Tuesday, November 02, 2010

Again With the "Ha Ha, She said 'Death Panels'"

Smart, edumacated people in the know "know" that Sarah Palin's an idiot because she said there were "death panels" "in the bill" (she didn't, but we'll let that slide) and of course, the words "Death Panel" never appear anywhere in the bill so she obviously doesn't know what she's talking about. This Reid Wilson article in the National Journal does it again:

"The bill passed on Sunday, March 21. Democrats were convinced their party would benefit from a fuller explanation of the bill's contents. But Republicans made effective arguments, pollsters said, that the health care reform overhaul contained lurking passages worthy of suspicion, from Sarah Palin's inaccurate "death panels" to the more widely accepted claim, advanced by virtually every Republican candidate running this year, that the bill represents an unwanted takeover of private health care plans by the federal government."

I bring this up again only because a commenter going by "Grizzled" had an awesome comeback to it.   I've been saying this in a much more dry manner -- that conservatives argue consequences while progressives argue weasely words.  Grizzled said:

You can call it anything you like, "Terminal Savings", "Adjusted Quality Limits", or "The Cuddly Puppy Treatment", it's obvious that end of life care will be rationed; i.e. death panels.

Update:  In my copy of TIA Daily, in a not completly related topic, I see a better, more succinct way of describing the difference between what is literally in a bill and what the effects or consequences would be.

Implicit vs Explicit.

Implicitly, the bill pointed toward an entity that would have power to decide whether or not "life sustaining" treatment would be given.   Explicitly, it spoke of no such entity being created to do exactly that thing.  Though it did speak of state authorities with the authority to sign off on "life sustaining" treatment.

Which presumably means they'd also have the authority not to.

The Dems and their cohorts spoke of what the bill didn't explicity say.   Palin and other opponents spoke of what processes it implicitly outlined.   Since the bill didn't say "Death Panel" or describe the formation of some board to make these decisions, the Dems feel that Palin was "proven" wrong.

Which is hogwash.  The very opposite of awesomesauce.

No comments: