Now, the issue at hand: Obama's Healthcare Reform

First off- among our non-American population, I understand many countries have nationalized healthcare; true, and if so, pros and cons for you guys where you live?

Right then: on to Ms. Palin's latest attack on healthcare reform/the Obama administration.

Ms. Palin posted on her Facebook Status that the healthcare bill would introduce a "Death Panel" into the healthcare system that would "deny coverage to the sick, young, and elderly" and that the healthcare reform is not "her vision of America." To punctuate this, she stated that she viewed the bill as "evil."

Here I'd love to comment, but first I feel it's only just to the other side to post Obama's "profile" and his strengths and flaws.

President Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President of The United States of America:

-Obama and his, regardless of your personal view on him, historic 2008 Campaign are so well known to the US (and I think the world, largely, too) that I won't go over it all again. Suffice it to say Obama came into office with sky-high expectations and a sky-high approval ratings (over 65% at the very beginning) and thus far has, six months into hsi four-year term, not yet lived up to those numbers or acclaim, however early in the game it is for him, and has seen hs approval ratings drop to 50-55%, more common numbers for a President. Obama promised healthcare reform, to revive the American economy, to withdraw troops from Iraq, and to promote environmental protection (ie combat global warming) among other things. Thus far his healthcare plan has been nearly unilaterally opposed by Republicans, and has been inching along much slower and much more painfully than he would have hoped, the economy has yet to make any great recovery, though signs of a turnaround are cropping up in places, Iraq has been going reasonably smoothly as far as the withdrawal, and the environment has not been the topic of much focus as of yet, with the economy and healthcare eating up all the time and effort.
-Obama's plan is to nationalize healthcare to ensure across-the-board healthcare for all Americans, including the 48 million or more without it currently due to the cost. Proponents of the plan hail it's attempt at fairness and equal medical treatment to all Americans, detractors claim it will weaken healthcare and potentially cost too much, radical detractors claim it will destroy the economy, is immoral, and will ruin America. These radicals have begun to form mobs in town meetings and have sent death threats to leading Democrats.

Now for my response to Palin's statement:

Well, living in a country that has socialized medicine (Canada), I can say that the system does have it's problems, but overall, the system has worked for me.

However true the statement that the term "radical" is in the eye of the beholder, it is my opinion that Ms. Palin's comments not only slant her politically towards the "radicals" but also serve to incite them. The fact of the matter is, this is a representative democracy, not a rule-by-mob nation (as the Founding Fathers were careful to avoid, hence the Electoral College and not the popular vote being used to decide the Presidency) and mobs and death threats are not acceptable under any circumstances, including these. These mobs are not akin to Civil Rights marches or peaceful protest and assebly, as they are not peaceful. Fistfights have occured, and death threats just further tip the scale against them. That sort of behavior should not be allowed, let alone encouraged.

And Ms. Palin has done her best to encourage such mobs to "speak out" and "fight."

On the validity of Ms. Palin's comments- there is none. The Obama HC Plan allows for, which sparked the "Death Camp" spin, end-of-life porcedures (medicine to dull extreme pain so one may pass peacefully, whether or not one wishes to be kept alive via machine and how long and under what circumstances, etc.) to be covered by the plan, and additionally allows for, but does NOT mandate, Life Wills, which state the end-of-life wishes of a person, to be covered, and states that should a person choose to have a Life Will (which Mr. Obama suppports) a doctor may and must be involved in the drafting of such a document and the meetings concerning it for obvious medical reasons (ie to inform the patient/families of all possible treatments to which they may not have been aware, to to give medical opinion and advice.)

As Ms. Palin is a pro-life advocate, any end-of-life Will to her seems akin to murder, it would seem. Just as she is against abortion (which won't be covered here, that's a 1,000 response thread in itself) she is against any form of euthanaisia or anything that ends one's life "unnaturally" such as pulling the plug, so to speak.

Ms. Palin's comments on the bill or unfounded and potentially harmful. Nowhere in the bill does it allow for or even mention anything resembling a "Death Panel" that decides who lives or dies and when, does not mandate the Life Will to which she is so vehemently opposed, and thus it is hard to fathom her position, summed up as the plan being...

Evil.

It is apparently the view of Ms. Palin any other view on life that differs from her own is "evil." That certainly does not sound to me a properly tolerant or even eduacted person, and certainly not someone I would like as a leader or care to see as a voice of reason in the healthcare debate.

What's worse than her absolutist attitude, however, is her lending support, albeit indirectly, to the mobs fistfighting and sending death threats on the issue across America. This is not a nation that was concieved to be, and should not ever be, ruled by the angriest and most violent mob of people who will not listen to the other side and will not see past their viewpoint.

Thus, I submit a question to you:

If these mobs DO, as they seem destined to, lead to deaths and assaults, may we count the inciting forces of the said mob as culpable?

Because frankly, ladies and gentlemen, such a person, by cetain senses of morality, would be certainly deemed as "evil."

So- Palin, Obama, the healthcare bill, the mobs: all on the table...

I do have just one comment here (for now)...
It is illegal to deny medical treatment to a person in need by any hospital or emergency room regardless of insurance or ability to pay. That is not to say a person working for less than $15.00/hr or self employed does not require health insurance. Most under employed/ unemployed have access to medicare and/or medicaid which is already provided by the tax payers and heavily regulated by our government.
I agree EVERYONE should have access to regular healthcare but by removing the cost of insurance from individuals like myself and placing the entire financial burden on taxpayers I would like to understand the benefit to those of us that do not recieve the benefits of increased wages when minimum wage is increased (unlike most union workers which see a proportionate increase in their salary every time minimum wage is increased). My fear is that tax rates are going to increase even more to cover those who are uninsured. Unlike the people who sit on their sofa eating cheetos and watching Jerry Springer all day while drinking kool-aid complaining about how "the man" is out to get them, I work full time for a living, 2 jobs, and so does my wife ( she is also attending school full time working on her doctorate)

Obi, your analysis drips of pro-obama thoughts. Were you attempting to give objective data to the forum?

The three biggest expenses our government has are as follows
1. military
2. Interst on the national debt
(note this is not a dime toward priciple)
our government is makinkin minimum payments on the $9 trillion line of credit
3. social programs

Take a look at history and you will find another republic that lasted quite a while but the politicians worried about themselves not the people they represented. Re-election was more important (the agenda). That republic fell in time because of self defeat. It was Rome...

That having been said...
I do believe most people are good people and well intentioned, just ignorant.
Most of us want the best for all and are not extremists. No one I know personally agrees with either the left or right agenda whole heartedly...

tailboarder, that is an over simplistic, and in fact downright wrong analysis of why the Roman republic fell. Caesar, before being posted to Gaul, and during his time there, committed a number of crimes. However, his position gave him protection against being prosecuted. Meanwhile, he gained a loyal army, so when his term came to an end, rather than face trial and its consequences, he seized supreme control with the support of his army. Since American Generals are unlikely to march on Washington, I don't think your fear is founded.

Now, on this constantly re emerging issue of healthcare, put simple, the system in place in Singapore is best.

Also, do you really expect anyone to read all that. You wrote pretty much an essay there. From my admittedly skimming look at it you don't seem to be making too coherent of a point, and the little blurlb at the end,

"If these mobs DO, as they seem destined to, lead to deaths and assaults, may we count the inciting forces of the said mob as culpable?"

is quite an absurd leap of logic. How you so flippantly assume that a bunch of upset constituents complaining to their Congressmen will inevitably lead to actual killings is breathtaking. We ought to hold our elected officials responsible for their actions and tell them what we want. Congressional townhall meetings happen all the time, this is just getting attention because a few loons (both right-wing nuts and union thugs) make a bit of noise. That's a very different thing from mobs willing to die for Sarah Palin.

You might not think think it, but perfectly reasonable people are mad as hell and they're not gonna take it anymore. You can be opposed to this sort of healthcare reform very strongly and not walk around with posters of Obama with swastikas on them.

It is over simplistic yes.
If you know the history of Rome including economics and politics along with the military you will understand the paralell...

The Associated Press (AP) has numerous reports confirming the health plan will cover abortions. For Palin, and those that have the same beliefs, they would be paying for these abortions with their taxes. So they believe abortion is murder, and the plan funds abortions, then they are forced to fund murder. This probably is why she calls the plan evil, but I'm not certain.

It's interesting that, in the first comment, you call Sarah Palin
>pro-life, pro-guns, anti-abortion, a hawk as opposed to a dove
and I wonder what you mean by ‘pro-life’?

In U.S. politics, that usually means the same as ‘anti-abortion’, but you list that separately. Sometimes people (especially the Catholic Church, in my experience) use it more broadly, and that ties in with what you mostly ended up talking about: her opposition to end-of-life procedures that don't prolong life. But in this broader sense, Palin is hardly pro-life at all! On every other issue, she is anti-life; in particular, pro-war and pro-execution.

(For the record, her view on end of life seems to be more extreme than that of the Catholic Church. The Church does not object to pain relief that may hasten death or to withdrawal of artificial life support systems, under appropriate circumstances. Then they only object to attempts to cause death.)

OK, it's a bit much to call Palin ‘anti-life’ on the death penalty, since she only favours the death penalty for murder (and probably sincerely believes that it will deter murder). But to call her ‘pro-life’ is like calling a person who advocates a strong military ‘anti-war’.

As for a strong military defence … if that's really what Palin supported, then it would again be a stretch to call her ‘anti-life’, but she supported the invasion of Iraq and still believes that it was correct. So on war and peace, she is definitely anti-life. Nobody who is pro-war deserves to be called ‘pro-life’ (except in the narrow anti-abortion sense).

The only consistently pro-life candidate with a national campaign in the 2008 U.S. Presidential race was Ron Paul. But most of the Democrats and independents would still have killed fewer people than McCain and Palin would have.

"It is apparently the view of Ms. Palin any other view on life that differs from her own is "evil." That certainly does not sound to me a properly tolerant or even eduacted person, and certainly not someone I would like as a leader or care to see as a voice of reason in the healthcare debate."

This is just crazy, and a wild leaping sort've crazy at that. Any view that differs from her own she deems as "evil?" Really? The Amish? Quakers? She is certainly not one of those and I'm positive she wouldn't deem them evil.

She is not properly tolerant or educated because she is calling evil what she believes is evil? The irony in you calling someone intolerant and stupid is just enormous. Surely you see that you're being intolerant of stupid, intolerant people?

I don't even like Palin but man most of that "essay" was just nuts. And i agree with invictus in that you're taking a crazy jump to unite her with terrorists.

Ag - she calls the plan evil because insofar as I can tell, Palin has a tendency to get excited about something and begin speaking in hyperbole without considering the fact that as a national leader, its taken to be her honest opinion.

What she said was that she was afraid that at bureaucratic "death panel" would decide who was denied health coverage (strange - insurance companies already have these, and I'm certain that Obama's plan is seeking to eliminate them...) and that her disabled son, because he could not contribute "productive labor to society" (she knows her Marx) would be put to death rather than treated for the common cold.

This is Obama's America in Palin's eyes. Those obiwan's point is crude, Invictus, I don't have a hard time seeing those meetings turn to violence. If enough people believe a dystopia of the sort Palin irresponsibly describes is in the works, its really NOT hard to imagine shots taken at the President, or Congressmen who are seen as part of this "evil" plot. It only TAKES a few loons on either side to cause a big stir with a firearm.

I honestly believe many people are afraid of a semi facist govt.
Some are afraid the socio-ecconomic pryamid is becomming a ladder
Others (myself included) are afraid social programs are going to out run the tax base.
What happens when it costs more to work than to sit on the sofa
i.e. you can get/have more by doing nothing???

I have to agree with Invictus about the mobs, and all that. (And does anyone seriously believe that the Electoral College is a barrier to mob rule? Direct election of executive positions in other countries and every U.S. State give the lie to that idea.)

It *is* like the civil rights movement. In addition to the explicitly nonviolent campaign of the SCLC (Martin Luther King's group) and the SNCC, there were also violent incidents with Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam, and (much more) unled rioters. (Of course, there was plenty more violence from the other side, including the government sometimes.) The mobs that Palin inspires fall short of both extremes, which is only to be expected in a much smaller group.

Not to say that Palin's not a nut, 'cause she is. But that's self-evident. (^_^)

wait a minute i just have a question so is palin anti abortion (pro life) but for the death penalty?

trim: that woud be a difinitive and emphatic YES

ummmmm ok can someone explain to me how that makes any sense at all please?

It is a rationalized contradiction...
A baby, not yet born into this world, is innocent and should have the chance to free will.
The convicted murderer is no longer innocent. So with his shot at free will is no longer innocent and thus should be disposed of.

Innocent babies are murdered by evil, murderous liberals. Hardened criminals who can not be rehabilitated and are just "bad" people deserve to be killed for the good of society, and softy liberals who can't bring themselves to step on a bug won't do it.

Yes...
everyone has a right to life...
except the unborn

Tailboarder, that sounds about right, yes.

but even so if your saying you cant kill that should count for every human shouldnt it?

Here's the other rationalised contradiction: An unborn zygote/fetus, whatever one may think about it, has less right to life its mother has to control her own body, so the government should not interfere (at least not to the extent of forbidding abortion). And a murderer, however much he may have violated another's rights, still has rights of their own, so again the government should not interfere (at least not to the extent of killing the murderer).

Really, neither position is contradictory, as long as you don't pretend that life and death are the standard.

‘life its mother’ -> ‘life than its mother’

@Lulzworth considering countries populations are to high, strain on resource etc etc isnt it for the good of society that all those cells are disposed of before they increase the strain

That is the irony of the pro life & capital punishment arguement

ok anyway sorry for hijacking your thread so settle my own curiosity, umm so palin what a bitch ey :p