Suddenly liberals bleat that it is scare-mongering to look beyond what they are proposing in this exact moment, outrageous to ask “Where will this lead?” I agree entirely with Andy that conservatives are under no obligation to unilaterally agree to liberal terms or definitions but rather, as he puts it, “Our function is to call the opposition on such hair-splitting nonsense, not to make the fog harder to pierce.”

And this raises what I think is part of the problem. As Mark says, this is a massive political fight — one that conservatives are winning, by the way — and there’s a natural tension between wanting to argue the finer points of policy and win the battle over the politics. I ...

Suddenly liberals bleat that it is scare-mongering to look beyond what they are proposing in this exact moment, outrageous to ask “Where will this lead?” I agree entirely with Andy that conservatives are under no obligation to unilaterally agree to liberal terms or definitions but rather, as he puts it, “Our function is to call the opposition on such hair-splitting nonsense, not to make the fog harder to pierce.”

And this raises what I think is part of the problem. As Mark says, this is a massive political fight — one that conservatives are winning, by the way — and there’s a natural tension between wanting to argue the finer points of policy and win the battle over the politics. I don’t begrudge NR’s attempt to get this balance right by erring on the side of describing the policy correctly and in good faith. But, also in good faith, I don’t see it quite the same way, and I don’t think Palin’s contributions are part of the problem with the health-care debate.


I’m inclined to agree with Goldberg. In fact, as a physician, I think that the descriptive “Death Panels” terminology effectively summarizes what is an entirely logical progression of Obama’s health policies. This progression is derived directly from Obama’s own words and those of his health-reform minions/czars.

The blog Freerepublic.com summarizes the system in this way.

Infants get minimal treatment, because the State has not invested anything yet in their education. Old people get minimal treatment because their working lives are over.

So if you discriminate because someone is old that is ageism and invidious but if you treat differently because they have lived longer ( i.e. have had more life years) it is not. Talk about contrived nonsense.

Here is another quote that I find chilling.

The complete lives system assumes that, although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them.” (my bolding)

If you like social justice that sentence should really plea...

The blog Freerepublic.com summarizes the system in this way.

Infants get minimal treatment, because the State has not invested anything yet in their education. Old people get minimal treatment because their working lives are over.

So if you discriminate because someone is old that is ageism and invidious but if you treat differently because they have lived longer ( i.e. have had more life years) it is not. Talk about contrived nonsense.

Here is another quote that I find chilling.

The complete lives system assumes that, although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them.” (my bolding)

If you like social justice that sentence should really please you. Not only should most things be distributed fairly but now apparently how many "life-years" you get.

If you like distributive justice you will find a lot to like here. If you are old enough for Medicare or economically unfortunate enough to rely on Medicaid, you might be a little worried that the President's Advisor on health matters thinks this way.

Read full article>>>>>

Can't see the wood for the trees it seems. They are all politicians. Puppets used to allow people to think there is actually a chance you can influence the future.
Concentrate on how you perceive the world perhaps. How do you know what your seeing isn't just a scam? And if you think it is, how do you know who or what to believe.
Know thyself would be a good start.
Sorry to say this but I've read your posts for so long now, I wonder if you know which one of your "I's" is thinking/typing at any given time. I do however hope you will not take offence at my suggestion. Sit. Thought arrives. Ignore it. Practice for a while and see if you can stay with just your breath or horizon, or just ONE ...

Can't see the wood for the trees it seems. They are all politicians. Puppets used to allow people to think there is actually a chance you can influence the future.
Concentrate on how you perceive the world perhaps. How do you know what your seeing isn't just a scam? And if you think it is, how do you know who or what to believe.
Know thyself would be a good start.
Sorry to say this but I've read your posts for so long now, I wonder if you know which one of your "I's" is thinking/typing at any given time. I do however hope you will not take offence at my suggestion. Sit. Thought arrives. Ignore it. Practice for a while and see if you can stay with just your breath or horizon, or just ONE thing. Good start.
No intention to cause offence, Merrie. Wish you well & some peace & contentment.