Oh, Those Death Panels

It's called antiprocess: http://www.cardsmithing.com/legacy/antiprocess/antiprocess.htm

You just prevent cognitive dissonance by rejecting whatever threatens to cause it.

What inconsistency?

Look at response 2.2 for an excellent example of antiprocessing. You make a false distinction, you throw in a piece of disinformation that you have already whitewashed with prior antiprocessing thus converted it into truth in your head, and you attack your opposition with a broad brush to make yourself feel better about it all, and voila! What double standard? What cognitive dissonance?

And would they really rather we were advised on end of life decisions by our family who may be biased about whether we live or die? These are really social decisions about resources: do you have the money, caregivers and mental health to be taken care of if you live? I hope the result is that people do start talking to their families and doctors, even if the doctor isn't paid. Its about time! Go to GoWish.org for a free "game" to facilitate this difficult conversation. Print out your wishes, take them to your doctor and put them in your advance directives. TAKE CONTROL of your life.

"Holy smokes"?
Has it already been 40 years since Woodstock?

Before we kiss Amy's ring , how about comparing language between that "great catch" and the current house bill. The earlier one provides for the payment of , the current REQUIRES this counseling every 5 years. A difference that even the dimmest lib could see (except prob. themaverickfor)

freeinpa: Read the actual bill. It is NOT mandatory.

Shame on you.

Apparently freeinpa means free from the rigors of reading. The consultations are voluntary. The only requirement is for Medicare reimbursement of doctors for this service every five years.

So are theysaying that the government won't start denying people care based on cost vs. expected productive value to society, or are theyjust saying they won't call this fetid bill of bean-counting bureaucrats a “Death Panel”?

Hey freeinpa. The way rational discourse goes is this. "I really like the way the Johnsons decorated their living room."

"Eh, I think it's a little too orange for my taste."

"Yeah, now that you mention it, it is."

Notice that person one has changed his or her mind after the comment made by person two.

This is how the health care debate is going:

"I really like the way the Johnsons decorated their living room."

"JOHNSON IS A FACIST! HE'S A TERRORIST! HE'S A SOCIALIST! DEATH PANEL! WE NEED GUNS!"

"Uh....what?"

Exiled, you object to being cast as an evil Republican, as I recall. Are you comfortable creating similar stereotypes whereby others believe that Democrats are pure as the driven snow? I think you'll find that many on here are not very fond of e.g. Baucus, and are also perfectly prepared to criticize Obama when we think he has failed to live up to his promises. Also, on the more narrow issue of health reform, which party do you think is making the accusations of socialism, Communism, Nazism etc, and trying to blatantly distort what is actually in the various bills under consideration? I haven't seen Democrats accusing Republicans of creating death panels, and howling abuse and threats at town halls on healthcare reform. Have you?

neorationalist86:
.
...only Republicans, and all Republicans, are duplicitous hypocrites and lying connivers...

I don't think that Amy Sullivan either stated or implied either of those two propositions.
.
Can you point to a specific line in her post in which the reader is told that hypocrisy and deception are the sole province of Republicans?
.
If not, don't you think that demands like yours for journalists to painstakingly, ritually advertise their understanding that the other side --at some other place, at some other time, with respect to some other issue than the one under discussion-- is equally wrong about something is one of the principle problems with American political journalism today?
.
Aren't you really castigating Sullivan for (finally) not doing conventionally poor Beltway He Said/She Said, neorationalist86?

Basil
~
My comment was aimed at Amy, not at the Swampland 'commentariat' to quote Joe Klein. I often see the progressives amidst us take Obama to task for his often centrist positions. I am not denying that. But, when was the last time TIME posted a thread uncovering some glaring hypocrisy in the Democratic party, perhaps one of its many corruption scandals? I am not seeking that 'fair and balanced, tit-for-tat' reporting, but it would be conducive to journalism for TIME's staff to actually report and investigate the corrupt power-hoarding mentalities of American politicians, not merely the hypocrisies of some GOP members. It's quite clear that TIME seeks stories involving shamed Republican politicians (Sanford), disgraceful GOP tactics (Palin, Limbaugh), extreme GOP wingnuts (birthers, death panelists) and myriad other GOP blemishes. While all of these things are pertinent and factual, there is a clear underlying agenda of discrediting the GOP whilst no effort is being expended to even nominally check to make sure there is not some egregious duplicity coming from the other camp.
~
As for this:
Exiled, you object to being cast as an evil Republican, as I recall. Are you comfortable creating similar stereotypes whereby others believe that Democrats are pure as the driven snow?

I cannot see any equivalence between being lambasted as a racist, ignorant, sexist, homophobic conservative (in my case) and being considered overly idealistic and naive to the flaws of one's party (in the case of Amy).

SZ
~
It's nice to have you back in the Swamp.

I believe my comment to Basil addressed your concerns as well, however unwittingly. If you have further queries, do not hesitate to engage.

But, when was the last time TIME posted a thread uncovering some glaring hypocrisy in the Democratic party
Three posts ago was one about a deal between Pharma and the White House that may or may not have happened. Is that glaring enough or should I search further?

Exiled, would you mind specifying these "many corruption scandals"? I would settle for say 10 in the last 5 years. Also, how about telling us about all this blatant disinformation you seem worried about? I am assuming you've got plenty of material in mind here, rather than mounting a fishing expedition or building a false equivalence along the lines of: the GOP does bad things, the GOP is made up of politicians, the Democrats are politicians, therefore the Democrats do bad things. Care to share what's on your mind and give us some specifics to work with?

Basil,
This is silly, but I'll humor you.
~
Eliot Spitzer, James McGreevy, Rod Blogojevich and John Harris, Bernard Madoff, and currently John Murtha, Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters and the entire state of New Jersey. There's certainly not a lack of substance to talk about Basil, with regard to the Democratic party.
~
But I am not asking for a quid pro quo reporting scheme equally apportioning dirt to each side. What I am noting is the clear agenda here of solely seeking to smear one side. It's positively unquestionable given the propensity here at TIME to cover GOP indiscretions and hypocrisies, while largely ignoring these other stories.

Exiled, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it you who denied being a GOP partisan as recently as yesterday? Also, why is it silly to ask you to offer some sort of support for the rumors and fearmongering hints you offer about how bad the Democrats are. Also, you've offered lists of names, not actual evidence of corruption. Would you mind being specific about what these people were found guilty of doing - in court? Also too, as a recent GOP star might say, how precisely is "the whole state of New Jersey" guilty of corruption (not to mention being Democratic)? Are the rocks and streams themselves to be found guilty as well as enjoying a party affiliation?

Exiled, Spitzer used prostitutes, which, although repellent, is hardly corruption in any meaningful sense. Madoff defrauded a lot of people, but bought Republicans as well as Democrats, and committed his crimes under the eyes of the GOP administration and DOJ. Blagojevich and Harris I grant you, although they seem like one case to me. McGreevey resigned after coming out of the closet - which is not corruption in any sense of the word, any more than Sanford's affair qua sexual folly would be, and was never found guilty of financial impropriety. Murtha - well, I dislike his handling of pork, but he has not actually been prosecuted. Rangel and Waters - again, what specifically have they been tried and convicted for? I may not find them especially edifying individuals, but that doesn't make them corrupt. This really isn't a tremendously impressive list, Exiled. It hardly compares with torture, Iraq, US Attorney firings, the lies about death panels and so forth. Sure, the Democrats aren't pure - but do you really think this list compares with the 8 years of Bush and the recent lunacy of Palin, Grassley, Gingrich et al? And how on earth do you find all of New Jersey guilty? Must we assume that all of Texas is guilty because of Bush, Gonzalez, Rove etc?

Grollican
~
I am not a Republican any more. I recently registered independent. However, despite your partisan interpretation, I am not defending the GOP, I am merely tired of seeing the Democratic party get a free-pass in the media in terms of its improprieties. Hypocrisy, corruption, duplicity. TIME seems to consider these GOP traits rather than American political traits.
~
Spitzer, McGreevy, Blogojevich and Madoff I am certain you are aware of. Murtha is embroiled in yet another earmarks corruption scandal; Rangel seems to be having some tax issues; Waters and TARP kick-backs; NJ has a notorious history of Democratic corruption epitomized by the recent FBI round-up of several mayors and other Democratic officials involved in some egregious activity including blackmarket organ sales. So, are these worthy of some TIME attention? I certainly think so. There is nothing partisan with my desire to see journalism devoid of its one lop-sided partisan agenda in taking aim solely at the GOP. I am not refuting the substance of this recent TIME fetish in exposing GOP wrongdoings and hypocrisy, but as a media outlet it is unprofessional to continue to push these partisan-driven attacks.

Exiled, have you really forgotten how the media treated the Clintons? How they spent years smearing them? I hardly think you can claim Democrats get a free ride. Or how about Kerry, who actually did serve his country in war, and yet was attacked and slandered 24/7 by draftdodgers and cowards like Bush and Cheney? if you want to push this line of the liberal media, you are doing so against all the evidence, and against reality. Also, you haven't denied that Grassley and Palin are hypocrites and liars. Why is reporting this - in fairly tepid terms - a partisan attack?

Wait, wait wait. Why are both of you pushing this 'conviction-only' criteria for media coverage of Democratic wrong-doings? While you encourage TIME to oust GOP members for their nauseating statements (free speech mind you) you reject coverage of Democrats lest they have been criminally convicted of something?

Basil
~
TIME magazine, not media. Now, not always.
~
I am not defending Grassly or Palin. I am not defending the GOP. I am not defending hypocrisy. I am only puzzled as to TIME's recent GOP-only binge.

Before I leave for the night let me just make a few quick notes. I am not opposed to ousting Palin and Limbaugh as the maliciously ignorant fools they are. I do not reject reporting of Grassley's duplicitous hypocrisy. I have no qualms with the condescending smack-downs of rabid anti-Obama weirdos such as the Birthers and Death Panelists. The GOP should be held accountable for the actions/statements emanating from this recent surge of craziness. However, the extent to which TIME seems to dwell on this madness, and any GOP impropriety is, shall I say, 'fishy.' Look at how long the Sanford saga was drawn out. I think perhaps there was one quick post with few comments about the NJ corruption ring. In my opinion a corruption ring involving multiple mayors and city officials across NJ working in consort with 5 rabbis to sell blackmarket human organs is quite a story. Where was TIME during all this mischief? Where is TIME now as Murtha, Waters and Rangel are facing scrutiny over earmark/tax/donation improprieties and discrepancies? There is simply no point on visiting Swampland if it is to be hijacked solely by anti-GOP venom. A little context would be nice, some proportionality. By ignoring Democratic deficiencies there is an indisputable caricature being painted here, one that has the GOP in the dark, while the Democrats bask in the light of righteousness. It's a flawed characterization that colors people's already tainted perceptions. It's marketing, not journalism.
~
In any case, Basil, it's been a pleasure, on both threads. You have good points, it's been enjoyable. Ciao a tutti.

Yeah, I had to Google that Rod Blagojevich guy to find out who he was and what he did because of the Time-led media blackout of his story. Evidently he peddled influence or something. When will the MSM report on this? Or should I say WHEN WILL THE MSM REPORT ON THIS????????

Exiled:

MURTHA: (March 11, 2009)

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/11/murthas-allegedly-corrupt-take-368-to-the-nth-degree/

SPITZER: (March 10, 2008)

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/11/murthas-allegedly-corrupt-take-368-to-the-nth-degree/

MADOFF: (Dec 12, 2008)

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1866154,00.html

BLAGOJEVICH (Dec 10, 2008)

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1865474,00.html
.
I don't think you can really claim that Time (or the media as a whole) has simply ignored these scandals. As for Sanford and Palin - nobody forced them to hold a series of embarrassing press conferences, or, for that matter to quit an elected office before launching bizarre falsehoods. They kept the stories alive - not a biassed press corps. But replying to your larger point: do you really expect the media not to cover this latest round of GOP lunacy and dishonesty? Who forced Grassley to lie through his teeth about something he had previously supported? And if we are going to talk about government interference between patient and doctor, not to mention end of life issues, I seem to remember a certain Terri Schiavo. Do you really want to claim that the media was unfair to the GOP on that sordid issue? Did they force Frist to "diagnose" her over a video-link? Did they force the GOP to interfere with her family?

well there is maverickforthe making up his own facts again. No one yelling abuse or threats? That would be news to the young black man beaten by union thugs.

Since libs find it difficult to understand that we are sliding into the eternal pit of socialism maybe they would believe their comrades from Pravda http://english/pravda.ru/print/opinion/columnists/107459-american_capitalism-0 in an article entitled "American Capitalism gone with a whimper"

mav - record intact no runs no hits only errors

I see that little Freepie has emerged to peddle more idiocies. Presumably, it's leisure hour at the correctional facility.

RE: Exiled at home: Talk about naive.

Are you not yet aware that corruption not only permiates ALL American politics but ALL Americans and as a matter of fact ALL people of all nations?

Have you seen anyone who has been elected or has taken over positions of power anywhere and that have NOT become corrupt? Now of course that depends on ones PERCEPTION of corruption doesn't it?

Of course our humaness is based on getting all I can get for ME.

Now there are some who have recognized this and do try to counter their basic REPTILIAN FEELING based motivation but they are far and few between.

How about you? Are you corrupt? Or how do you define corrupt?

Sensei
~
That was my whole bloody point! Everyone of these fools in Washington are corrupted hypocrites to some degree. Thus to perpetually report on GOP wrongs is clearly a politically motivated blitzkreig by TIME to promote, through lack of illumination, those of the Democratic party. When all anyone sees is a slew of GOP scandals and hypocritical stances, the more naive among us may actually begin to believe that the Democrats somehow stand for probity. Wrong! They are politicians, and American politicians at that, so they naturally stand for private interests, AIPAC, money, power, retention of power, etc etc...

Well done, Exiled. You successfully derailed the discussion from one about the hypocrisy and lying of the right regarding alleged Death Camps to something else in which liberals felt forced to defend Democrats.

Furthermore, you kept the discussion going so long that I, for one, am tired of reading these comments and will move on after submitting this post, although I must confess to scanning ahead and seeing a series of irrelevant "good catch" comments to the blogger, so in all fairness a "really good job" is due the whole bunch of conservative apologists and distractors. If there is any intelligent discussion of the author's thesis, it is hopelessly buried under a nearly impenetrable wall of irrelevant chatter.

It's important to keep protecting people like Palin and Grassley, and to keep trying to equate the likes McGreevey, Spitzer and Rangel with them. Because unimpeded discourse is the lifeblood of democracy, and we can't have that. You all function like a well-trained, even professional team if I may say so, just like the ones I see wherever liberals frequently post.

It seems to me that there is enough here for the Dems to take the fight to these Palinists/Repugs by mounting a very vigorous, scorched-earth psyche war of one-liners against the clueless, nasty armies of shuffling lying Zombies.

Lackluster.
How desperately do the Dems want this bill?
Is there fire in their belly and passion in their hearts?

So you DID get the job of writing up those last novels for L. Ron Hubbard! Congratulations. But you need to cut back on the florid prose and overheated imagination. Even he might think you've gone too far in your search for an alternate reality.

Mmm... probably not for L Ron, but more likely for Lyndon LaRouche. S/he's got all the right buzzwords to appeal to that base.

Feel lucky, my Canadian friend. Sooner or later the GOP will accuse you of euthanising Stephen Hawking and slaughtering poor people in your fiendish Communist medical death camps. Just enjoy your peace and quiet while you can, and, of course, those immoral cheap drugs that Americans eye with envy and sometimes smuggle across the border into our free market paradise.

Hey!
Only dirty, beret-wearing communists want to remedy the burdens created by an uneducated, perpetually ill populace, or think that people shouldn't be driven into bankruptcy for the crime of developing cancer.

The dirty truth is that these protests "against" health care have very little to do with health care. That's merely the cover being used at the moment.

If you listen to the rants from the teabagging performance art crowd, you will quickly learn what it's really about--a fear that the U.S. is being converted into a worker's paradise by an Unamerican brown guy with an Islamic sounding name. Or, as Glenn Beck (one of the gods of the teabagging crowd) recently declared on national T.V, that President Obama is a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Presumbably, even his own mother and grandmother.

Look at the composition of the protesters as well. Nearly all are middle-aged or older white people who voted for McCain in the last election.

So, keep that in mind when you see this debate unfold. There are people, of course, who have legitimate concerns about health care reform. After all, when you have major voices in a political party (Newt, Palin, Grassley, etc.) warn about euthanasia or "death panels". You would have to be brain dead not to be concerned. Many folks are not political junkies. They don't pay all that much attention to politics, but when they watch the nightly news with dire warnings of "death panels", and pulling the plug on grandma, then inevitably, there are going to be questions.

The failure of our corporate media (who thrive on sensationalism for ratings) is that they do not do an effective job of separating fact from fiction.

THANK YOU CANADA!!! That we have been distracted from what is good, and should be, shows how incredibly foolish we are. Something stinks in America. The "conversation " seems to have shifted from improving access to health care - to "reforming health insurance". I think they call that mission creep. Somewhere along the way, we have (already) lost the vision needed to truly get to where we need to be. It is amazing how these industries that should die, just seem to hang on to the teat and continue to extract the milk. (see also: The Federal Reserve Bank - a private bank) Reform health insurance? This is a BIG business that does not want to go down or give up it's astonishing profits. That our society even supports this evil parasite...

shel --
I think you are misreading something. The people eligible for the end of life services "are those who have not elected the hospice benefit".
_
This is pre-hospice counselling. ("The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options...)
_
in other words, this really is what Amy purports it to be -- a bill that provides for "euthanasia" counselling.

"euthanasia" means (literally) "good death", and withholding life-extending treatment in a humane manner is part of most definitions of euthanasia. (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/euthanasia)

Plukasiak, I'm still not following your point. The way the opponents of health care are defining euthansia is different than the dictionary, text book definition.
.
The implication of the argument from the right, is that the GOVERNMENT is going to somehow mandate, or withdraw care due to financial concerns, that a patient actively wants.
.
I guess you could call that involuntary euthansia, which would be understandably controversial, but that is not proposed, or even implied, in the current health care bill.

my original point was that Amy had interpreted the bill correctly -- that shel had misread the text in a way that said the counselling was available for those under hospice care (i.e. who had already chosen a "good death").
_
you told me that I didn't know what the word "euthanasia" meant, so I corrected you (with a link).