Mark Levin on Rationing and Death Panels

My really bad attempt at a video. Mark Levin said this, I believe last week. I thought it was appropriate considering that Palin's death panel comments have been dubbed the lie of the year:

Random Thoughts on Health Care - Pt. 3: Palin Responds and Scores

Obama, you're lyin'.

On Palin's Facebook response and media "fact-checking":

I have to say it's a risky move to pin your argument down to one section of the bill. That was the media's initial opportunity to take her statement, "fact-check" it, and say, "See! There's no mention of death panels!"

I kind of hope she broadens the argument into other arenas or other sections just so that the media will have a harder time pinning her down. Having said that, it's brilliant. She once again managed to instantly galvanize the whole discussion by going right for the throat and effectively accusing the bill of being a form of government murder.

Instant galvanization. Just like the David Letterman thing. Like Beck pointed out, she didn't just come out and say, "Leave my kids alone." She effectively said, "You're a dirty old man and your mindset contributes to the objectification of women in America. Apologize to all women." Like Joseph Livestro pointed out on C4P, she is framing the debate. Now, we need to be careful of the media's blinders when it comes to "fact-checking" her arguments.

Wisetrog on C4P said this: "The Dems tried to sidestep her argument by confining it to end of life arguments. She has responded to the end of life questions, she should move on and bring the debate to her turf which is rationing. She should expand on her last point and make it a debate about rationing."

I agree. Sarah started with the end result. Now it's time to unravel the rest of the thread. And I suggest doing it before the media has a chance to pick apart this latest post. Death panels are a result of rationing, rationing comes because there's too much demand and not enough supply, which will result because of these provisions in the bill, the cost, etc... and look at what's happened in other countries...

It's time to take the whole thing apart and kill it dead. Broaden the argument. She's gotta dance around. If she stays on the one point, they'll focus all their energy on discrediting or "fixing" that one point in the bill and then claiming it's all better.

All I'm saying is that the media was able to try and discredit her statements originally because she handed them just one section of the bill, which they then "fact-checked" and took her statement out of context (removed it from the rationing scenario) to say it just simply wasn't true and she's making stuff up. Perhaps a slight tactical error, but it doesn't really matter now:

She shoots. She scores!

On Sarah's Victory in the Senate Version of the Bill:

One down, about 28 million to go. In an obvious win for Sarah Palin the Senate struck out the end of life counseling provision. Yay.

Forgive me for not celebrating too loudly, but this is nowhere near over. Broaden, broaden, broaden. Go read her latest Facebook post and you'll see that she's doing just that.

Sarah got at least one section fixed. My fear with this approach was that if they did strike it (which they did) they could then claim, "Look, we fixed it! Are you happy now?" Which is why even though Palin could keep on pressing that one section, she really needs to not make that her only topic of conversation (which she isn't) and she must now broaden quickly (which she is). She already set the stage for this in her reaction to it being struck, saying that it was just one part out of many that causes concern and focusing more on rationing. Good, good, good!

Remember a couple of other things too. First off, this isn't even the final version of the bill. The House passed theirs. The Senate struck this one provision. Later they'll go into committee and hammer out a whole new bill reconciling the differences of the House and Senate. Do you get my drift? We don't even have the final version of the bill yet, let alone a guarantee that anything struck out won't just be slipped back in.

Secondly, this one section doesn't really solve the problem of death panels. This one section was only a piece of that, and Palin's already brought that up. She's also now hammering on the rationing point now quite nicely. Good, good, good. The spending and the framework of a committee like Britain's NICE are just a few other pieces of the bill that will lead to rationing and therefore government bureaucrats handing out care selectively, i.e., death panels.

Whether the section that was struck out is in the final version of the bill or not doesn't really matter. The bill itself as a whole will cause a shortage, and then the American version of Britain's NICE committee will start the rationing, whether we try and convince old people to end of their lives or not.

I hate to be a gloomy Gus, but we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. If this thing passes, that's it. The intrusion of government into our lives will be practically irreversible. Once we become dependent on the government for not only our financial well-being but for our very lives, we are in their hip pocket for good.

So now I say, Sarah, broaden the debate, and in her latest Facebook post she already is. Good. This was not the end of the battle, it was merely the first shot. This was a demonstration of Palin's power to shape the debate and shake up Obama. She won the first advance. Now, on to the war.

P.S. I also want to see Sarah say something about the new FCC guy and his regulations that will destroy talk radio.

Random Thoughts on the Health Care Bill - Pt. 1: The Death Panels

Here's just some random things that have been floating around my brain lately. There's no real rhyme or reason:

Take a moment to think about this: Nobody had a clue who this woman was a year ago. Now she writes a note on her Facebook page, the media loses its mind, and the President of the United States feels like he has to respond.

Of course Obama doesn't WANT death panels. He didn't WANT to bail out the banks. He didn't WANT to get into the car business. When Obama says he doesn't want something, that pretty much means it's going to happen.

And can I just say, Obama is using this "pulling the plug on old people" thing as a strawman. Palin's point was what could happen based on the philosophy of those around him in the event of rationing. "Death panels" is just a term for government bureaucracy deciding who gets care and who doesn't in the event of a shortage, or rationing. The real question is: Will government intrusion lead to rationing? Um... based on the past and pretty simple extrapolation I would say, yes.

It's not about the death panels. RATIONING is the key, which will lead to things where we decide who gets health care and who doesn't, which is the definition of a death panel. It's not like the government will officially sentence people to die, but if there's not enough to go around, they'll just simply fail to keep people alive. This kind of thing already goes on in countries that have socialized medicine and therefore shortages.

The question isn't "will there be 'death panels'?" It is "will government intrusion to this extent create a shortage of care which will mandate a need to ration that care?" If so, then the "death panel" situation is a natural consequence of this health care bill. The actual wording for it doesn't even have to be in there. We're talking about unintended consequences here. If you think that something like this can't happen, you're being naive.

This healthcare bill is the first step toward socialized medicine. All you have to do is look at other countries that already have socialized medicine and how the elderly are seen as a burden on the system and often neglected because they just don't have that much to offer society. I don't have a problem with individuals making choices about when to pull the plug, but if we centralize this thing it will take it out of the realm of personal choice and, because of the shortages it will create, put it in the hands of government bureaucracy. "Death panel" is Palin's term for this kind of thing. It's not like there will actually be Obama sitting up there saying, "No more chemo for you!" But the result will be the same. It is the media and the White House who are spinning Palin's statement out of control. But they're losing anyway.

And also, they focus only on her "death panel" statement and ignore her other statements about the growth of government, etc.... They're using that one thing to try and discredit Palin (which they won't succeed in doing).

We want to avoid what Europe has, period. This health care bill is the first step down a road we really don't want to even go near. Sarah's telling us what the end state will be, not the immediate effect. But of course it will take time, and we'll get used to it little by little. By the time we get there, it probably won't even matter anymore. We will officially be mindless drones, completely dependent upon the government for our very survival, and we will cease to be free. Call it fear-mongering, call it crazy, but if it means avoiding becoming Britain, I'm all for it.

I love all these media moguls saying the bill doesn't set up that panel. Well no kidding. Bravo, media, give yourself a pat on the back for being so smart. It's a term, idiots, coined by Palin for the inevitable outcome, not language from the actual bill itself. Don't get me wrong, the framework for such a thing is in the bill.

The brilliant liberals who are so much smarter than we are cannot grasp the concept of a....."term." That's right boys and girls, today we learn about the word "term!" Maybe they'll learn another use for the word after they find out they're not getting another one.

The important thing isn't whether or not people like her or that she becomes Prez or whatever, the important thing is that stuff like Obamacare is stopped. If that means sacrificing a little popularity, so be it. This is a fight: she's going to get scratched up and bloody. Expect it. The ride will not be smooth and without mishaps. Nothing easy is worth doing.