Skip to comments.What's a "Death Panel"? (Freep Wikipedia's Anti-Palin rant)
Posted on 11/14/2013 11:35:50 PM PST by Jack Black
I have been involved in editing the article on Death Panels on Wikipedia. For those who are interested in Obamacare the original claim by Sarah Palin that Obamacare would include panels that would limit treatment to achieve cost savings and might be expected to result in people not getting treatment they need, particularly older or disabled people, seems like yet another obvious fact that the left cannot accept.
No where is this more clear than in the Wikipedia article on Death Panels which, in violation of Wikipedia rules is essentially a long diatribe against Gov. Palin.
I am requesting a good old fashioned Freep of Wikipedia for the purpose of building "consensus" among the smug, self-satisfied leftist editoral guard-dogs.
As you may know anyone can edit either Wikipedia or the talk pages. As I am not a destructive vandal I am not asking people to edit the article (at this time) but rather to read the article, and comment on it on the Talk page. The editors believe in consensus as the tool to set article direction. Fine, I believe there is a consensus that a Death Panel is a Death Panel is a Death Panel, regardless of who coined the term.
Here is the article: Death Panel.
Here is the Death Panel TALK page where, after reading the comments, I wold appreciate it if you would please append your own at the bottom. Keep it civil. If you have a WIKI login use it, but you can add comments without one (but they will attach your current IP address)
Thanks. I've been inspired by Matt Bracken's use of FR and Facebook to drive comments up the list, this is the same sort of on-line activism, and it is explicitly in support of Gov. Palin and common sense.
This is a sort of experiment to see if it's possible to make progress on Wikipedia using numbers, as it is claimed it should be.
Pinging my list for help. Sorry for the slight OT use of the list, but this is a good cause and will only take a few minutes.
Wikipedia is an outstanding resource on rock and mathematics.
The anal libtards get all freaky on conservatives though...
Your first mistake is trying to reason with leftards.
Can’t be done.
This “Dr. Fleischman” creepwad seems actually to be denying that “death panel” is in common usage.
What an asshat.
A quick Google returns 522 million hits, more than one for every man, woman, and child in America. How many does he want?
These people are closed-minded bigots; their hatred for all things good limits what they are able to perceive.
you HAVE heard of all the tales of conservatives getting all freaky on anal libtards haint cha...hmmmm...noooo..hmmm...there musta ben no survivors...
I see not just amputations on the wrong limb....but on the wrong patient.
and don't expect quick response for a broken arm:
And so you have an acute appendix....?
Mark Wattson, 35, from Swindon may have been the victim of botched surgery after he had to have his appendix removed twice
To his shock, surgeons from the same team told him that not only was his appendix still inside him, but it had ruptured - a potentially fatal complication.
In a second operation it was finally removed, leaving Mr Wattson fearing another organ might have been taken out during the first procedure.
The blunder has left Mr Wattson jobless, as bosses at the shop where he worked did not believe his story and sacked him.
Mr Wattson told of the moment he realised there had been a serious mistake.
'I was lying on a stretcher in terrible pain and a doctor came up to me and said that my appendix had burst,' he said.
'I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I told these people I had my appendix out just four weeks earlier but there it was on the scanner screen for all to see.
'I thought, "What the hell did they slice me open for in the first place?"
'I feel that if the surgery had been done correctly in the first place I wouldn't be in the mess I am today. I'm disgusted by the whole experience.'
Mr Wattson first went under the knife on July 7 after experiencing severe abdominal pain for several weeks. He was discharged but exactly a month later he had to dial 999 after collapsing in agony. Mr Wattson
Mr Wattson was readmitted to the Great Western Hospital in Swindon after his appendix ruptured.
Nurse will see you now
130,000 elderly patients killed every year by death pathway, claims leading UK doctor
by Thaddeus Baklinski Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:02 EST Tags: euthanasia, patrick pullicino, uk
LONDON, June 21, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An eminent British doctor told a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine in London that every year 130,000 elderly patients that die while under the care of the National Health Service (NHS) have been effectively euthanized by being put on the controversial Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), a protocol for care of the terminally ill that he described as a death pathway.
Sit back and enjoy your Obamacare.
That nurse is making me long for the comfort of a 12 gauge, in a “That outfit is creeping me the hell out” sort of way.
But it's OK since you would be in great company as the wards are still those designed by Florence Nightingale.
(problem is that the "open plan" layout promotes cross infection ....like those nasty flesh eating bacterias)
Try renting or buying the book Damaged Care. It is the true story of the HMO’s death panels.
What is the retention rate, or better yet the lifespan of doctors in the UK???
I have a feeling that if this begins to manifest itself here in the good ole USofA, that there may be a shortage of doctors in the near future...
Then what are they gonna do???
I also see the people in those kush, non-physician medical insurance review boards becoming extinct as well...
Anyway you look at this, there is no real winning senario here for communism...
We may vbery well have to suffer a little more, but the backlash (I feel) is primed and ready to be unleashed, and these goobers are nowhere near prepared for the attention that is about to focus on them...
Job security??? Hehehe, the more people end up with botched procedures, and arms looking like this...
The need to “spread the wealth/pain” will reach new hieghts...
This is just a gut-feeling I have...We can stave off this un-necessary, and potential response, if we can do everything we can to make this Tax go away...It may take 2-3 years, but the ends justify the means...
It was never about Healthcare in the first place, so why are we struggling to debate and converse about something that this whole thing is NOT about???
We gave the elected caste of knuckleheads their chance to defund it, get rid of it, and they failed miserably...
The people in this country will have the last laugh...
Elections have consequenses, and the conservative movement in this country has been losing the battles since 2006...With only a minor saving grace in 2010...We got lucky there...
“What are YOU prepared to do about it, and what are YOU willing to sacrifice to succeed?”
Those stodgy old white guys 230+ years ago were not fiddle farting around...they may have had their personal and professional dissagreements on how the thing should go, but after a few pints at the local pub, after a long day of debate, they parted on amiable terms, went home, and in those evenings sat with their families and made musket balls...They knew what they were doing would bring a fight, and for all intents and purposes:
“Prudence and Preparedness, will triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia everytime!” ~ Stevie-D (1992)
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Global warming
I do use wiki sometimes but on political issues and matters related in any way to ideology it should just convert to a place to debate and stop the ruse of being an encyclopedia. We get enough of that kind of crap from the employees of the MSM.
That article has got to be the most blatantly politically biased article I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Over and over again, it goes out of its way to attack Conservatives (including a weird, tangential reference to Texas “Death Panels” supposedly signed into law by Bush).
Among their credible sources is uber-liberal Media Matters, and quite Liberal Politifact.
The whole thing reads like a White House Press Release. How could ANYONE at Wikipedia NOT see how unacceptably biased that whole page is?
By Popular Request, what is history but a lie agreed upon?
Ubama NEVER promised you could keep your plan.
We have always been at War with Eurasia too.
Concerning the "Death Panels"
August 12, 2009 at 8:55pm
Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these unproductive members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.
The President made light of these concerns. He said:
Let me just be specific about some things that Ive been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor thats been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because weve decided that we dont, its too expensive to let her live anymore....It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when theyre ready on their own terms. It wasnt forcing anybody to do anything. 
The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled Advance Care Planning Consultation.  With all due respect, its misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.
Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program."  During those consultations, practitioners must explain the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and the government benefits available to pay for such services. 
Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipients health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is to reduce the growth in health care spending.  Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If its all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, whats it doing in a measure to bend the curve on health-care costs? 
As Lane also points out:
Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 arent quite purely voluntary, as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, purely voluntary means not unless the patient requests one. Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, thats an incentive to insist.
Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once theyre in the meeting, the bill does permit formulation of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign, I dont think hes being realistic. 
Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described true believer who will almost certainly support whatever reform package finally emerges, agrees that If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending. 
So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a rumor to be disposed of, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:
Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives.... It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen ... should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. 
Of course, its not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the Presidents chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.  Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated. 
President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. Its all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.
- Sarah Palin
Truthfully the only thing she’s wrong on is that if these things get going, they’re not going to be the type of panels you can show up and argue your case before. The rules are going to be written by committee, implemented by committee and presented to you as a fait accompli. What, you thought it’d be any easier to get out-of-the-box treatment under Obamacare, let alone single-payer, than it is now?