Obama actually said, "they lie", referring to those who are saying his plan would create "death panels". Essentially the same of course. I'll take for granted that we can find instances of opponents using "death panel". Would we be able to find instances of "death panel" in any working documents of the proposed legislation in formation? Of course we wouldn't find that literal phrase. Which points to some slanting going here... nothing new. Instead, could we find sections where a "line" is drawn, demarcating who will and who will not receive subsidised healthcare, and under what conditions, which would go to a panel of human beings for circumstances that are not black and white, that is, a panel that might be faced with making a life and death decision?
The proper topic to frame a debate around is euthanasia. Any consideration for it would only be by consent of the family. The term death panel was tossed out and has invoked the same reaction amongst mutants that tossing a mouse out onto monkey island would get. Consider the source.
There's now a backlash against Joe Wilson, with contributions flooding to his 2010 opponent: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125258756088899359.html#mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories I just made a $100 donation to Joe's campaign. I suggest fellow conservatives do the same: www.joewilsonforcongress.com
How sadly partisan. A line was crossed, keep going? What's next, shoe tossing, fisticuffs, assassinations?
Hopefully, but I doubt we're that lucky. Of course he did. How can I tell you ask? His lips were moving.
He lied, if his opponents did not lie, and there are in fact "death panel" concepts in the working drafts that may or may not become legislation.
Uh...Yeah, no shit. A lot of us don't like the direction this very liberal government is taking us and want to at least get the Congress back to the point where it can offset this President's ambitious plans for federal expansion. So, I'll gladly support any Conservative challenger looking to unseat a Democrat and any Conservative incumbent who's coming under fire. Plus, if the President can get a national captive audience and be able to call detractors "liars" and be dismissive of their arguments, then people should be given the ability to call him on it.
I don't see how the Wilson outburst will do anything but hurt Obama. The reason it won't hurt republicans is because regular people (who do not have opposite party derangement syndrome) do not correlate one uncivil outburst by one person with an entire party. Instead that outburst may in fact provide motivation for people who are sincerely curious to know whether Obama was lying or not. Imagine regular citizens sitting at home watching the speech. If they aren't heavily indoctrinated among ideology they will search for the answer. The truthful answer when it comes down to it is not in Obama's favor. Check this out. Illegal immigrants, health care and half-truths 12:09 p.m. EDT, September 10, 2009 E-mail Print Share Text size President Obama is clear: No illegal aliens will be covered by the proposed health care reforms. That is probably not technically a lie. But the president also knows that is not how it will work in practice. It is another application of "Don't ask, Don't tell." If it is absolutely true that illegal aliens are not to be covered, then why did Democrats in a House committee on July 30th vote against an amendment, offered by Rep. Nathan Deal, that would have required health care providers to use a verification program to prevent illegal aliens from receiving government-provided health care services? While all Republicans and five Democrats on the committee voted for it, 29 Democrats voted against it, killing the amendment. The reason is the same as their use of the term "undocumented'" aliens instead of "illegal." If they use the term "illegal," it becomes obvious that they are willing to tolerate people who break the law. By not demanding verification, they know that illegal aliens will indeed receive government funded health care. They just want to maintain the appearance of not "allowing" it. Yet they choose to do nothing to prevent it. Sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it too. So, of course, when the president says no illegal aliens will receive health care -- it is indeed not the whole truth! How about, "it will not increase the deficit." If Congress is so comfortable with that truth, how about including a trigger for a sunset clause that states, if five years from passage of health care reform, it has indeed dramatically impacted the deficit, then the reform becomes null and void. Wouldn't it be nice if we could once again trust politicians to tell us the whole truth and not hide behind legalistic misinformation? John Egan http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-healthletter0910,0,5949222.story
And another thing -- This whole idea of national healthcare is in no way allowed for in the Constitution, and if you argue that there's a lot of things that the federal gov't does that isn't in the Constitution, then that's a very cynical argument that just shows how the federal gov't has improperly inserted itself into every aspect of our lives. I have no problem with the people deciding that healthcare should be nationalized, but if you want it then do so using the proper methods, i.e., amend the Constitution. If you think that's too onerous, then it's obviously not important enough to you and it doesn't have enough support to be passed. Do you think something as big as transforming 1/6th of the economy should be done so with a simple majority in Congress along party lines via reconciliation? You're insane if you do, and the country is weaker because of it.