The Truth About Heath Family Health Care and Trig's Birth

* 
In an Esquire op-ed, Luke Dittrich, who lives in Whitehorse and has spent time with the Palin family, finds himself defending Sarah Palin, though his political philosophy differs from hers:

First, I've got to confess that I learned about these trips she took to Whitehorse more than a year ago, and never reported them. Evidently, gauging strictly on a page-view scale, that was an oversight on my part. On a scale of newsworthiness, though, I still don't think the facts add up to anything at all.

[...] 

"We lived in Skagway for five years," Chuck said. "And at that time the railroad went from Skagway to Whitehorse, and that was our lifeline. There was no road out of Skagway when we lived there."

"We appreciated it so much," Sally said. "Anytime there was something serious, we'd get on the train and go to the hospital there, and they'd be so kind to take care of us."

And that was it: a simple admission that I didn't think much of then, and still don't think much of now. Whitehorse General Hospital, where my own daughter was born three years ago, remains, to this day, the closest major hospital to Skagway. 

After listening again to the tape of his interview with Sarah's parents, Dittrich  found another unreported detail:

Chuck had just told me that he usually didn't talk with reporters — that, in fact, he'd just hung up on one fifteen minutes before I'd arrived.

"The Anchorage Daily News is doing a story," he said. "Is Trig Really Sarah's Son?"

"I am so disgusted," Sally said.

Chuck shook his head.

"I was in the room when he was born, for Chrissakes!"

Put that in your bong and smoke it, Andrew Sullivan!

- JP

Quote of the Day (March 9, 2010)

*
Joshuapundit:

"What Governor Palin likely found ironic was that after thirty years of national healthcare, a number of Canadians are making the trip the other way to get the care they need. But that kind of irony would be lost on a leftist tool with foam on his or her lips..."

- JP

"John McCain and Sarah Palin, they call this socialistic"

*
The Reagan - Obama debate:



h/t: Mark Levin

- JP

Chuck Heath weighs in on family's health care decisions in decades past

*
Sarah Palin's dad Chuck Heath adds some context to dampen the leftist hysteria over her family crossing the border into Canada for medical treatment when Gov. Palin was just a small child (See Say Anything and C4P): 

Palin's father said Monday they had little choice, given their location in Skagway.

"There was no road out of there at that time," said retired teacher Chuck Heath, reached by phone in Wasilla. "The ferry schedule was very erratic. We had no doctor in Skagway. The plane schedule was very erratic. The winds dictated whether the planes could come in or not."

[...]

Palin's father said his family probably boarded the train for the Whitehorse hospital only twice - once when a daughter had rheumatic fever, and once when his son, also named Chuck, severely burned his leg and an infection set in.

"We much preferred to use our facilities because my insurance didn't cover anything in Whitehorse. And even though they have socialized medicine, I still had to pay the bill, being an American citizen," Heath said.

[...]

The train in the 1960s often was the only option for getting to a doctor, Skagway Mayor Tom Cochran said.

[...]

"If you can't fly to Juneau - and a lot of times you can't, especially in the winter - they're going to get you to a medical treatment facility if it's an emergency, and that's normally where Whitehorse comes into play," Cochran said.

The Left, by continuing to try to manufacture a scandal every time Sarah Palin speaks, is demonstrating how petty, mean and vindictive it is. Wyle E. Coyote rides crashes and burns again...

- JP

Sarah Palin: Fact-checking Obamacare Summit

*
On her Facebook Notes page, Sarah Palin hammered the Democrats again for their statist approach to health care reform and linked to a GOP web page which fact-checks the top five prevarications made by the Dems at Thursday's health care summit:

Fact-checking Obamacare Summit

We should be thankful for yesterday’s 7-hour health care summit – it was helpful in that it allowed Americans to hear the fundamental differences in approaches to meeting health care challenges. On one side, commonsense conservatives laid out fiscally-sound, free market-based, patient-centered solutions; and on the left’s side we heard about the Democrat’s belief that growing government is the only way to meet challenges.

As the saying goes, “Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but not his own facts.” When these “facts” concern one-sixth of our economy and something as important to our personal wellbeing as health care, we’d better make sure they are the real deal.

Please take a look at the compilation below from GOP.com correcting the top five falsehoods from yesterday’s summit. I appreciate their research and revelations compiled here.

- Sarah Palin


TOP FIVE FALSEHOODS

If Democrats Would Start Listening To The American People, They’d Stop Telling Falsehoods


NO ONE’S TALKING ABOUT RECONCILIATION?

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) Claims “No One Has Talked About Reconciliation.” “No one has said -- I read what the President has online -- no one has talked about reconciliation but that's what you folks have talked about ever since that came out, as if it's something that has never been done before.” (“Transcript: White House Health Summit, Morning Session,” Kaiser Health News, 2/25/10)

But Reid Himself Is Talking About Reconciliation. “Harry Reid’s got a gift for hyperbole – and it keeps on giving. The Senate majority leader’s latest gem came in response to hints that Democrats might try to use the fast-track budget ‘reconciliation’ to bypass a Republican filibuster of President Obama’s health care plan. After advising Republicans on Tuesday to ‘stop crying over reconciliation as if it’s never been done before,’ he ticked off a list of legislative feats he contends were accomplished through the filibuster-busting process: ‘Contract [with] America was done with reconciliation. Tax cuts, done with reconciliation. Medicare, done with reconciliation.’” (Jonathan Allen, “Hyperbolic Harry,” Politico’s “Live Pulse” Blog, 2/24/10)

“For Some Bizarre Reason, During His Initial Presentation, Sen. Reid Said That ‘No One Has Talked About Reconciliation,’ … But That's Obviously Not True. Everybody's Talking About It. And A Lot Of Dems Would Be Pretty Upset If They Weren't Talking About It.” (Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo’s “Editors Blog” Blog, 2/25/10)

“A Number Of Democratic Senators Have Signed A Letter Urging Reid To Use Reconciliation To Pass The Public Option.” (Eric Zimmermann, “Reid: 'No One Has Talked About Reconciliation,’” The Hill’s “Briefing Room” Blog, 2/25/10)

Obama Health Reform Advisor Says The Door Is Open For Reconciliation. “Linda Douglass, the communications director of the White House Office of Health Reform, left reconciliation on the table as an option for passing a health care bill if Democrats and Republicans don't reach consensus during Thursday's summit. … ‘Certainly if that were not to be the case, he would be asking for a simple up or down majority vote and would certainly hope that the Republicans would not try to block that simple up or down majority vote.’” (Carol Lee & Patrick O’Connor, “Douglass Open To Reconciliation,” Politico’s “44” Blog, 2/25/10)


THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AREN’T INTERESTED IN RECONCILIATION?

Obama Claims Americans Don’t Care About Reconciliation. “You know, this issue of reconciliation has been brought up. Again I think the American people aren't always all that interested in procedures inside the Senate. I do think they want a vote on how we’re going to move this forward.” (President Obama, Health Care Summit, Washington, DC, 2/25/10)

But 52% Of Americans Don’t Want The Democrats To Use Reconciliation To Pass Their Government-Run Health Care Experiment. “In the survey, Americans by 52%-39% oppose Senate Democrats using the procedure, which allows a bill to pass with a 51-vote majority rather than the 60 votes needed to end debate.” (Susan Page, “Poll: Expectations Low On Health Summit,” USA Today, 2/25/10)


DEM PROPOSALS WILL LOWER PREMIUMS?

President Obama Claimed CBO Determined His Plan Would Lower Premiums. PRESIDENT OBAMA: “It's not factually accurate. Here's what the Congressional Budget Office says. The costs for families for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent.” SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R-TN): “The Congressional Budget Office report says that premiums will rise in the individual market as a result of the Senate bill.” PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No, no, no, no. Let me -- and this is an example of where we've got to get our facts straight.” ALEXANDER: “That's my point.” OBAMA: “Well, exactly, so let me -- let me respond to what you just said, Lamar, because it's not factually accurate. Here's what the Congressional Budget Office says. The costs for families for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent.” (President Obama, Health Care Summit, Washington, DC, 2/25/10)

But Actually, CBO Determined The Bill Would Raise Premiums For Americans Purchasing Insurance Individually. “CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law.” (Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), 11/30/09)


INCREMENTAL PLANS ARE UNACCEPTABLE?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “[I]naction And Incrementalism Are Simply Unacceptable.” (Mike Allen, “Will Dr. Obama Go For Plan B-1, Or Plan B-2? -- Dems' Post-Summit Message: POTUS Was 'Thoughtful, Comprehensive,' Rs 'Insulted The Summit' -- New NYT Expose May Finish Gov. Paterson,” Politico’s “Playbook,” 2/25/10)

But 56.4 Percent Of Americans Prefer An Incremental Approach. “Moreover, 56.4 percent of people indicated they would prefer Congress to tackle healthcare reform on a step-by-step basis, not take the comprehensive approach as embodied in the legislation that passed the House and Senate last year but has stalled for the past month.” (Jeffrey Young, “Poll: Most Americans Think Congress Should Start Over On Healthcare,” The Hill’s “Briefing Room” Blog, 2/16/10)


PUBLIC FUNDS WOULDN’T GO TO ABORTION?

Pelosi Said Abortion Wouldn’t Be Funded Under The Plan. “The law of the land is there is no public funding of abortion and there is no public funding of abortion in these bills and I don't want our listeners or viewers to get the wrong impression from what you said.” (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Health Care Summit, Washington, DC, 2/25/10)

But The Bill Allows Federally Funded Abortions. “Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in the insurance exchanges the bill would set up. The exchanges are designed to serve individuals who lack coverage through their jobs, with most receiving federal subsidies to buy insurance. Enrollees in plans that cover abortion procedures would pay with separate checks -- one for abortion, one for any other health-care services.” (Paul Kane, “To Sway Nelson, A Hard-Won Compromise On Abortion Issue,” The Washington Post, 12/20/09)

Pro-Life Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) Calls Obama’s Abortion Language “Unacceptable.” “Unfortunately, the president’s proposal encompasses the senate language allowing public funding of abortion. The senate language is a significant departure from current law and is unacceptable.” (Ben Smith,” Stupak: “Unacceptable,” Politico’s “Live Pulse” Blog, 2/23/10)

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) Says 15 To 20 House Dems Who Can’t Support Obama’s Proposal. “Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who led efforts to tighten abortion language in the House health care bill, said Wednesday morning there are 15 to 20 House Democrats who cannot support President Barack Obama’s effort to bridge the gap between the House and Senate health plans. … He said well over a dozen House members will likely balk, not just on abortion but on the residual tax on so-called Cadillac health plans, which he said the House had already rejected.” (“Stupak: 15-20 Dems Can’t Back Obama Health Plan,” The Wall Street Journal’s “Washington Wire” Blog, 2/24/10)

- JP

Sarah Palin: Obama's health plan doesn’t pass the smell test

*
In a new op-ed on her Facebook Notes page, Sarah Palin slammed President Obama's latest health care proposal, saying that it is even worse than the Senate bill:

More of the Same, Only More Expensive

The President has wrestled control of the health care debate away from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid by finally introducing his own plan. Unfortunately, the White House’s proposal includes everything we found untenable about the old Senate bill – only this one is even more expensive! This is what you might call putting “perfume on a pig.”

What’s in this “new” proposal? It has the unpopular (and arguably unconstitutional) individual mandate that forces people and employers to purchase health insurance – only this time with much harsher fines on employers who choose not to go along with another expensive government mandate. It has provisions that will make employers think twice before expanding their workforce. It has cuts to Medicare Advantage, a popular program which allows seniors to pay a little more money out of pocket for better coverage. And, of course, it still has sweetheart deals – only this time they’ve been extended even more.

We don’t know what the final long-term cost of this will be because the Congressional Budget Office hasn’t had a chance to calculate costs. We do know that the White House recognizes that its proposal will cost tens of billions more over the next ten years than the already-expensive $2.5 trillion Senate bill. The President promised last July that he won’t sign a health care bill if it “adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade.” But he’s now proposing a health care bill with uncertain fiscal repercussions that could lead to endless deficits.

The rising cost of care has driven the entire health care reform debate. So how does the President’s proposal address this central issue? Price controls. That’s right: Washington, D.C. wants to give a panel of bureaucrats the power to cap insurance premiums and prices. As Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute notes, “artificially limiting premium growth allows the government to curtail spending while leaving the dirty work of withholding medical care to private insurers.” This leads to rationing. Any economist worth his salt – including the White House’s own Larry Summers – will tell you that price controls lead to all sorts of negative unintended consequences. It’s another step towards government controlled health care and away from the real solution: free market, patient-centered reform.

With a government-growing proposal this bad, it’s no wonder the President wants bipartisan cover for it in an election year. Thursday’s health care summit is already being revealed as little more than a photo-op. The Obama administration still denies the existence of the House Republicans’ health care plan that offers alternative solutions to health care challenges – even though the White House website links right to it.

The President’s proposal doesn’t include pro-free market ideas like allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, giving individual buyers the same tax benefits as those who get insurance through their employers, or instituting real medical liability reform. Despite the “kumbaya” rhetoric, Democrats are making plans to ram this bill through the Senate using a partisan procedural maneuver that will bypass the normal bipartisan debate process.

In the meantime, the White House will continue to ignore Republican reform ideas and cast the GOP as the party of no. That’s a hard sell considering that Democrats still hold the majority in the House and Senate. The only real “gridlock” preventing Democrats from doing what they want is the very real threat of America's voice being heard at the ballot box.

The public is clearly opposed to the Democrats’ health care bills. Americans want to scrap these big-government plans and start over with common-sense, incremental reform. Some on the left have urged Democrats to vote for Obamacare because it’s a foot in the door for universal health care. They understand what’s at stake; so should the rest of us.

The President can perfume this proposal however he wants, but it still doesn’t pass the smell test. Washington should listen to Americans now, or Washington will hear us in November.

- Sarah Palin

- JP

Sarah Palin on Midnight Madness in the U.S. Senate

Friday night Sarah Palin posted the following opinion piece about HarryCare ObamaCare on her Facebook Notes page:

In the Midnight Hour

The Senate is set to vote Saturday night, right before the holiday, on a motion to proceed on its latest health care government take-over bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is pushing for yet another weekend vote (commonplace now for the party of “transparency”) because he knows that the American people will be none too happy about the Democrats’ proposal the longer they have to look it over.

A vote against the Democrats’ motion will help stop Obamacare before it gets any closer to becoming a reality. While this Saturday night vote might seem like a procedural matter, at the end of the day a vote against Senator Reid’s motion is a vote against massive new government spending and a take-over of 1/6th of the U.S. economy; it’s a vote against billions in tax increases and penalties; it’s a vote against federal funding of abortion; and it’s a vote against ignoring responsible tort reform.

And in case you hadn’t heard – just a reminder that you’ll start paying higher taxes to fund this scheme in 2010 even though it doesn’t start up until 2014. Only in Washington does that make any sense. Among the provisions in this bill will be a $2500 cap on Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs). The IRS allows families with special needs children to use FSAs to cover educational expenses. This new $2500 cap will hit these families especially hard and cost them hundreds of dollars in new taxes every year.

Contact your senators and tell them to vote against the motion to proceed tomorrow night. The American people don’t support this – we support the commonsense solutions that have been proposed, but totally ignored by (at this point) some out-of-control Washington politicians. Let’s put a stop to Obamacare before it goes any further.

- Sarah Palin

- JP

Sarah Palin on cancer screenings and rationed care

*
Sarah Palin once again takes the Democrats to task for their massive health care "reform" proposals and asks on her Facebook Notes page if new guidelines on cancer screenings are careless cost-cutting that threaten potential cancer patients:

Cancer Screenings - Rational Advice or Rationed Care?

It was a breath of fresh air to finally hear the Democrats admit to their health care bill as “a lot of show and tell and razzmatazz,” (see Democrat talking points, in reference to my book). At least now we’re all on the same page when discussing the problems with their monstrous government health care “reform” plan.

Now, tonight, more disconcerting news – the New York Times reports of new guidelines to scale back cervical cancer screenings. The recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists comes on the heels of another recommendation to limit breast cancer screenings with mammograms. There are many questions unanswered for me, but one which immediately comes to mind is whether costs have anything to do with these recommendations. The current health care debate elicits great concern because of its introduction of socialized medicine in America and the inevitable rationed care. We need to carefully watch this debate as it coincides with Capitol Hill’s debate and determine whether we are witnessing the early stages of that rationed care before the Senate bill is rushed through as well.

Another question is why these women-focused cancers are seemingly receiving substandard attention at a time when proactive health and fitness should be the message. Every woman should encourage rigorous debate to ensure that our collective voices are heard. We are paying attention to Washington’s health care proposals, and we want to hear what helps patients the most.

We need answers: Is early screening not saving lives? Why do doctors’ groups disagree? Did costs play any role in these decisions to change the recommendations on breast and cervical cancer screenings? We need assurances that everything we’ve heard this week about fewer tests for women’s cancers is a result of patient-focused research and providing the best care for the right reasons, and not because of bureaucratic pressure to control costs.

Obviously the first thought that comes to mind when hearing of these new recommendations from bureaucratic panels is “rationed care.” It’s fair – and healthy – to ask if that’s what Washington has in mind with a government-controlled takeover of a health care system.

- Sarah Palin

- JP

Sarah Palin: Tell your Senators Pelosi Bill should be DOA

In an op-ed on her Facebook Notes page Thursday, Sarah Palin referred to some provisions in the House PelosiCare bill as "outrageous" and urged her more than 975,000 Facebook supporters to contact their Senators to let them know that "the Pelosi Bill should be dead on arrival":

Pelosi "Health Plan" Should Be DOA

We need to be vigilant in investigating the ramifications of the Pelosi Health Care Bill. Some provisions sound so outrageous as to be considered impossible to fathom, but they’re right there in the bill in black and white. For instance, page 297 of the bill explains the punishment for not purchasing government mandated health insurance. If you don’t buy what the government considers “acceptable health care coverage,” you’re going to be hit with a tax of at least 2.5% of your income. And if you don’t pay that new tax, you could be fined as much as $250,000 and sentenced to up to five years in prison.

But here’s the thing: they have to make the penalty for opting out very harsh in order to force us to buy coverage. The only way to keep this government run health care plan afloat is for everyone to buy into it – especially young and healthy people. That means that they will have to penalize citizens if we choose not to buy a plan that will cost a minimum of about $15,000 per family per year.

The bill that came out of the Senate last month – the Baucus Bill – does just the opposite. It calls for a much lighter penalty ($750 maximum) for people who don’t buy government approved health coverage, making it cheaper to pay the fine than to pay for the coverage. (And with a recession on, who can blame families for not wanting to pay $15,000 for a government mandated health care plan?)

But here’s the kicker: the bill also forces insurance companies to cover everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Think about what that means. A lot of people – especially young and healthy people – will just pay the penalty instead of purchasing coverage because they’ll figure that it’ll always be there if they get sick, as government has promised. That’s what will happen, and when it does it will totally undermine the very concept of “insurance” – which is basically a group of people pooling their resources over time to cover themselves for a rainy day, paying while they’re healthy so that they’re covered when they’re sick. Those who are healthy now pay for those who are sick. If your insurance pool only contains sick people, it’s a bust. And that’s what this government plan will be. Without all of those young and healthy people paying into the pool and defraying the costs, the government will have to pony up more and more money, and who knows how long the whole crazy plan will last before it goes broke – and our country with it!

That’s where we are with this bureaucratic mess: either the government penalizes people so harshly that they could be hit with huge taxes and even possible jail time, or the government makes the penalty a slap on the wrist and undermines the plan from the get-go. Forcing individuals to buy health insurance seems unconstitutional, yet Congress wants to foist it on us anyway. Proponents of government controlled health care will say, “But we’re made to buy car insurance and home insurance, what’s the difference with health insurance?” It’s apples and oranges. Auto insurance is a state law requirement, and people can always choose not to drive. Banks might require you to have home owner’s insurance, but again, you choose to own a home, just as you choose to drive. You have no choice at all when it comes to this federal government health care insurance mandate.

There are other ways to reform health care without violating our Constitution and our personal liberties. Let’s get back to discussing market-driven, patient-centered, result-driven solutions, like, for example, allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines, tackling existing government waste and fraud, and reforming medical malpractice laws (tort reform) to stop unwarranted lawsuits that force doctors to order unnecessary procedures just to cover themselves.

Please let your Senators know that the Pelosi Bill should be dead on arrival. Once we go down this big government path, it will be virtually impossible to reverse course. Let’s fight for the reform that makes sense for Americans before it’s too late.

- Sarah Palin

- JP

Politico: Palin health care critique "tough but wonky"

Politico's Andy Barr on Sarah Palin's most recent op-ed on health care reform:

Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin penned a tough but wonky critique Saturday night of the health care bill approved this week by the Senate Finance Committee.

In a more than 1,000-word essay posted on her Facebook page shortly before midnight, Palin knocked the bill sponsored by Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) for not setting up proper cost offsets, but offered none of the more incinedary, "death-panel" type claims that have marked her previous comments.

[...]

To make her argument that the bills costs are not supported by Baucus's proposed offsets, Palin, quoted Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former top economic advisor to Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign.

She also took a process-oriented shot at Obama, writing: "In January 2008, presidential candidate Obama promised not to negotiate behind closed doors with health care lobbyists," Palin wrote. "However, last February, after serving only a few weeks in office, President Obama met privately at the White House with health care industry executives and lobbyists."

Barr notes that former Governor Palin "took a more tempered approach Saturday" with her opinion piece than one she posted in August in which she raised the possibility of death panels that could make end of life care decisions for the elderly. Within days of the death panels op-ed, the Senate Finance Committe dropped the end of life provision from its version of a health care reform bill.

- JP

Quote of the Day (October 17, 2009)

*
Anthony Dalke:

"I’m anxious to see the media coverage of this piece. Although Palin voiced some of the same complaints others have made about the Baucus Bill, they will have more influence coming from her. Regardless, the fact that she has highlighted some of the drawbacks of the bill, which has received rather positive coverage as a middle-of-the-road compromise by the mainstream media, should help increase public opposition."

- JP

Quote of the Day (October 15, 2009)

*
James Taranto:

"'We're Going to Let You Die'
Who said it? Hint: It wasn't Sarah Palin."

- JP

Quote of the Day (September 15, 2009)

Curt at Flopping Aces:

"Newsweek, in all of its wisdom, is still arguing that Sarah Palin lied about the death panel provisions in ObamaCare, but we really should have a death panel anyways."

- JP

Macleans: Those Racist, Mean 'Palin Republicans'

-By Warner Todd Huston

You know, those Palin Republicans are all such racist, fearmongers, right? Well if you didn't know it, Macleans of Canada wants to make sure you do with a piece headlined "The Palin Republicans."

For Macleans, writer John Parisella thinks he's discovered why the GOP can't capitalize on the distrust that more and more Americans are feeling for the Obama administration and his Social-Democratic Party. It's because Sarah Palin is a big ol' meanie that told a lie about death panels.

And what could save the GOP according to this loony leftist? Why capitulating to socialist healthcare, of course. Oh, and getting rid of Palin would help, he thinks.

This extremist Canadian lefty reveals a complete lack of understanding about conservative principles and the American system. His main contention is that the GOP is being, well, too much like the GOP and not enough like Obama's Socialist-Democratic Party. He thinks the GOP should have been excited about Sonia Sotomaoyr, the racist "wise Latina" that Obama wanted on the High Court, that the GOP shouldn't be against the massive takeover of the economy with Obama's banking schemes or his billions of wasted dollars in the so-called stimulus, and to top it off, Parisella imagines that the GOP should get on board with Obama's nationalized healthcare ideas.

And what of Sarah?

Still, Sarah Palin’s missive I referenced above has come to symbolize the shallow, oppose-at-all-costs approach to public policy that has dominated the public discourse since last January. Quite frankly, Palin energizes a base that talk radio hosts like Limbaugh and Beck use to exploit fear and misinformation. Even McCain, who keeps defending Palin, sometimes with apparent discomfort, contradicts her view on the death panels. And yet, Palin leads many polls for the 2012 Republican nomination and will draw huge crowds once she hits the speech circuit this fall—this, despite how pathetic she was in interviews with Katie Couric of CBS and Charles Gibson of ABC when tasked with explaining policy. As long as her views drive the debate away from any reasonable proposals coming from Republicans in Congress, the GOP will remain marginal in the debate over any policy direction.

Of course, that Palin is basically correct about the death panels claim doesn't matter to this leftist. I also laughed at the "even McCain" line. After all McCain is a loser that no one on the GOP side cares much to hear from, nor do any Republicans imagine McCain to be a leader… at all… in any way.

But, the most obvious agenda coming from this leftist writer is the last bit. Notice that "reasonable" ideas to this guy is the left's ideas. So, as far as he is concerned, the only way the GOP could be "successful" is to adopt the left's ideas and help Obama re-make the U.S.A. in Saul Alinsky's image.

Oh, and a final point. Everyone keeps calling Palin a racist. But let's look at a real racist, shall we? Let's look at Democrat Willie H. Herenton of Memphis who is running to replace Tennessee's Representative Steve Cohen (D, TN).

Herenton was recently quoted as having said that Cohen's seat is reserved for blacks and since Cohen is a white Jew he should be thrown out of office.

“This seat was set aside for people who look like me. It wasn’t set aside for a Jew or a Christian. It was set aside so that blacks could have representation.”

Now THERE is a racist. And my guess is that Herenton hasn't even been to Alaska.

-WTH

Sarah's media guide to coverage of Obma's speech

Former governor Palin says that if you watch coverage of President Obama's speech by the Democrat-Media Complex (DMC) tonight, you'll be able to tell which pundits were on the White House A-list to receive its talking points by noting which ones use the words "false", "scary", and "risky" to describe the health care reform proposals she advanced in her Tuesday Facebook posting.

The 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate has a new post up on her Facebook Notes page, just in time to get under the president's skin before he delivers his health care speech to congress Wednesday night. In addition to he jab at the Obama-loving media, she points out that the White House has still not addressed several of the arguments she made Tuesday:

Response to the White House

I'm pleased that the White House is finally responding to Republican health care ideas instead of pretending they don't exist.[1] But in doing so President Obama should follow his own sound advice and avoid making "wild misrepresentations".[2] Medicare vouchers would give everyone on Medicare the chance to decide for themselves which health plan to use, rather than leave that decision to government bureaucrats. Such proposals are the kind of health care reform that Republicans stand for: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven.

The White House talking points leave the rest of my arguments unanswered. They don't respond to the idea that all individuals should get the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; that we must reform our tort laws; and that we should allow Americans to buy insurance across state lines. The White House also fails to respond to the Nyce/Schieber study indicating that wages will fall if the government expands coverage without reducing health care inflation rates.

One last thing: after President Obama's speech tonight, listen for which pundits use the words "false", "scary", and "risky" in describing the proposals I put forward. That's how you'll be able to tell who the White House counted as "allies" worthy of receiving its talking points.

-Sarah Palin

[1] See http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/White_House_talking_points_blast_Palin.html.
[2] See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/opinion/16obama.html.

All of Sarah Palin's Facebook Notes posts can be accessed here.

Shane Vander Hart will be liveblogging Obama’s address tonight and will go live at 6:45 PM  at Caffeinated Thoughts.

- JP

Relevant Palin now the focus of White House talking points

Via Ben Smith at Politico:

The White House has... chosen specifically to focus on former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and evidently to make her the face of the opposition, or to respond to her ability to project herself into the debate. She is the only Republican named in the talking points.

Here's that section:

On Gov. Palin's Attacks

Every non-partisan organization that has looked at her claims say they are false. And the ideas in her op-ed are both scary and risky. Eliminating Medicare and giving our seniors vouchers instead is a bad idea that we shouldn't adopt.

This can't be the same White House that insisted in July that former Governor Palin was irrelevant:

"I can tell you with absolutely honesty,” Axelrod said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, "that when I sit around with my political friends... there’s very little or no discussion of Sarah Palin."

It appears that statement, like everything else that comes out of the Obama Administration, had an expiration date. Nevertheless, we're sure that the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate appreciates the White House elevating her status to that of Obama's leading Republican opponent. She's playing them like they were on her iPod.

And when did Sarah Palin ever say that we should get rid of Medicare?

- JP

Sarah Palin submits health care testimony to NY State Senate

After Sarah Palin sent liberals into fits of derangement with her Facebook op-eds on ObamaCare, including the "death panels" post which got a controversial provision quickly removed from pending health care legislation in the U.S. Senate, she was asked to participate in a New York State Senate Aging Committee hearing regarding the infamous H.R. 3200.

NewsBusters Associate Editor Noel Sheppard:

"Given how her last opinion on this matter was treated by Obama-loving media, it's going to be fascinating to see how this gets covered in the next 24 hours, especially with the President about to give an address to both Chambers of Congress."

From former Gov. Palin's Facebook Notes page, here is the written testimony which she submitted to the committee's chairman:

Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz
Chair, New York Senate Aging Committee
Legislative Office Building
Room 307
Albany, NY 12247

September 8, 2009

RE: H.R. 3200: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and Its Impact on Senior Citizens

Dear Senator Diaz,

Thank you for asking me to participate in the New York State Senate Aging Committee’s hearing regarding H.R. 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.” You and I share a commitment to ensuring that our health care system is not “reformed” at the expense of America’s senior citizens.

I have been vocal in my opposition to Section 1233 of H.R.3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.”[1] Proponents of the bill have described this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. That is misleading. 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.”[2] During those consultations, practitioners are to 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.[3]

To understand this provision fully, it must be read in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s 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.”[4] 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 one commentator has noted, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones…. If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to ‘bend the curve’ on health-care costs?”[5]

As you stated in your letter to Congressman Henry Waxman of California:

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.[6]

It is unclear whether section 1233 or a provision like it will remain part of any final health care bill. Regardless of its fate, the larger issue of rationed health care remains.

A great deal of attention was given to my use of the phrase “death panel” in discussing such rationing.[7] Despite repeated attempts by many in the media to dismiss this phrase as a “myth”, its accuracy has been vindicated. In the face of a nationwide public outcry, the Senate Finance Committee agreed to “drop end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”[8] Jim Towey, the former head of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, then called attention to what’s already occurring at the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, where “government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.”[9] Even Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, a strong supporter of President Obama, agreed 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.”[10] And of course President Obama has not backed away from his support for the creation of an unelected, largely unaccountable Independent Medicare Advisory Council to help control Medicare costs; he had previously suggested that such a group should guide decisions regarding “that huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives….”[11]

The fact is that any group of government bureaucrats that makes decisions affecting life or death is essentially a “death panel.” The work of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obama’s health policy advisor and the brother of his chief of staff, is particularly disturbing on this score. Dr. Emanuel has written extensively on the topic of rationed health care, describing a “Complete Lives System” for allotting medical care based on “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.”[12]

He also 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.”[13]

Such ideas are shocking, but they could ultimately be used by government bureacrats to help determine the treatment of our loved ones. We must ensure that human dignity remains at the center of any proposed health care reform. Real health care reform would also follow free market principles, including the encouragement of health savings accounts; would remove the barriers to purchasing health insurance across state lines; and would include tort reform so as to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending connected to the filing of frivolous lawsuits. H.R. 3200 is not the reform we are looking for.

Thank you for calling attention to this important matter. I look forward to working with you again to ensure that we keep the dignity of our senior citizens foremost in any health care discussion.

Sincerely,

Governor Sarah Palin

Like Palin's other Facebook statements on the issue, this one is well-documented with no less than thirteen footnotes, all of which can be accessed via either of the two links above.

- JP

Quote of the Day (August 24, 2009)

James Fulford:

"Sarah Palin and Nat Hentoff wouldn’t agree on many things, because she’s a conservative Republican, and he’s a leftist civil libertarian. But neither of them thinks much of Obama’s health care plan, in which government rationed health care will necessarily mean letting certain people die."

- JP

Quote of the Day (August 23, 2009)

*
Fred Barnes:

"Consider Sarah Palin's controversial statement that Mr. Obama's health-care plan would establish 'death panels' capable of denying care to seniors. Like Mr. Cheney, she was denounced as a know-nothing. But Mrs. Palin accomplished what no one else had. She put a national spotlight on the dubious end-of-life policies in the ObamaCare legislation. Columnists disputed her claim, then realized she had a point. The death panels are dead, for now."

- JP

Erick Erickson defends Sarah, scolds Heritage

RedState.com's  Erick Erickson, our Managing Editor when Warner and I were regular contributors there, has called out an iconic conservative institution:

As if on cue, Stuart Butler from the Heritage Foundation, has decided to take issue with Sarah Palin’s use of the phrase “death panels.” Butler is defending Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm’s brother, who has written that we need not guarantee healthcare benefits to people with dementia because they cannot be full participants in the body politic.

Emanuel’s actual quote: “[S]ervices provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens [in the body politic] are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

Butler is defending Emanuel and attacking Palin at the precise moment the Democrats are in full scale retreat on the issue because of Palin’s offensive. Sigh. These guys have the political instincts of amoebas.

Erick points to what appears to be a significant softening of Heritage's once-strong Federalist tradition:

The Heritage Foundation, which played a vital part in building conservative support for Romneycare in Massachusetts, is setting the stage for Republican capitulation on healthcare. This is the second time in less than a year that Heritage will have been instrumental in organizing a conservative collapse in opposition to big government. The first time was when Heritage gave conservatives cover to support TARP, calling it “vital and acceptable.”

Now with healthcare, because Heritage is trying to be “helpful”, confusion is starting to crop up among Republicans in Congress at a very critical time in the healthcare debate. Capitulation and compromise are now on the table using a bastardized version of a Heritage proposal.

It's sad to see Heritage playing into the Democrats hands. Like Erick says, the smart people there should have seen this coming.

- JP