Merry Christmas: Obama Engineers the Death Panels’ Return
What did you get for Christmas? Maybe a new cell phone, some clothes, a TV or video game?
You also got the beginnings of a federally funded death panel. Merry Christmas!
When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.
Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.
How nice. This is our president in a nutshell: Public finds out about horrid policy, opposes it, Congress acquiesces and stops it, only to have Obama instate it by executive fiat anyway.
The amusing bonus in all this is that, in 2009, it was the New York Times that did its best to knock down the whole death panel thing. Now here they are confirming that it has returned.
So…what else did you get for Christmas? A feast? Maybe a new Blu-Ray player?
How about federal control of your state’s air quality system, which will lead to higher energy prices at a time when gas prices are already sneaking up toward $3 a gallon. If you’re in Texas, that’s just what you got. Merry Christmas!
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it will take control of carbon-emission rules in Texas after Governor Rick Perry rejected new federal regulations intended to combat climate change.
The EPA will decide directly on greenhouse-gas permits for companies seeking to build or upgrade power plants and oil refineries in Texas, the agency said today in a statement. The EPA’s nationwide carbon rules, imposed under the Clean Air Act, take effect Jan. 2.
There are a couple of facts on this that are worth pointing out. One, Texas’ air quality regime has been in place since the 1990s, has enjoyed bipartisan support, and has been extremely effective. But the EPA just cannot abide not having control, and Obama is hell-bent on forcing energy prices to skyrocket via cap and trade, so here we are. Once again, Congress considered a policy, the public rose up to oppose it, Congress opted out, but President Obama opted in anyway.
Texas is fighting the EPA on this, of course.
The intent of Obamacare was always to pass with vague definitions so that the Secretary of Health and Human Services could define it as she saw fit.
Sarah Palin was right, everyone else was wrong, and now we get to see Obama and his minions act their true colors as a reward.
But…but…Sarah Palin is dumb as a rock! Of course this isn’t anything close to the “death panels” she was talking about. Any finite resource must be rationed, not everyone can have it for free. That is basically what economics is all about. Free markets generally allocate resources most efficiently; bureaucracies have generally been the most inefficient. As the government gains control of a resource like healthcare that the market once regulated someone, I assume a bureaucratic committee, will set the rules as to who gets what. Sarah is certainly correct when she says Trig will go to the back of the line. Hell she was criticized by the left for letting the kid live. We already have death panels when it comes to donated organs. Soon they will be all over.
Shouldn’t it be a little embarrassing to progressives that someone as “dumb as a rock” could foretell 18 months ago exactly what they were intent on putting over on the underlings? Don’t they see the irony in their PDS posturing? OK, that answers itself, doesn’t it? Socialists have no sense of irony – or apparently humor, either.
It should also be embarrassing to Charles Krauthammer, who opined that Sarah should “leave the room” so intelligent discussion of Obamacare could proceed.
No, they couldn’t see it because they are either as dumb as rocks or as crooked as a rich liberal.
The main difference so far that I see between Obama and Stalin is that Obama hasn’t plucked a chicken in front of him minions to impress them yet.
Well, so much for checks and balances, folks.
See you all in the gulags during the “Festivus for the rest of us” airing of grievances.
Nice knowin’ ya, ‘Merica.
Let’s hope against hope that the 2011 congress has some actual nads and finds a way to undo most of the damage the sick muther effers in the spooky-dude™ doh’bama administration have been up to.
Speaking of death panels, Kathleen Sebelius has finally sent out a memo explaining her decision to deny Avastin to cancer patients, read it here… http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/2010/12/kathleen-sebelius-explains-avastin.html
Agree with you on the EPA, and hope Texas will kick their ass (not likely, I know), but calling end of life counceling “death panels” is pretty extreme.
More like the camel’s nose under the tent but it will get worse.
Camels nose my butt, err, hind quarters? Actually, it’s a lot more than just the nose. When the government provides health care, as it surely will after Obama care takes full ‘control’, the government will have the ‘right and obligation’ to tell you what to eat and when, what activities you can engage in since anything that may cause you injury will incur costs and how you will, or will not, be able to congregate, since you might incur an illness from others. The right to free assembly may be abrogated in order to protect you from your fellow citizens. I know, I know, I’m reaching BUT you brought up the camels nose.
Once again, Sarah Palin proves that she’s precient and right on target. We need to press congress to “REFUDIATE” Obamacare, first by defunding it, and then by repealing it after Sarah Palin becomes the next President in 2013. P.S. Did you know that “refudiate” was declared word of the year by the Oxford Dictionary for 2010? Sarah Palin is far from the bimbo that the Media wants to portray her as. In fact, Lefties, you continue to believe that. (wink, wink).
Mom in Wisconsin
OK, Republicans in Congress, you can totally eviscerate Obama’s policies if you have the will to do it. The public is behind you on everything. A clear majority want Obamacare overturned. You have no excuses. Get to it. Slap some RINOs in the process. (Isn’t Bryan Preston the best new feature blogger on the internet? He deserves an award.)
According to the media Sarah Palin is stupid and yet she was right about death panels! No surprise there aye?
Juan Williams thinks she can’t share a stage with Barry but come debate time,I’ll wager our girl Sarah will dominate our thin skinned dictator and show him up as the shallow moron that he truly is.
Palin 2012
For America.
The left has made its motive glaringly obvious ever since that August of 2 years ago. She demonstrated at that acceptance speech and has continued to demonstrate that she is the only one with the moxie, the character, and the cut-to-the-chase smarts to expose this mendacious Marxist fraud for what he is. Were she ever allowed to engage him in a debate–unencumbered by the leash of cowardice and incompetence of her McCain handlers–she would rip him apart like a wet paper towel, and they know it.
Therefore she must be destroyed at any cost. And as the Left has shamelessly proven for the past two years (to say nothing of the entire 20th century)there is no level to which they will not sink. Much as I want to see her take on the Cabrini Green messiah I really do fear for the safety of her and her family.
“Cabrini Green messiah”. Love it!!
Everything has been backwards and upside down for at least half a century. In our PC brainwashed environment that has demonized and attempted to castrate white males for my entire adult life, it shouldn’t be surprising that it would be a woman who would have the stones to speak down-to-earth real opinions.
Once again, Sarah is prescient, you betcha. Something is just SO wrong with her to be able to see the domestic enemies (progressives) for the death cult they are. She has no credentials worthy of being included in the elite of the country, yet has managed to run circles around their repeatedly demonstrated intellectual mediocrity. I may not vote for her without weighing her policy opinions heavily (just as I would for anyone else), but, as she seems capable of understanding current issues instinctively, she clearly is at the top of the list as qualified for the office.
Would that ANYONE of the current administration were so qualified.
Left/liberals: Social justice… the law, the Constitution, deceny, etc. are no object!
change “social justice” to “social engineering” and you’re spot on
obiwon has psychic powers, he tells lies, knowing in the future he will change his position. wow.
the Palin can hear his lies and know how he will change his tune at some future date. wowow
we must run from the dark side. use the FORCE Sarah!
been taking cold med’s all day. wowowowow. feelin’ better now tho. dam this global… whatever.
Since all these new rules and regulations are supposed to be for our benefit, a) why isn’t the Obama administration bragging and touting all this gov’t goodness? and b) Wouldn’t it be more apropos to enact all this goodness on a holiday that our president can feel good about, like Eid or Ramadan?
Ramadan isn’t a holiday.
There were no death panels, and there are no death panels.
Here’s what palin actually meant when she coined the term – and it’s how most people (who believed it) still understand the term (despite attempts by scribblers and chatterers to try to claim she was talking about something else):
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434
That is not what the whitehouse is proposing and it never was. Giving patients the right to ask for information and options about something that is going to eventually affect everyone is not “rationing care”.
Get a clue Matt. Obama’s hand picked socialized medicine czar, Donald Berwick is downright giddy about British healthcare, which he and BO plan to implement by hook or by crook. And the awesome British system RATIONS healthcare. That is our future with these cretins in charge, and useful idiots like you cheering them on.
Squint all you like, but there aren’t any death panels in that regulation.
Give it time Matt, just give it time. And if the obamacare monstrosity isn’t repealed, death panels are not just likely, they’re inevitable. Except they won’t call them death panels. They’ll call them ‘Health and welfare choice directive councils’ or some such Orwellian crap. This is how socialist societies ‘bend the cost curve down’ – by eliminating the ‘useless eaters’, or in this case, those pesky old farts who can’t even be relied on to vote monolithically Democrat.
That’s what berwick and obama want for America. And of course they and their union buddies are exempt from obamacare – that’s just for the little people.
Say, Matt – care to give us a rundown on Ezekiel Emmanuel’s “Complete Lives” program? “Complete” according to whom?
And while you’re at it, what’s your opinion on health care delivery based upon ‘social utility’? Who gets to determines the definition and scope of ‘social utility’?
“Say, Matt – care to give us a rundown on Ezekiel Emmanuel’s “Complete Lives” program? “Complete” according to whom?”
Sure. He’s talking about situations when hard choices can’t be avoided. For example, there is (and probably always will be) a shortage of healthy, available, viable organs for transplant. That’s not something that any government can fix – it’s a hard limit (unless you want to start nicking livers, lungs and kidneys from living people – and NO, I’m NOT advocating that, I’m point out the obvious). In those situations, somebody has to make a decision and the decisions will have to be guided by rules (otherwise corruption will results). One way to do it is a lottery, another is first-come-first-served, doctors could just take monetary bids, or … somebody could look at each case and have a try at calculating some sort of utility for each. Putting a new liver into the body of a 83-year-old recalcitrant alcoholic probably isn’t going to seem as worthwhile (to any reasonable person) as giving the same liver to an otherwise healthy 19-year-old.
How’s that?
“And while you’re at it, what’s your opinion on health care delivery based upon ‘social utility’? Who gets to determines the definition and scope of ‘social utility’?”
Who’s trying to?
“Putting a new liver into the body of a 83-year-old recalcitrant alcoholic probably isn’t going to seem as worthwhile (to any reasonable person) as giving the same liver to an otherwise healthy 19-year-old.”
Except it usually works the other way around: Should we put a new liver in the body of an otherwise healthy 83 year old or waste it on a 19 year old recalcitrant alcoholic, & might I add, drug addict. The answer “to any reasonable person” is NEITHER, but I’m guessing you’d go with the 19 year old doper. MOST 83 year olds understand why they’d never be “on the list” in the 1st place. ALL 19 year old alcoholic addicts wouldn’t care what they cost others in money OR livers….they’d just be wondering how long replacement liver #1 will last before they have to beat out some otherwise healthy grandma for replacement liver #2. Hey, I’ll drink to that!
Most 19-year-olds who screw up their livers do so by either ODing on acetaminophen (read: suicide attempt) or by mixing alcohol with other drugs that tax the liver. Acute alcohol poisoning will damage the brain much faster than the liver, and cirrhosis takes decades to occur.
“The answer “to any reasonable person” is NEITHER, but I’m guessing you’d go with the 19 year old doper.”
Nope. I’d be trying to find the best use of that liver, and I doubt there will ever be shortages of people needing them. Your example is apt – we have actually had a case recently in australia of a girl who was actually passed over for a liver transplant precisely because she had been unable to control her alcohol addiction (I think it would have been her second transplant). That is precisely the sort of decision which has to be made when there really are genuinely scarce resources – like transplantable organs.
“MOST 83 year olds understand why they’d never be “on the list” in the 1st place. ALL 19 year old alcoholic addicts wouldn’t care what they cost others in money OR livers”
That all makes sense, but it doesn’t undermine ezekiel emmanuel’s reasoning (such as I understand it)
myth buster – I admit that my example was arbitrary, and skewed to make the problem obvious
This is only the beginning.
Watch for amnesty for Undocumented Future Democratic Voters of America to be put in place with regulation and selective non-enforcement of immigration laws.
Cap ‘n Tax will be enacted bureaucratically via the EPA. The Endangered Species list is already politicized and will be used to prevent any new exploration or drilling by declaring lots of cute critters to be in danger of extinction with manufactured evidence and Photoshopped pictures.
The military vote has been disenfranchised by more selective non-enforcement of voting laws, and no action is being taken to stop voter fraud, at least by Democrats.
Lots more too. Leftists NEVER, EVER take no for an answer. To paraphrase an old action hit movie:
Like Kyle Reese said of the Terminator:
And it makes little difference if a Republican, even another Reagan, gets elected, and given a Tea Party Congress, other than to slow down this implacable onslaught a little . The bureaucracies were co-opted by the left a long time ago, and they will do what they will.
The Inexorability of Obamacare Death Panels
(The following are fabricated excerpts from a fabricated chat between a relative and an elderly grandmother which may soon closely resemble a conversation in many homes:)
“Hey, Grandma! How would you like to visit Doctor Jones? Just for a sitdown, unnerstand?”
“I understand but I feel fine.”
“Well, ya know, you’ve been sick in the past. Remember that gall bladder thing? And the breast cancer? And ya do have that pacemaker. And ya have been complaining about heartburn. And the ambulance had to come for you! Ya just never know about that stuff. Not to mention, Gram, well you’re 84!”
“I’m 83! And my gall bladder was removed, so, too, was the cancer, and I take Tums for my indigestion. I feel fine! You needed an ambulance when you got so drunk you fell down the cellar stairs! What’s all this about doctor sitdowns, anyway?”
“Grams, you’re 84, okay, 83 almost 84, don’t ya think it’s, well, time?”
“Time for what?”
“Umm, well, time to shuffle off to Buffalo, as they say, to umm, time you stopped sucking the med system dry? I mean, the gubmint says you’re hurting all the rest of us! Why not just die and get it over with?”
“Know what, Sonnyboy, I’m gonna outlive all of you so stick it in your ear! You out to kill me, or what?”
“Well, that’s sorta the plan, Gram.”
Call a sow’s ear a silk purse in-the-making, it’s still a sow’s ear. Calling detaching the male connector from the wall outlet is still pulling the plug.
Call a death panel a doctor sitdown or end of life care or an elder consult, it all means the same thing, the same thing for which Sarah Palin was mocked for even suggesting, the same thing the Obamians swore on all that was holy was not and would not ever be a feature of Obamacare, the same thing that was the hidden centerpiece of that monstrous 2000+ page legislation passed last year which no one read.
Death panels are here . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3218
Liberals seem to love killing those most vulnerable, the unborn and the elderly. They also like to sanctimoniously denounce Conservatives for all manner of perceived offenses. Liberals seem obsessed with the Civil War and the evils of slavery, too, so I wonder how they will feel in 50 years when society begins questioning the Liberal genocide of this nation from abortion to euthanasia. This should be an interesting epiphany for the Libs.
The right to live is a fundamental right, not a government granted privilege. But that’s precisely the intent of this so-called “Obamacare” legislation. Because at the end of the day, it is neither about health nor care. It is about control and the exercise of power. “Progressives’ above all desire to wield the power to decide who lives and who dies. Murder of the unborn is the prime sacrament in progressives’ church of death. At-will, on-demand abortion is their holy writ. Just ask them.
“Progressives” refusal to acknowledge the value of individual human life is one of the principal reasons why no peace can ever be made with them. It is a reckless, willful and evil disregard for the most fundamental of all of our rights: the right to live.
The foundational premise of leftism is: people are things. This premise is and has been absolutely necessary in order to justify the slaughter of millions – and to enslave and impoverish hundres of millions more. Once again, I refer you to the idea of killers without conscience and the pedigree of their ideas.
This is precisely the road down which that Marxist meat puppet of a President and his owners are taking us. The sad and brutal history of the last century is my witness.
Why else would the modern American Left seek to ‘move the goalposts’ that define life? And further, to define the value of individual life by its utility? “Utility” – to whom or for what? We have moved from questioning whether any sane human being should be allowed to make such decisions to dithering over who will decide. This is monstrous. And if any of you feel that this is hyperbole or tinfoil hattery, consider this:
We have the likes of Peter Singer speaking blithely of extending that ‘right to choose’ to children as old as 28 months! Why? Because Singer argues that at that age, well… they’re not fully conscious and capable of reason!
Why else would we hear of Ezekiel Emanuel – Rahm Emanuels brother – also an ‘advisor’ to 0bama, advocating the assessment of the relative ‘quality of life’ under the aegis of his innocuous-sounding “Complete Lives” program? Emanuel’s guidelines are strictly utilitarian, and are based in part upon the notion of an individual’s ‘value to society’.
What happens when:
1. Those goalposts converge?
2. The decision as to who lives and who dies eventually passes to the state?
Who has the courage and the intellectual honesty to answer that?
There is only one way this can end.
So in the free market, people who can afford care get to try to extend their lives; people who can’t afford it just die, right? That’s the way God planned it?
Look, ANY health care system has to make decisions about what is covered and what is not. Is it your contention that the government will end up deciding that more people will die, than currently die under the free market system?
Is it your position that EVERYONE should have access to health care that will extend their life as long as possible, if that is what they choose? Or EVERYONE who can afford it?
Strawman choices.
First of all, decisions about health care – and life and death – are and should be strictly private. It’s NEVER a good idea to cede control of such decisions to faceless, unaccountable – and corruptible – beureaucrats. The problem with strictly utilitarian metrics as a guage to the ‘worth’ of someones’ life is that those emtrics are easily politicized, propagandized and perverted by those in power. It’s been done, as the history of Aktion T4 shows. It’s all too easy to move from denying health care to those who are deemed ‘unfit’ or ‘unworthy’ to denying the right to live to those who are deemed enemies of the state. Again, it’s been done. Repeatedly. And in recent memory. So why even start down that path?
Second, don’t conflate cost with the first item. If you are so concerned about cost, then reduce/remove government interference with the free market, enact meaningful tort reform and vigorously pursue and prosecute corruption. Medicare is rife with fraud, as is any government program that lends itself to such activity. With no motivation to manage costs or exercise any meaningful oversight, only the most egregious cases are ever discovered and pursued.
As for Steve B in Colorado – wow! Are you ever unhinged. Try reading what I’ve written instead of watching that whack-job leftist talking points movie that’s playing inside your head. You said, The decision to reproduce or not should be left up to individual families, not to big government fueled by big religion.
First of all, the argument isn’t about reproduction, per se, so don’t try to shift it to that strawman. It’s about the value of human life. The very fact that there is disagreement concerning the beginning of life should give any reasonable human being pause. If you ask Dr. Peter Singer, he’s all for extinguishing the life of infants up to 28 months for a variety of reasons, most of which hark to the same utilitarian criteria discussed by Ezekiel Emanuel (see – ideas do have consequences). If you ask some religious people, most will say that life begins at conception. So who’s more extreme, here?
But whatever the argument, if there is even the slightest doubt, wouldn’t it be prudent, wouldn’t it be more compassionate to err on the side of life? Unless, of course, you’re a monster like Singer. Or Margaret Sanger. Or Barack 0bama.
So no one is arguing for “big religious government” to make decisions for you. I am arguing for precisely the opposite – the free exercise of conscience and mindfulness. Which does NOT include the right of big government to seize my money or my property to pay for programs of dubious moral or economic value. Which seems to be your argument.
But for both of you, the problem and the crux of my argument remains: moral/philosophical views such as Singer’s and Emanuel’s regarding human life are extremely dangerous. They are in fact monstrous, because they lead down a very, very dark road whose destination is horror and slaughter. History is my witness. What makes you think that it’ll be different this time?
But you are avoiding the fact that all sorts of very expensive measures can be used to extend life. I doubt if you would say that every measure, no matter how expensive, should be available to ANYONE who wants it. If not, then some POLICY is needed. As far as I can tell, your position is that if people die because they can not get care, that is OK, as long as it is not the government that is making the “decision.” If the free market makes the “decision”: OK. If the government makes the “decision”: no.
Look, I think it is very much up in the air if the government can pay for universal health care. Should you, I, or the government care if Joe Schmo can’t afford chemo-therapy or bone marrow grafts? If he would just die, then we would not have to pay for him any more. Margaret Sanger might like the position where all who could not pay on their own would die, and then we would be rid of them. You seem to feel that you are on some moral high ground here, but it seems pretty arbitrary and blurry to me.
#14 geokster: “…..the Endangered Species list…..will be used to prevent any new exploration or drilling…..” You need better information. Here in Colorado, even with a recession ongoing, 2010 has been a big year in granting of drilling permits and 2011 is predicted to be even stronger. In the overall intermountain West, some of the best science about protecting threatened species is coming from energy companies.
Walt Dorrity: “murder of the unborn is the prime sacrament in progressives’ church of death. At will, on demand abortion is their holy write….” Interesting thoughtline. So, are you an advocate for big government intervention into the private lives of citizens? Do you opine that citizens should not have access to birth control devices such as the pill or condoms? What gives you the right to impose your personal religious views onto other citizens? The decision to reproduce or not should be left up to individual families, not to big government fueled by big religion.
“It is about control and the exercise of power….” I agree fully. That control and power was in full force some years ago in the Terry Schiavo case where the husband, after years of waiting and many medical opinions, decided to pull the plug on his brain dead wife. But, my oh my, the efforts by far right wing religious figures to try and use big government to interfere with a personal family decision was amazing.
“Who has the courage and the intellectual honesty to answer that?….” Good question. But look at it this way. What gives you or any right wing religious figure the right to interfere with my effort to seek out medical advice for end-of-life counseling? No one is being forced to get the information. But you seem focused on denying the information to others who may not share your personal religious views.
As always, the onion has the best articles about the abortion debate:
http://www.theonion.com/search/?q=abortion
I particularly like this one:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/im-totally-psyched-about-this-abortion,10931/
And if the subtlety in that one isn’t too much, there’s always this:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/christ-kills-two-injures-seven-in-abortionclinic-a,477/
I fear that the point of that second one is probably going to be lost on a few …
An inferior health care plan that no one wants and CANNOT afford to pay. The threat to jail and/or fine those who don’t purchase the government enforced plan.
Massive spending as if there is no tomorrow. Massive borrowing. The Massive giving away of Billions of dollars every year to other countries, including the oil-wealthy Middle East, Hamas-controlled Gaza and the Palestinian Authority Muslim terrorist organization who fill their war chests, build mansions and laugh all the way to the bank with free infidel money.
Massive debt. The massive printing of paper money. There is no question that the total DESTRUCTION of America’s economy is planned. The results will be horrifying. In the once wealthy and great nation of America, millions of Americans will become destitute, hungry and homeless with no money or resources to help them.
OBAMA: DEBT UNSUSTAINABLE
Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ‘Unsustainable’
By Roger Runningen and Hans Nichols
May 14 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.
“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”
Holders of U.S. debt will eventually “get tired” of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.”…
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJsSb4qtILhg&refer=worldwide
Obama admits the terrible financial destruction wrought against Americans. WHY then DOES OBAMA NOT IMMEDIATELY REVERSE THIS TRAGEDY?
A major investor states America is going to reach Zimbabwe hyperinflation.
http://economyincrisis.org/articles/show/2942
Owe-bama
IOU-bama
Watch it. And weep for our great nation and people.
FALL Of The Republic – The Presidency Of Barack H Obama – The Full Movie HQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8LPNRI_6T8&feature=player_embedded
In ignoring court decisions that strike down his un-Constitutional laws (oil drilling in the Gulf, carbon emissions, etc, etc) and implementing his agenda by executive fiat, Obama is doing more than exceeding his authority: he is undermining an entire branch of government — the courts — and setting the stage down the road, whether for himself or others, for a Chavez-style coup that claims more and more of the economy and asserts more and more power.
Expect more of the same in regard to every item on Obama’s agenda, including court decisions striking down the health care law. *Count* on the fact that HHS will ignore even a Supreme Court decision striking down the Health Care law.
Obama’s excesses of power will increase along with both his megalomania and the number of games of golf he plays each week, and it’s not beyond the pale that he may eventually employ Executive Orders on the books that give him emergency power to do anything he wants for any emergency he cares to declare — seize everything in the private economy, create work gangs, control all communications, etc, ad infinitum (see http://robbservations.blogspot.com/2009/10/unbridled-authority-of-presidential.html).
Note that these EO’s morphed from being invoked after nuclear attack (during Kennedy’s term), and now allow invocation for any undefined emergency the President cares to claim. They even claim immunity from Congressional oversight. The only thing that will restrict Obama is what he can get away with in a passive public, and how much obedience he can extract among a compliant Federal police and military.
The reason that they allowed the death panels to be take out of Obamacare was they were not needed, since funding for that was previously included in the stimulus bill that passed just prior to it.
Neat trick: bury something deeply in two bills and when it gets found in one, remove it without much argument.
I want to see Sarah Palin and Barry face off in Presidential level debates in the run up to the 2012 election. I’m sure that Governor Palin will wipe the floor with Barry especially if he is not allowed to use his teleprompters. Barry has shown over and over that when he is off the teleprompters he is a poor speaker, unsure of himself and prone to gaffes. You know, like “57 states”, or “corpse man”. Sarah Palin speaks to the people because she is one of the people of the United States, not some elite and arrogant wanna be euro style neo socialist. Go Sarah!!!
Before we end up with cruel tyranny and utterly ruthless dictatorship, losing ALL of our freedoms, a law must be passed making executive orders illegal. And all executive orders already signed, made null and void.
You don’t think the head of the executive branch of government should be able to issue binding directives to to the executive branch of government?
Interesting.
This is a good example of why your commenting on political issues in the US strikes readers here as so inane. The well-read, intelligent conservative readers and commenters you like to refer to using the collective ‘you’.
I doubt that any one of them read Linda Rivera’s comment and did not know exactly what she meant. You, the singular you, completely missed it.
This is what is referred to as beclowning oneself.
“This is a good example of why your commenting on political issues in the US strikes readers here as so inane.”
Ooh – excellent. You’re going to explain yourself rather than just throwing abuse around. I’m looking forward to this ….
“The well-read, intelligent conservative readers and commenters you like to refer to using the collective ‘you’.”
In this case, the “you” was quite clearly a reference to Linda. I’m not sure why you think it was collective, third-person pronoun, but I’m sure you’ll explain that.
“I doubt that any one of them read Linda Rivera’s comment and did not know exactly what she meant. You, the singular you, completely missed it.”
Uh huh. I’ll see if I can redeem myself – I am well aware that presidents do occasionally try to use executive orders (and signing statements) to attempt to legislate. But they can’t – the courts don’t actually treat those instruments as civil (i.e. not administrative) law. They’re executive directives, they have to be legal, and they can only affect the executive. The president RUNS the executive – it’s his right to do so, and he’s responsible for it. If the president decides that the government should stop executing foreign leaders (as richard nixon did), he needs to have the authority to tell the executive of that decision, and they have a responsibility to adhere to it. Think of an executive order as an official memo, essentially. How on earth is (a) banning them, and (b) retroactively declaring them void not a ridiculous breach of the separation of powers? And how is it even useful? How is the president going to put decisions on the record – or does it all have to be done on the sly, from then on? The “chinese whispers” model of governance? Have you really thought this through?
“This is what is referred to as beclowning oneself.”
I think you’re being harsh. I’ll wait to see your response before passing judgment. You might not have completely beclowned yourself yet.
Is it just me or is there an echo in here?
Too many Americans believe that they have a “right” to healthcare to fully resist this sort thing. Polls show support for insurance for pre-existing conditions illustrating the public’s poor understanding of insurance. Rationing is inevitable as long as government is involved.
There is no free lunch out there, folks. As much as I love SP, I have to part company with her on this. That is not to say I support Obamacare. But cost control without rationing in Medicare is impossible. I support phasing out SS and Medicare.
BTW Mr. Preston the word is enstate not instate.
Let me get this straight. We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke. What the hell could possibly go wrong?
Before Congress decided to enrich themself with health insurance money, we had a system that was the best in the world. People came from all over the world for our health care, when they really needed it, and their own socialist systems failed them. Every American, including anyone that happened to be here legal or illegal, could go find a hospital and get health care if they were really sick.
So what was the complaint? The unfortunate without insurance had to get themself to a hospital to get care! That was demeaning?
The cost of caring for everyone, 350+ million, was born by the taxpayers.
Now we have to add the cost of insurance for everyone, to the actual cost of the health care. The taxpayers wont stand for it. The system will collapse, because the burden for this extra cost is being shifted to the system itself. Doctors, nurses and hospitals are going to be forced to pay this burden, through government mandates and the results will be rationed health care, just like every place that has ever had socialized medicine.
Congress thought that they had excluded themself from the perils of this plan, but time will tell. When the best health care system in the world collapses, even those wizards in Washington are going to suffer the consequences.
Sorry to burst your educated bubble but anyone that writes about inexperienced people like a Palin, O’Donnell, Miller or Angle are really being dumb as a rock are playing in to the hands of the media and the rich peoples politicians that don’t have your best interests in mind. You need to stop finding fault in those that raise these flags and start attending city council meetings and asking questions. They have added this in to this OBAMACARE mess and we are too busy shooting the messenger.
Wow, Notsospeedypetey; you sure have your leftwing-issued memes all lined up don’t you? Not a lick of sense in your drivel, but the hatred and ignorance in you is strong.
I sense much failure in your future…..
Monday, May 24, 2010. Dr. Donald Berwick, nominated by President Barry Barack Hussen Obama to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that runs Medicare, published an article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), advising leaders of Britain’s socialized health care system: “Please don’t put your faith in market forces.” The article, published in the July 26, 2008 issue of the BMJ, compared the U.S. health care system unfavorably to the British system, which Berwick said he was “romantic about.” Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who serves on the Senate Finance Committee, which has oversight over Berwick’s nomination, told CNSNews.com that he believes Berwick misunderstands the American health care system. “Nobody spends someone else’s money as carefully as they spend their own,” said Roberts, “and that’s what we’ve seen happening over the last several decades as the government pays for more and more care.” Roberts noted that Berwick’s “avid support for the rationing system” in Great Britain makes him a candidate to carry out a similar system here in the United States now that President Obama’s national health care plan has been enacted. “Obamacare will take on payment responsibility for a whole new class of Americans and, predictably, the Administration is searching for ways to contain their newly acquired costs,” said Roberts. “Rationing of health care will be their plan. In a 2009 interview with Biotechnology Healthcare, Berwick said the United States needed to face the inevitability of rationing with “open eyes.” “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care–the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open,” he said.