less likely. Why don’t they speak to the issue instead of the shock factor? Medicare is going to be broke in 10 years. Doesn’t anyone think we should be looking into alternatives? I don’t like the idea of government run healthcare but I do want healthcare reform to begin. It can’t begin until our leaders sit down, quit posturing and get to work. Maybe if they stop these childish games they can come up with some solutions and that doesn’t necessarily mean government run healthcare. The first step would be for our leaders to actually read the bill before voting on it!!!!

By the way, some of the existing healthcare programs, some HMOs, trust fund polcies, etc. already have death panels; refusing to finance treatment and dropping patients. Why isn’t Palin worried about ending that as well?

I, too, thought Palin's "death panel" reference was an exaggerated scare tactic. Maybe that choice of words was poor, but she does a good job of defending her perspective here:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434

If the broad masses looked for politician's clay feet before putting halos onto them, nations would have far less problems in peace or war, prosperity or economic recessions et cetera ; et cetera. Hitler's reference to the "Jewish menace" was exaggerated but he made a good job of defending his perspective to 80 million people. I know I was there. Seven years in Nazi occupied Austria. Am I necessarily comparing Palin and Hitler....heaven forbid. But I am pointing out the willingness of a people to find excuses, excuses, excuses for the politicians of their choice, and their readiness to mindless scapegoating.

Palin's choice of words was as calculated as everything that woman ever does and did. Like parading her disabled child before the American people during the presidential campaign. Who is tending to the child now while she is all over the place like a spreading fungus. Apparently it is not the child's mother. As I have pointed out (above) look for the clay feet lest they shall walk all over a people, yearning for stability, prosperity and domestic tranquility. Sarah Palin so far has shown that she is a separator and not a reconciliator (for lack of better words). Would I ever attempt to change her. Heaven forbid! But do I want the fate of my people and mine in her hands? Heaven forbid!

I have read that the end of life clause will most likely be removed from any health care bill, Palin has made an impact. The fact is that when people become patients they rightly expect that hospitals to promote life, theirs in particular. Whether or not patients feel that way after that special "what if" conversation has alot to do with their frame of mind about recovery in general. In the case of advanced directives, psychologists take a fairly long period of time confronting death issues of their patients in therapy for good reason. In contrast for patients who have not considered such issues, sometimes the topic is covered and a decision made in a couple of minutes at hospitals. If part of this debate is "advanced directives," is it a good idea for everyone to have one? I don't know everyone. I do know that a patient is dynamic, and that the circumstances thus their mind about previous decisions do change sometimes during treatment (if they are conscious.) It is generally difficult to believe that all patients and their families truly understand the nature of medical diagnosis, but I wouldn't trust any government that also owns the means of production to make any medical decisions for me.

Bart, the whole premise of the "end of life" clause was to offer counseling for the very reasons you mentioned. People, including Palin, just didn't understand that or they fell for the right wing spin so now they'll be dropping it. She had an impact alright because she didn't get it. Apparently neither did Gingrich. And if you think the government was going to make the end of life decisions for you then you don't get it either. No where did it say that.

I just assumed the counseling would have been performed by medical counselors...not the government. And it was available if anyone wanted....optional in other words.

That's ok.....it's a small item to give up if it makes everyone on the right happy.

Well certainly a psychotic attack of your comments wasn't what I was going for so my apologies. I've actually liked your comments of late. They've been more sensible as opposed to the usual diatribe many of us tend to throw up day to day. I had hoped I was reciprocating. Sensible comments tend to bring out more sensible comments from me.

Do I have a more "healthy leap of faith" in government lately? I hadn't thought of it that way but I think you may be right.

It was a forgone conclusion to everyone in their right mind that "end of life " counseling would be done by by qualified physicians and members of the clergy, and not by some United Sates Office of Euthanasia as implied by the sweetheart of the ultra-right, who will stop at nothing to disrupt the Obama presidency. For that is the right-wing agenda, not the proposed health care reform. Though I too wished that I could know more about it and that government would not try to railroad it through so quickly. If Washington really wanted to do something for the millions of uninsured, pass a temporary bill to allow medical care for those in need. I grew up with socialized medicine. I saw only physicians when I was sick, never a government clerk. And the physicians only contracted with the tax payer supported system. They were not employees of the system. And politics was not a part of the equation.

But I can tell you about politics in matters where it does not belong. I saw with my own eyes the semblance of newspapers reporting that Jews practiced human sacrifice of Christian children. It was not in the daily press, but in special cases mounted to building walls. It's sole purpose....to instill fear and revulsion against a minority who ultimately was murdered. Six millions of them. That was the number of the entire Austrian population when Nazi Germany annexed Austria to the Third Reich.

Ach and alas! Precious, young American blood drenched the soil of Europe. Soldiers who were fighting against Nazi Germany. To put into words the conclusion would be superfluous because people are already thinking it. Amen!