House of Eratosthenes

It’s always a huge red flag when large throngs of people are feeling super smart, just for climbing on a bandwagon, especially if it involves them all heckling some common target of ridicule. And when their underlying argument is little more than pointing to everyone else in the bandwagon and saying something like “everybody thinks so.” You see that, odds are you’re seeing a long, dragged-out slow-motion car wreck.

But I guess some people never matured past the eighth grade or something…

From Best of Cain.

“The Emporo…..”

Oh, never mind. I’ll just stick with “You LIE!”
- CaptDMO | 09/11/2013 @ 06:03
Federal rules on transplants were implemented in 2005, so it has nothing to do with Obamacare.
- Zachriel | 09/11/2013 @ 12:13
Yes, there are all sorts of fine, subtle little nuances to be teased out, and it takes a real powerhouse intellect to be able to see them. They wouldn’t be quite so much “panels,” but “committees”…and they wouldn’t be deciding about “death,” but about “end of life counseling,” a provision that was removed from the legislation anyway, after Palin used her colorful rhetoric to point it out. So in that sense the administration sort of made it into a “lie”; nice move.

I don’t think we should go through these meaningless gestures pretending the backlash was all about accuracy though. It never was. Had that been the case, some flak would’ve come back President Obama’s way for the “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor” stuff. And for agreeing with Palin, Howard Dean would be in line for the next Lie of the Year honors.

No, the pushback was never about accuracy. It was then, and is today, about using effective language to describe to the electorate what was about to happen, so that more informed decisions could be made. The Left has become accustomed to their political opponents consistently failing at this, and can’t believe someone finally managed to beat them at their own game. All the “transplant” fektoids aside, it really all just comes down to one question: Can I expect to have some bureaucrat thousands of miles away, due to budgetary concerns, deny treatment for a patient who, in another system, or in our system pre-tinkering, would be able to get it?

So many loudmouths ready and willing to “debunk” Palin’s claim. But nobody’s willing to provide a negative answer to that question. That nicely debunks the so-called debunking.
- mkfreeberg | 09/11/2013 @ 12:43
mkfreeberg: All the “transplant” fektoids aside, …

Best of Cain: No piece of legislation would say such a thing. The death panels don’t result from the letter of the law. They result from the predictable impacts of the law.

The blog clearly refers to Sarah Murnaghan as a “real-life example” of the impact of the Affordable Care Act. Yet, the transplant rules in question were implemented during the Bush Administration.

mkfreeberg: it really all just comes down to one question: Can I expect to have some bureaucrat thousands of miles away, due to budgetary concerns, deny treatment for a patient who, in another system, or in our system pre-tinkering, would be able to get it?

Maybe that’s the question, but if you base your argument on a falsehood, then your argument is without basis.
- Zachriel | 09/11/2013 @ 12:58
First-class debunking, going on here.

Load AffordableCareActLegislation.pdf…now then, control+F. Find “deth panels.”

SEARCH PHRASE NOT FOUND.

I knew it! Silly Eskimo whore! Gonna write an article debunking her clame!! And then tweet it.
- mkfreeberg | 09/11/2013 @ 13:27
mkfreeberg: Load AffordableCareActLegislation.pdf…now then, control+F. Find “deth panels.”

We’re more than willing to entertain that the law may have impacts on the provision of care, but, again, if you base an argument on a falsehood, then your argument has no foundation. If you won’t address false claims in your argument, then you are avoiding.

By the way, are organs for organ transplants rationed? Any idea why? Any idea how?
- Zachriel | 09/11/2013 @ 14:42
The rules may have been originally implemented in ’05, but the Cabinet secretary currently interpreting them is Obama’s appointee, by definition committed to Obamacare, and her portfolio is the department directly responsible for health care policy, so it really won’t do to say her decision has nothing to do with Obamacare.
- Rich Fader | 09/11/2013 @ 16:07
Rich Fader: The rules may have been originally implemented in ’05, but the Cabinet secretary currently interpreting them is Obama’s appointee, by definition committed to Obamacare, and her portfolio is the department directly responsible for health care policy, so it really won’t do to say her decision has nothing to do with Obamacare.

The rules were interpreted by protocols and procedures established in the Bush Administration, not by the cabinet secretary. We’ll ask again, are organs for organ transplants rationed? If so, why? If so, how?
- Zachriel | 09/11/2013 @ 16:39
The rules were interpreted by protocols and procedures established in the Bush Administration, not by the cabinet secretary. We’ll ask again, are organs for organ transplants rationed? If so, why? If so, how?

Yeah, that whole thing is a non-starter.

I’m more than willing to entertain that there’s a special Move-On Media-Matters Think-Progress brand of Gumby-universe logic that will oblige me to tut-tut away about what a dumb stupid chucklehead that Sarah Palin is with her lie about death panels — even as I’m waiting a year or two, UK-HNS style, for my next referral under the ACA.

The reason all this doesn’t matter is that Palin’s original comments were not quite so much about the end-of-life counseling provisions since removed (after we were condescendingly told by all sorts of lefty loudmouths that there was no such thing), nor about the IPAB, but about a very simple principle: What the government subsidizes, the government controls. Hence her quote from Thomas Sowell, who’s been pointing out exactly that thing for years. And this is exactly what people needed to be hearing. Who among us doesn’t personally know all sorts of decent people, who don’t give a rip about democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, which side of King Louis XVI the reformers sat in Parliament in the eighteenth century, etc. etc. etc. but are mistakenly inclined to support the ACA because they want speedier, surer, and less expensive access to health care? And yet, have not managed to learn about the true effects of nationalized medical systems.

By commenting on this simple cause-and-effect relationship between nationalizing health care systems, and longer lines & longer waits for basic procedures, Palin was commenting on something as sure, and as fundamental to how the universe works, as gravity. Bureaucrats make final calls, and part of their job is to work within finite resources, therefore there WILL be rationing. It’s like saying, if you drop a rock, it will reach the ground. Here & there someone may find an exception, but these “Control+F DETH PANELS NOT FOUND” people trying to tease out some nuance so they can make a “lie” or “fib” or “chestnut” out of it, are proving nothing other than either they don’t understand what she was pointing out, or they’re trying to address an intended audience that can’t get this. They’re among the deceivers, or the deceived.

With each word, they’re proving that.

Now, when should Howard Dean be singled out for “Lie of the Year,” since he just said the same thing.
- mkfreeberg | 09/11/2013 @ 17:55
mkfreeberg: even as I’m waiting a year or two, UK-HNS style

The problem with copying links to the right wing echo chamber is that the original study does not support the claim. In fact, the Keogh report, which the claim is based on, states that it is not possible to reach that conclusion. Even if you accept the fiture, it is not compared to avoidable deaths in other countries, such as the U.S., to provide context.

mkfreeberg: The reason all this doesn’t matter is that Palin’s original comments were not quite so much about the end-of-life counseling provisions since removed …

Now, thanks to Palin and others of her ilk, many people will now have to pay for important end-of-life counseling out-of-pocket.

mkfreeberg: What the government subsidizes, the government controls.

Perhaps, but the example provided was based on a false premise. If you answered the questions we posed, we might have been able to address your concern, but that is something you are incapable of doing apparently.

mkfreeberg: Palin was commenting on something as sure, and as fundamental to how the universe works, as gravity.

No, she was throwing tomatoes without regard to the veracity of the claims. By refusing to confront demonstrable errors, you are doing the same.

Are organs for organ transplants rationed? If so, why? If so, how?
- Zachriel | 09/12/2013 @ 04:59
Now, thanks to Palin and others of her ilk, many people will now have to pay for important end-of-life counseling out-of-pocket.

Right. We always make more informed & better decisions, when we fixate on the benefits we’re getting out of the transaction and entirely ignore the costs & loss of control. It’s so much more responsible to think about unicorns and rainbows and puppies.
- mkfreeberg | 09/12/2013 @ 05:49
mkfreeberg: We always make more informed & better decisions, when we fixate on the benefits we’re getting out of the transaction and entirely ignore the costs & loss of control.

End-of-life counseling is of some importance, especially for the elderly. Medical consultation allows people to make more informed decisions, such as for an advanced medical directive, or palliative care.

Notably, you didn’t answer the questions. Are organs for organ transplants rationed? If so, why? If so, how?
- Zachriel | 09/12/2013 @ 06:39
Notably, you didn’t answer the questions.

Aaaaand how’s that working out for you, Socrates?

Anyone else reminded of Catch-22 at this point?

Yossarian attended the education sessions because he wanted to find out why so many people were working so hard to kill him. A handful of other men were also interested, and the questions were many and good when Clevinger and the subversive corporal finished and made the mistake of asking if there were any.
“Who is Spain?”
“Why is Hitler?”
“When is right?”
“Where was that stooped and mealy-colored old man I used to call Poppa when the merry-go-round broke down?”
“How was trump at Munich?”
“Ho-ho beriberi”
and
“Balls!”
all rang out in rapid succession, and then there was Yossarian with the question that had no answer:
“Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?”
- Severian | 09/12/2013 @ 07:21
Zachriel: Notably, you didn’t answer the questions.

mkfreeberg: Aaaaand how’s that working out for you, Socrates?

People can see that the questions are relevant to the claim and example provided in the original post. That you refuse to answer undermines your position.
- Zachriel | 09/12/2013 @ 07:29
Sorry, the previous should be attributed to Severian.

People can see that the questions are relevant to the claim and example provided in the original post. That mkfreeberg refuses to answer undermines his position.
- Zachriel | 09/12/2013 @ 07:42
People can see that the questions are relevant to the claim and example provided in the original post. That you refuse to answer undermines your position.

Only from the perspective of these “people [who] can see” something that actually isn’t there. Organs rationed? In what sense? Organs are always rationed somewhere along the line, aren’t they? Is this that “building an argument” nonsense again?

It helps to argue from an actual position…

I find it fascinating, and very telling, that there is so much contention built up around Sarah Palin pointing out something as simple and predictable as gravity and sunrises, that when costs are relinquished to government, control is relinquished along with the costs. THAT leads to myriad fact-checking and arguing. Really?

Y’all were talking about undermining positions? The irony.
- mkfreeberg | 09/12/2013 @ 07:46
That mkfreeberg refuses to answer undermines his position.

It does? I understood his point just fine. So sorry you’re having trouble keeping up.
- Severian | 09/12/2013 @ 07:50
mkfreeberg: I understood his point just fine.

The article stated that Sarah was denied an organ due to the implied death panels in the Affordable Care Act. That is false.

mkfreeberg: Organs rationed? In what sense? Organs are always rationed somewhere along the line, aren’t they?

That’s right. There are not as many available organs as there is need for organs. Hence, there has to be some sort of rationing. Medical professionals have devised a number of protocols to allocate organs based on need and likelihood of benefit. Did you have an alternative?

In any case, the example is still faulty. The protocols were implemented during the Bush Administration, and has nothing to do with any supposed rationing due to the Affordable Care Act.
- Zachriel | 09/12/2013 @ 07:56
mkfreeberg: I understood his point just fine.

That should have been attributed to Severian. {An edit function would be nice.}
- Zachriel | 09/12/2013 @ 07:58
That should have been attributed to Severian. {An edit function would be nice.}

Or you could work on your reading skills and hand-eye coordination. Does Morgan have to do everything for you?
- Severian | 09/12/2013 @ 08:06
OFF-TOPIC

Severian: hand-eye coordination.

Yes, we do have troubles with coordination, and have to rely on various tools to help us post. We apologize for the misattributions.
- Zachriel | 09/12/2013 @ 08:09
There are not as many available organs as there is need for organs. Hence, there has to be some sort of rationing.

And…those whose medical destinies might be directly affected by such rationing, need to think long and hard about where such rationing is done, and by who. A nationalized health care system would tend to centralize this, move it from the local level, put it in the hands of strangers. It is better for transplant patients to think about this in foresight, than in hindsight. Seems Palin managed to stir up a controversy by giving them something to think about in foresight, using language that strongly persuaded them to do so. Good for her!

And her ilk.
- mkfreeberg | 09/12/2013 @ 08:11
mkfreeberg: And…those whose medical destinies might be directly affected by such rationing, need to think long and hard about where such rationing is done, and by who.

True enough.

mkfreeberg: A nationalized health care system would tend to centralize this, move it from the local level, put it in the hands of strangers.

The transplant system is already under protocols established by medical professionals working under the auspices of the federal government. Did you have a better suggestion? Perhaps highest bidder?

In any case, the example is still faulty. The protocols were implemented during the Bush Administration, and has nothing to do with any supposed rationing due to the Affordable Care Act.
- Zachriel | 09/12/2013 @ 08:14
Seems to me your more basic troubles lie in the rush to yell “gotcha!” (Note: that’s a metaphor. You don’t have to ctrl-F back through your old posts to declare “we have never typed ‘gotcha!’ on this thread, though we are willing to consider evidence to the contrary”). And your attempts to define what is or isn’t “on topic.”

I’m willing to forgive the misattributions (I’m a live and let live kind of guy). But when you rush to lecture people about what is or isn’t on topic, and insist on a conversation going in only one direction — and then mess up something so basic as who you’re “responding” to — it makes folks quite unwilling to grant you any other benefit of the doubt. Since, you know, you can’t even seem to get my name right.
- Severian | 09/12/2013 @ 08:17
It’s so funny that Barack Obama was elected as this agent of “change,” and it seems every time He has to be defended, the defense almost always has something to do with “doesn’t count because Bush started it.”

It’s also funny that Palin stirred up such a maelstrom of controversy and “fact checking” by pointing out something as mundane and predictable as gravity and sunrises. When you pass costs on to the government, you relinquish the control as well.

If her saying so, using terms that are immediately meaningful to people, stokes such controversy then all that really proves is: There was great necessity involved in having someone point it out. Good for her!

And her ilk.
- mkfreeberg | 09/12/2013 @ 08:17
mkfreeberg: When you pass costs on to the government, you relinquish the control as well.

The Sarah Murnaghan situation has nothing to do with monetary cost, or the Affordable Care Act. It has to do with a greater demand for organs than supply. Adult lungs usually don’t fit small children, and don’t grow with the child, so the success rate is lower. The protocol may have to be revisited, but regardless, someone will be left without.

mkfreeberg: It’s so funny that Barack Obama was elected as this agent of “change,” and it seems every time He has to be defended, the defense almost always has something to do with “doesn’t count because Bush started it.”

We’re neither defending Obama, or the Affordable Care Act. Rather, we pointed to a substantial error in the blog and video you linked.
- Zachriel | 09/12/2013 @ 08:30
The Sarah Murnaghan situation has nothing to do with monetary cost, or the Affordable Care Act. It has to do with a greater demand for organs than supply. Adult lungs usually don’t fit small children, and don’t grow with the child, so the success rate is lower. The protocol may have to be revisited, but regardless, someone will be left without.

Here’s what Palin said:

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. 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,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

She didn’t say anything about lung transplants. She got people thinking, using language that was more likely to resonate so they would do their thinking. Good for her!

And her ilk.

Seems there’s a shift in y’all’s argument. If I understand the rebuttal correctly, y’all are now saying that since organs are limited by nature, we need to have a death panel in some form or another, and there’s nothing new about this; so nobody should be pointing out that we have them under the ACA. That would be a different argument than saying the ACA doesn’t have them.
- mkfreeberg | 09/12/2013 @ 08:40
mkfreeberg: She didn’t say anything about lung transplants.

Both the Best of Cain blog and the SarahPac video referenced the Sarah Murnaghan case in reference to the ObamaCare. It’s a faulty example.

mkfreeberg: That would be a different argument than saying the ACA doesn’t have them.

Didn’t say that, nor has anyone made an actual argument that the ACA does ration care. It’s called a bald assertion.
- Zachriel | 09/12/2013 @ 09:03
Bald assertion, as in, Sarah Palin’s spreading a “lie” or “myth” about death panels.

The truth, as has been explained already, is that Sarah Palin was exploring a natural consequence. Which, as has now become obvious, concerned citizens needed to have called out so they could form their own opinions. Palin finished with:

Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.

These purveyors of the “Search key ‘DEATH PANELS’ not found in Legislation.pdf” method of so-called fact checking, by their treatises and by their conclusive statements, illustrate vividly that they missed the entire point. Y’all’s own arguments about the finite-commodity nature of organs, clarify it as a matter of logical certainty that the rationing must happen somewhere. Therefore, that Palin must have been correct. Even without, as the video captures, all these johnny-come-latelies admitting that she’d been right all along.

It’s not a matter of searching for phrases within the legislation. It’s a matter of cause and consequence. If we had a Federal Department of Gasoline, we would have gasoline rationing. If we had a Federal Department of Milk and Cold Cereal, people would be told they wouldn’t be able to have any. If we had a Federal Department of Laptops, we’d have federal workers making rules on who needs to go without. Palin was repeating, as her comments made clear, the ideas espoused by Prof. Sowell; but of course, it isn’t quite as much fun, and doesn’t make people look quite as cool, for them to go beating up on Thomas Sowell.
- mkfreeberg | 09/12/2013 @ 09:56
mkfreeberg: Bald assertion, as in, Sarah Palin’s spreading a “lie” or “myth” about death panels.

It was certainly a falsehood. Palin specifically pointed to provisions for end-of-life counseling (section 1233), which in no way constituted a death panel. This provision was removed, meaning people facing the end of their life, may have to pay for such counseling out-of-pocket.

Palin: Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens.

Heh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

The Affordable Care Act does not nationalize the U.S. healthcare system. There are many forms of health care systems in the developed world. Most are mixes of private and public entities, including the U.S.

mkfreeberg: It’s not a matter of searching for phrases within the legislation. It’s a matter of cause and consequence.

We understand that, but no such argument has been presented.

In any case, the example is still faulty. The protocols were implemented during the Bush Administration, and has nothing to do with any supposed rationing due to the Affordable Care Act. You have yet to respond substantively to this point.
- Zachriel | 09/12/2013 @ 10:10
Thanks for the nice illustration.
- Severian | 09/12/2013 @ 10:16
Your video link supports her point.

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented in early 2011 that ObamaCare was a first step toward nationalized medicine.

“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said.

When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

This was after Palin’s comments. So if by “It was certainly a falsehood” what y’all are trying to say is, she accurately predicted what was to follow later on, then that would be a correct statement.

I’m just wondering why any of this is a surprise to ObamaCare proponents. When you propose a massive shift of power, you should expect someone to come along offering reasons why we might not want to do that. It’s called discussing the issues.
- mkfreeberg | 09/12/2013 @ 10:18
Severian: Thanks for the nice illustration… When they signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776

You could argue that the date of the signing is not relevant, or change the word ‘signed’ to ‘adopted’, but if the point is accurate, it’s better to grant the factual point, then move the discussion back to the main topic.

With regard to the Sarah Murnaghan case, no one argued that it wasn’t relevant, nor granted the point. In particular, it was the only example provided of ObamaCare’s so-called death panel. The claim of death panels wasn’t supported, and the example was faulty. That leaves only rhetoric.

mkfreeberg: Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented in early 2011 that ObamaCare was a first step toward nationalized medicine.

It might, but that depends on future Congresses.

mkfreeberg: When you propose a massive shift of power, you should expect someone to come along offering reasons why we might not want to do that. It’s called discussing the issues.

Sure. We would be happy to look at those reasons, but you have yet to provide them, much less respond to criticism of your reasoning.
- Zachriel | 09/12/2013 @ 10:40
…much less respond to criticism of your reasoning.

As has been explained several times now, Palin was not discussing verbiage in the legislation, she was discussing matters of cause and consequence. These purveyors of the “Search key ‘DEATH PANELS’ not found in Legislation.pdf” method of so-called fact checking, by their treatises and by their conclusive statements, illustrate vividly that they missed the entire point.
- mkfreeberg | 09/12/2013 @ 10:42
….illustrate vividly that they missed the entire point.

As the Zachriel do, and will continue to do, because it’s inimical to Ingsoc. Seems to me they’re much more comfortable with regurgication.
- Severian | 09/12/2013 @ 10:45
mkfreeberg: Palin was not discussing verbiage in the legislation, she was discussing matters of cause and consequence.

In her original diatribe she specifically was referring to section 1233.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434
- Zachriel | 09/12/2013 @ 10:59
As has been pointed out now already, her “original diatribe” was the one from 8/7, not from 8/12.
- mkfreeberg | 09/12/2013 @ 11:07
mkfreeberg: As has been pointed out now already, her “original diatribe” was the one from 8/7, not from 8/12.

Her statement on 8/12/2009 refers to her statement 8/7/2009. She is being more specific in her latter statement. She was clearly discussing verbiage in the bill.
- Zachriel | 09/12/2013 @ 11:36
And, clearly, if you’d read a bit further up…she was discussing that particular verbiage because His Majesty brought it up. She then took it and ran with it as one particular example.

And then the King’s Witenagemot moved to drop the section…so they could make it into a lie. Gosh, wow, ya really got her dead to rights there. There’s fact-checking for you.
- mkfreeberg | 09/12/2013 @ 14:09
Well, to be fair, what more can you expect of a collective who, in their rush to gotcha!, accuses you of misreading a study they themselves evidently didn’t read (though they did helpfully provide the citation).

At least they got your name right.
- Severian | 09/12/2013 @ 14:41
Severian: they themselves evidently didn’t read

Yes, we did read it. Proctor refers to the term in the plural possessive.

Do please try to stay on topic.

mkfreeberg: And then the King’s Witenagemot moved to drop the section…

Yes, now people may have to pay for their end-of-life counseling out-of-pocket, a burden especially to the elderly poor who are already facing some hard decisions.

mkfreeberg: so they could make it into a lie.

It was already a falsehood before it was dropped. It’s still false after they dropped it.

In any case, the example provided was faulty for reasons given above.
- Zachriel | 09/12/2013 @ 14:56
Y’all evidently read that Sarah Palin’s entry of 8/12, which y’all consider to be somehow self-incriminating, is fairly peppered with footnotes. This is the entry y’all also evidently didn’t read as far as the point about His Holy Eminence bringing up the Section 1233, since y’all were accusing her of having brought that up. Whether that is key to your contention “the example provided was faulty for reasons given above” and “It was already a falsehood before it was dropped,” I can’t say. Y’all seem to be laboring under the misunderstanding that y’all have made that point clear. But that’s the trouble with “building” these arguments. From what I’ve seen, that seems to be an exercise involving knowing exactly what conclusion is to be reached before the evidence is pondered one way or another, and once that conclusion is defined, the argument-building seems to be little more than discarding whatever evidence doesn’t fit the narrative.

Nothing wrong with that, except 1) it is the very definition of “prejudice,” and 2) when you’re done, your point isn’t clear to anybody except y’all. Other than those two problems, it’s great. So now what y’all need to do is go back to Palin’s post of 8/12, and show exactly where her logic goes wrong, support this statement of “It was already a falsehood before it was dropped.” Show how her remarks make less sense than, for example, Syrians are bombing Syrians so we have to bomb Syrians to punish them for bombing Syrians. Or, I’ve been to 57 states…or…we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it…or…
- mkfreeberg | 09/12/2013 @ 15:02
mkfreeberg: when you’re done, your point isn’t clear to anybody except y’all

Well, let’s start at the beginning. Your link provides one example of ObamaCare leading to death panels. However, federal rules on transplants were implemented during the Bush Administration, so it has nothing to do with Obamacare.
- Zachriel | 09/12/2013 @ 15:13
Do please try to stay on topic.

Umm…. ok, sure, Cuttlefishies. I’ll be sure to stay at least as on topic as you do.

Ahem: The Zachriel: “According to Robert Proctor, who coined the neologism…”

(The report, page 27: “I posed this challenge to the linguist Iain Boal, and it was he who came up with the term agnotology, in the spring of that year.”

Ooops. Reading comprehension strikes again. But hey, at least you got my name right this time. Batting .500 in a post is pretty good for y’all.
- Severian | 09/12/2013 @ 15:17
Well, let’s start at the beginning. Your link provides one example of ObamaCare leading to death panels. However, federal rules on transplants were implemented during the Bush Administration, so it has nothing to do with Obamacare.

So because the rule began with President Bush; although Kathleen Sibelius was not a Bush appointee; y’all are building-the-argument, as it were, that this proves a centralized state health care management system does not ration. Even though Secretary Sibelius was doing exactly that as a “one-woman death panel.”

Thus proving the truth of exactly what Sarah Palin had been talking about in her original complaint. Somehow this comment about Bush Administration rules makes that, from truth, into a falsehood.

Go ahead and explain how. I’ll go get the popcorn.
- mkfreeberg | 09/12/2013 @ 15:26
Severian: Ooops.

Yes, you’re still in the wrong thread.

mkfreeberg: So because the rule began with President Bush; although Kathleen Sibelius was not a Bush appointee; y’all are building-the-argument, as it were, that this proves a centralized state health care management system does not ration.

No, we’re simply pointing out that the sole example provided concerning ObamaCare is faulty.

mkfreeberg: Even though Secretary Sibelius was doing exactly that as a “one-woman death panel.”

No, Sebelius did not have authority in the matter.
- Zachriel | 09/12/2013 @ 15:34
It seems like y’all are reading from left-wing “fact checking” sites.

But if these cabinet-level officials were worthy of the “liberty medals” and other such adulation that were owed to them as deity figures, one would expect they’d be able to do something. Several members of Congress certainly thought so:

Sebelius claimed rules are rules and she had no authority to intervene, despite a letter from several members of Congress asserting that she absolutely does (including two from Pennsylvania). Sebelius did trouble herself to “order a policy review,” but she refused to take action to save Sarah’s life.

Fortunately, District Court Judge Michael Baylson issued a restraining order prohibiting Sebelius from applying the policy that will block Sarah from getting the lung transplant. CNN reports:

Janet Murnaghan, Sarah’s mother, said the family is “thrilled … literally jumping for joy.”

In a written statement, the family added, “We are experiencing many emotions — relief, happiness, gratitude and, for the first time in months, hope.”

Where someone is placed on the adult lung transplant list depends on several factors — blood type, distance from donor to potential recipient, and a lung allocation score. The score is derived from medical factors like test results and the patient’s diagnosis.

Sarah’s parents said her score is a 78. Anything above 60 is considered a high score, according to reports published on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network website.

The Murnaghans had argued that since the number of children’s lungs available through organ donation programs is so small, Sarah — and other pediatric patients like her — should be added to the list of people waiting for adult lungs, prioritized by severity of their illnesses.

Now let’s be clear about exactly what happened here. A policy was put in place by the federal government that said certain people would take priority over others for transplants. When a person proved to be in desperate need of such a transplant – a matter of life and death – a cabinet-level government official refused to intervene, citing the rules, citing limits on her own authority and saying it would take too long at any rate to change the policy.

A bureaucrat hiding behind a rule.

Sorry, I seem to have lost track: What exactly is the difference between what most people have in mind when they hear the words “death panel”…and what happened here?

I guess y’all didn’t get the word: Bureaucrats DON’T say “no” when they’re acting as barriers to services their constituents need. “Sorry, my hands are tied” IS the way bureaucrats say no. So to people who actually have some experience dealing with this, it’s plain to see the reality materialized exactly the way Sarah Palin said it would. Good for her!

And her ilk.
- mkfreeberg | 09/12/2013 @ 15:45
Yes, you’re still in the wrong thread.

Ahhh, yes. That’s how one advances an argument, by attempting to dictate where a thread shall go, what evidence shall be allowed, how words shall be defined, &c. That y’all continue to do this — instead of, you know, just ignoring stuff you consider off topic — speaks volumes. Y’all’s lack of close reading and general sloppiness with the ol’ cut-n-paste speaks even more. How’s that working out for you?
- Severian | 09/12/2013 @ 15:55
mkfreeberg (quoting Dan Calabrese): A policy was put in place by the federal government that said certain people would take priority over others for transplants.

That’s right. There were valid scientific reasons for the protocol that were put in place by the Bush Administration.

mkfreeberg: Sorry, I seem to have lost track: What exactly is the difference between what most people have in mind when they hear the words “death panel”…and what happened here?

So you’re saying the Bush Administration implemented a death panel? You do realize that there aren’t enough organs to meet demand? That someone has to be denied a donor organ so that someone else can live? Did you have a better suggestion? Perhaps highest bidder?
- Zachriel | 09/12/2013 @ 16:11
So Sarah Palin was right, there are death panels; but there’s a great excuse. Or something.

That’s your rebuttal?
- mkfreeberg | 09/12/2013 @ 18:29
mkfreeberg: So Sarah Palin was right, there are death panels; but there’s a great excuse.

Providers have made medical choices of life and death at least since the invention of triage. However, this has nothing to do with ObamaCare, and the example provided does not support such a claim.
- Zachriel | 09/13/2013 @ 05:04
“Has” is present-tense, which indicates someone in this conversation must be confused. Are we still talking about the section President Obama & crew removed from the legislation, after Sarah Palin’s accurate criticism shamed them into doing so?

If this is the case (and I’ve not detected an actual shift in the topic) then, I suppose, what y’all are arguing would be that Palin’s critique was accurate but she is failing to give proper credit, now, to the administration for having addressed it.

On the other hand, if y’all are moving the goalposts around and accusing Palin of putting out a falsehood that goes beyond what she actually said, Tina Fey style, it would be helpful if we could get some more clarity on this new Gumby-universe reality y’all are inventing…I’m not quite following.
- mkfreeberg | 09/13/2013 @ 07:32
mkfreeberg: So Sarah Palin was right, there are death panels; but there’s a great excuse.

Sarah Palin said she was referring to section 1233, which is not part of the law.

mkfreeberg: Are we still talking about the section President Obama & crew removed from the legislation, after Sarah Palin’s accurate criticism shamed them into doing so?

Are you really saying that end-of-life counseling is the same as a “death panel”. That was Palin’s original contention, and it was laughably false. End-of-life counseling is a critical program for the terminally ill, and important for most everyone else, too.

mkfreeberg: If this is the case (and I’ve not detected an actual shift in the topic) then, I suppose, what y’all are arguing would be that Palin’s critique was accurate but she is failing to give proper credit, now, to the administration for having addressed it.

Your link provides one example of ObamaCare leading to death panels. However, federal rules on transplants were implemented during the Bush Administration, so it has nothing to do with Obamacare.
- Zachriel | 09/13/2013 @ 08:11
Sarah Palin said she was referring to section 1233, which is not part of the law.

As clarified already, Palin was discussing Section 1233 because Obama had discussed Section 1233.
- mkfreeberg | 09/13/2013 @ 08:53
mkfreeberg: As clarified already, Palin was discussion Section 1233 because Obama had discussed Section 1233.

That’s right. And she made clear that it was section 1233 that she said invoked the death panels.
- Zachriel | 09/13/2013 @ 09:35

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“Just Sayin'”Tuesday, September 10th, 2013

“Just Sayin'”
Tuesday, September 10th, 2013