Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sarah Palin Responds to Winning 'Lie of the Year'
Newsbusters ^

Posted on 12/23/2009 8:08:19 AM PST by Sub-Driver

Sarah Palin Responds to Winning 'Lie of the Year' By Noel Sheppard Created 2009-12-23 10:40

Sarah Palin has responded to claims that her "death panel" comment concerning healthcare reform legislation is the "Lie of the Year."

As NewsBusters previously reported [0], the Palin-hating press have been having a field day since she won this dubious honor from the website PolitiFact last week.

On Tuesday, the former Alaska Governor responded [1] at her Facebook page, and did so with skill and aplomb (emphasis hers):

Last weekend while you were preparing for the holidays with your family, Harry Reid’s Senate was making shady backroom deals to ram through the Democrat health care take-over. The Senate ended debate on this bill without even reading it. That and midnight weekend votes seem to be standard operating procedures in D.C. No one is certain of what’s in the bill, but Senator Jim DeMint spotted one shocking revelation [2] regarding the section in the bill describing the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (now called the Independent Payment Advisory Board), which is a panel of bureaucrats charged with cutting health care costs on the backs of patients – also known as rationing. Apparently Reid and friends have changed the rules of the Senate so that the section of the bill dealing with this board can’t be repealed or amended without a 2/3 supermajority vote. Senator DeMint said:

“This is a rule change. It’s a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses.”

In other words, Democrats are protecting this rationing “death panel” from future change with a procedural hurdle. You have to ask why they’re so concerned about protecting this particular provision. Could it be because bureaucratic rationing is one important way Democrats want to “bend the cost curve” and keep health care spending down?

The Congressional Budget Office seems to think that such rationing has something to do with cost. In a letter to Harry Reid last week [3], CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted (with a number of caveats) that the bill’s calculations call for a reduction in Medicare’s spending rate by about 2 percent in the next two decades, but then he writes the kicker [4]:

“It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.”

Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call “death panels” the “lie of the year,” this type of rationing – what the CBO calls “reduc[ed] access to care” and “diminish[ed] quality of care” – is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.

The clock is now ticking as we await the inevitably dishonest fact-checking of Palin's response.

Isn't the tension delicious?


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2009review; demlies; manoftheyear; palin

1 posted on 12/23/2009 8:08:20 AM PST by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Metaphor...

Darn it, there Sarah goes again, using words Olbermouth is going to have to look up.

2 posted on 12/23/2009 8:10:27 AM PST by gov_bean_ counter (Sarah Palin - For such a time as this)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I worry for her safety. She stands effectively alone while the bulk of GOP filler material shuffles around trying to hide behind one another.


3 posted on 12/23/2009 8:13:55 AM PST by Psalm 144 (What did you think NEW WORLD ORDER meant? The Constitution? States' rights? Individual liberty?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
It is highly dubious that a current congress can pass a law that restricts the powers of any future congress, as it concerns the passing of or revocation of any law.

A future congress could simply pass a law declaring the opposite of what the current bill says; if it passes then it becomes law (with the signature of the POTUS).

Such a constraint on any future power of congress would require an amendment to the constitution...IMHO
4 posted on 12/23/2009 8:16:36 AM PST by Sudetenland (Slow to anger but terrible in vengence...such is the character of the American people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

Hardly. DeMint has been fighting like a junkyard dog as well. But Kudos to Palin. A very fine slap at the socialist dirtbags.


5 posted on 12/23/2009 8:18:35 AM PST by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
It is highly dubious that a current congress can pass a law that restricts the powers of any future congress, as it concerns the passing of or revocation of any law.

It's not dubious at all. They can't. SCOTUS has spoken on this issue. What can be done by one Congress can be undone by any future Congress.

6 posted on 12/23/2009 8:20:45 AM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Sarah towers above the midgets in the worthless GOP.


7 posted on 12/23/2009 8:25:58 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
In a nutshell, the Death Panels, otherwise known as the (House) Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission and (Senate) Independent Medicare Advisory Board, as they appear in both bills.

The stimulus bill, HR 1, already law, provides funding for the Comparative Effectiveness Research program in Title VIII, but it has not been authorized. In other words, there is a plan here: we will fund it, and worry about authorizing the spending later.

The House bill, HR 3200, authorizes the Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission and describes at great length in Title IV. The stimulus bill is an appropriations bill, HR 3200 is an authorization bill. In order for it to have the weight of law, it has to be both authorized and funded by both the House and Senate. In the vast majority of cases, the authorization occurs and then a measure is funded. In this instance, our Overlords have reversed that sequence.

The "Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission" will determine what medicine and treatments are effective enough to be worth their expense, and, therefore, which the government will allow patients to receive and will allow to be paid for by "private" insurance. These determinations are to be based on the treatment or prescription being economically "effective," depending on whether the patient (or a category of patients) is deemed worth the expense because of age, potential productivity, health, and other factors. It mandates the creation of a commission like the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE, which assigns a value to a year of life based on age, existing conditions, etc. If a procedure or treatment exceeds that value, you don't get the medicine, treatment or procedure.

Under this system, you won't even get a personal visit to the "death panel." The commission will determine what treatment you may receive without ever looking at your individual case. Instead, you will be assigned to a cohort or a category, and the applicable limits -- rationing -- applied to your care. In the Senate bill, the same death panel concept is located and spelled out in section 3403, from pages 1,000 to 1,0007, of the Reid substitute. There is established an independent board to be known as the ‘Independent Medicare Advisory Board:

"PURPOSE.—It is the purpose of this section to, in accordance with the following provisions of this section, reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending. by requiring the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to determine in each year to which this section applies the projected per capita growth rate under Medicare for the second year following the determination year. If the projection for the implementation year exceeds the target growth rate for that year, by requiring the Board to develop and submit during the first year following the determination year this a proposal containing recommendations to reduce the Medicare per capita growth rate to the extent required by this section by requiring the Secretary to implement such proposals unless Congress enacts legislation pursuant to this section."

8 posted on 12/23/2009 8:26:57 AM PST by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144
Pray for her safety ... bring her under the protection of Psalm 91 ... claim Isaiah 57:14 for her ...

no weapon forged against you will prevail,
and you will refute every tongue that accuses you.
This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD,
and this is their vindication from me,”
declares the LORD.

..”blessed are the people whose God is the Lord.” Psalm 144:15 :)

9 posted on 12/23/2009 8:27:02 AM PST by Pegita ('Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus, just to take Him at His word ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Most of these gas-bag congress critters belong in Gitmo...behind bars. Can't happen soon enough.
10 posted on 12/23/2009 8:28:34 AM PST by GoldenPup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia
The "Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission" will determine what medicine and treatments are effective enough to be worth their expense, and, therefore, which the government will allow patients to receive and will allow to be paid for by "private" insurance.

This is going to kill research.

11 posted on 12/23/2009 8:31:15 AM PST by SCalGal (Friends don't let friends donate to H$U$ or PETA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

If that is the case, this provision is even better for the conservatives. The fact that the Dems tried to protect their “death panel” with unconstitutional provisions will make great campaign ad fodder. And every Dem is the 60th vote that put this in place.

If the political bloodbath is sufficient, the Dems will join the GOP in repealing this mess with a veto proof majority. The Dems who are not up for reelection in 2010 will know that this will continue to be an issue in every election until it is repealed.

Just wait until mid 2010 when the polls show how bad it is going to be and no one wants to donate money to a Dem candidate because it would be a waste.


12 posted on 12/23/2009 8:31:58 AM PST by Truth is a Weapon (Truth, it hurts soooo good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

That will teach Palin refer to the end-of-life panel and the council on medical effectiveness as “death panels”.

How anti-Orwellian! Sarah is so stupid that she doesn’t understand Newspeak. I’ll bet she doesn’t love Big Brother.


13 posted on 12/23/2009 8:31:58 AM PST by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SCalGal

It doesn’t have anything to do with medical research. It deals with treatments, and whether particular treatments and medicines (that have already been through the research and testing process) will be paid for.


14 posted on 12/23/2009 8:35:24 AM PST by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

If the entire bill is deemed unconstitutional, which it is, then the bill is null and void and nothing in it is lawful.

Where’s 0bama’s Birth Certificate and College Transcripts?


15 posted on 12/23/2009 8:36:10 AM PST by HighlyOpinionated (Abortion-Euthanasia kills the very people for whom Social Justice is needed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland

With a simple majority, any future congress can re-write the clause eliminating the limiting text.

Reid knows that. He’s just being a bully.


16 posted on 12/23/2009 8:44:10 AM PST by Cletus.D.Yokel (FreepMail me if you want on the Bourbon ping list!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia
It doesn’t have anything to do with medical research

Let's say you were contemplating investing millions of $$ into medical research. Would you be more inclined or less inclined to do so when facing the prospect that the final success or failure of your product would be determined by politics and some faceless board who decides what treatment is cost effective and therefor best for society. Would you be more inclined or less inclined if the ultimate success or failure of the product was determined by the free market and the merits of the product itself?

17 posted on 12/23/2009 8:57:02 AM PST by nitzy (A just law does not punish virtue nor reward vice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Pegita

You are right, and I do. But you know how the struggle goes back and forth.

Thank you for the reminder though. It was welcome.


18 posted on 12/23/2009 9:00:05 AM PST by Psalm 144 (What did you think NEW WORLD ORDER meant? The Constitution? States' rights? Individual liberty?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HighlyOpinionated

Rarely is it ever possible to have a complex legislative grab bag like this ruled unconstitutional overall. Instead a provision or two is ruled in violation. Tyranical majorities know how to draft language to protect the overall legislation. They include language adding severability. This makes a provision in the law stating that if any clause or clauses are found to be unconstitutional the rest of the legislation shall remain severable and not dependent on the offending clause or provision to stay in effect.

This clause is meant to protect the legislative agenda against the judicial branch check and balance run amok. It is in this bill I”ll bet a million.


19 posted on 12/23/2009 9:02:26 AM PST by KC Burke (...but He has made the trains run on time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pissant

I agree. But you can count them on one hand just about.

They forced Joe Wilson to apologize for speaking truth.

There may be more good ones, but Steele and McCain and Graham keep hogging the spotlight it seems.

Nevertheless, these curs are the pack we have to hunt with in the immediate future, and we have to make the best of it.


20 posted on 12/23/2009 9:03:34 AM PST by Psalm 144 (What did you think NEW WORLD ORDER meant? The Constitution? States' rights? Individual liberty?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nitzy; SCalGal
Of course you are right, looking at the big picture, although I'm not selling off my holdings in Pfizer just yet, because I understand the drug companies have covered their own butts. And nice try at derailing my comment, by the way, although I can't imagine why you would want to do that.

I was discussing and identifying, not medical research, but the DEATH PANELS, by title, in the bills. I understand some people have a hard time focusing and staying focused, but try anyway. These provisions are not targeted at medical research specifically, or in any way. The "research" as it appears in the title is "research" by sociologists and bean-counters to determine if a particular treatment, say, insulin for diabetics, is worth paying for depending on the age, health, etc. of a patient or group of patients.

21 posted on 12/23/2009 9:06:21 AM PST by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke

I wish you are wrong, but you are absolutely corrrect.

The task before is nothing short of electoral revolution, and to force the governemnt to live small. Basically, to repeal every federal gain in the last 100 years.

I am confident though. If we can’t do it, bankruptcy will.

Just ask the Soviets.


22 posted on 12/23/2009 9:10:29 AM PST by Psalm 144 (What did you think NEW WORLD ORDER meant? The Constitution? States' rights? Individual liberty?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia

True, but new medical treatments are almost always expensive, in Newspeak “doubleplus unhealthful due to cost.” So who is going to research treatments that a government “health panel” (more Newspeak) will stop from ever reaching the market?


23 posted on 12/23/2009 9:15:17 AM PST by piytar (Ammo is hard to find! Bought some lately? Please share where at www.ammo-finder.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia

I wasn’t trying to derail your comment; there is no reason to get snarky about it.


24 posted on 12/23/2009 9:16:33 AM PST by SCalGal (Friends don't let friends donate to H$U$ or PETA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

I’ve printed out Isaiah 54:17 in large letters, Psalm ... and to counter my weak moments, I either read it or turn it face up so God can see :) The Promise is that His Word will not return void but will accomplish all that He sends it out to do. Long after our words are forgotten, His Word stands, Amen?

no weapon forged against you will prevail,
and you will refute every tongue that accuses you.
This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD,
and this is their vindication from me,”
declares the LORD.


25 posted on 12/23/2009 9:16:38 AM PST by Pegita ('Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus, just to take Him at His word ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Pegita

Amen and amen, Pegita.

Thank you.


26 posted on 12/23/2009 9:19:16 AM PST by Psalm 144 (What did you think NEW WORLD ORDER meant? The Constitution? States' rights? Individual liberty?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Thanks to DeMint. Watch and learn.
27 posted on 12/23/2009 9:19:50 AM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia
It doesn’t have anything to do with medical research. It deals with treatments, and whether particular treatments and medicines (that have already been through the research and testing process) will be paid for.

On the face of it, you're right. But if you go a bit further:

But medical research is very expensive. When care is going to be rationed - and we agree that it is, per the "death panels" - why would anyone want to pay for research that is likely not to be used? New treatments, experimental treatments are expensive and their results aren't documented. The "death panels" want to use only treatments with documented results, and only the less costly of them.

28 posted on 12/23/2009 9:23:23 AM PST by SCalGal (Friends don't let friends donate to H$U$ or PETA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Truth is a Weapon

Bottom line -

there will be a committee that will determine who gets healthcare and who does not.

If you need that healthcare to live and the committee decides that you don’t merit it,

then you die by the decision of the committee.

How is that NOT a “death panel”?


29 posted on 12/23/2009 9:24:10 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/ManagersAmend.html

Each year, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must implement the Board’s directives unless Congress, within a given deadline, legislates an alternative set of restrictions to accomplish the same result. However, Congress could not reduce the net of the targeted cuts unless three-fifths of both chambers voted to do so. The bill goes so far as to forbid a future Congress from repealing these provisions, except for a one-time opportunity in 2017! Section 3403, adding Social Security Act Section 1899A(d)(3)( C), p. 1020.


30 posted on 12/23/2009 9:24:29 AM PST by roses of sharon (This is a feral government, broken from the civilizing constraints of the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SCalGal

And what does that have to do with Sarah Palin lying? Focus, focus, focus.


31 posted on 12/23/2009 9:25:11 AM PST by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
It is highly dubious that a current congress can pass a law that restricts the powers of any future congress, as it concerns the passing of or revocation of any law.

It is not highly dubious, they can pass anything they want, and there is nothing dubious about the Constitutionality of the aforementioned. It is unconstitutional period.

Why do we have all these pantywaist Republicans saying it "Might" be unconstitutional? I have contended for years, the the Republican Elite have hid their true agenda behind court decisions, over which they had authority to force changes.

All the current griping is just a diversion, remember the fence? Yes GW promised to build it, to shut us up, then promptly had fellow traitor Hutchinson effectively kill it, and Big Hair did nothing either.

We now have an Imperial Presidency, and "Moderate Republicans" have had their hands in this, up to their elbows.

32 posted on 12/23/2009 9:26:33 AM PST by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia
And what does that have to do with Sarah Palin lying?

What exactly is it you think she lied about? That they're going to have to ration care?

Or does it bother you that she called them "death panels" when the bill calls them something else?

33 posted on 12/23/2009 9:29:51 AM PST by SCalGal (Friends don't let friends donate to H$U$ or PETA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Truth is a Weapon
Just wait until mid 2010 when the polls show how bad it is going to be

Don't gorget who will be counting the votes, as well as the population.


34 posted on 12/23/2009 9:30:53 AM PST by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

The real “Lie of the Year.” is that “death panel” is Lie of the Year ...death panels are about to be all to real


35 posted on 12/23/2009 9:33:51 AM PST by tophat9000 (Obama has "Jumped The Shark" ...and fell in the shark tank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SCalGal
I did not know I needed to provide pictures and drawings. The POINT OF MY POST IS THAT SHE DID NOT LIE. The headline of this thread says she did. Are we looking at the same thread?

There are "death panels" in both versions of the bill. I have identified them, and where they appear in the bill, because I have an attention span that allows me to read lengthy amounts of written material without losing track of what its subject and purpose is.

It doesn't matter what label these panels go by in the language of the bill.

Those "death panels" will be used to deny treatment and medicine to certain people. They do not DIRECTLY affect medical research.

There. Is that clear enough for you now?

36 posted on 12/23/2009 9:40:13 AM PST by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia
Calm down Lydia. SCal read what you wrote and made a true statement regarding the consequences of the death panels. She didn't contradict you. She added to and amplified your statement. You derailed her comment not the other way around.

Which is the bigger travesty? The millions who will live a lower quality of life due to this bill OR the billions who will suffer and die over the next 100 years as the innovations that could have been made to save lives and promote health never materialize.

Your stance would be like a Russian arguing in 1917 that they thought the new system was unfair because those who are related to government officals get first dibs on the free government bread. SCal would also point out the long term negative consequences of the Bolsheviks handing out free government bread. Both arguments are valid and do not contradict each other.

37 posted on 12/23/2009 9:48:02 AM PST by nitzy (A just law does not punish virtue nor reward vice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia
So what's the problem? We agree that the death panels exist.

You don't like me pointing out other consequences of them?

38 posted on 12/23/2009 9:56:46 AM PST by SCalGal (Friends don't let friends donate to H$U$ or PETA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: nitzy

And thank YOU for patronizing me.


39 posted on 12/23/2009 9:57:49 AM PST by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia

Your welcome.


40 posted on 12/23/2009 10:03:47 AM PST by nitzy (A just law does not punish virtue nor reward vice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
It is the George Carlin conundrum.

Hey Fadduh, can God create a stone so heavy he, himself can't lift?

41 posted on 12/23/2009 10:25:18 AM PST by Cyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

From Newsbuster’s article ... “The clock is now ticking as we await the inevitably dishonest fact-checking of Palin’s response.”

Haha, perfectly stated.


42 posted on 12/23/2009 8:28:33 PM PST by militanttoby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson