Abusing the Public Square
Sarah Palin recently reinserted herself into the national dialogue by claiming that the current Obama health care plan is a “downright evil” concoction inasmuch as governmental ”death panels” will be charged with the responsibility of determining who gets to live and who must die.
She even went so far as to insinuate that her Down syndrome suffering baby Trig would be in danger of losing his life under the proposed, new program.
The problem is that none of these claims have any basis in truth.
Now I am all for a healthy national debate about the necessity and contours of a new national health care program. I am also currently against any proposals that would include abortion services under a public option or through tax-payer monies. I am against euthanasia.
But does not our democratic republic deserve a more responsible use of language and respect for truth whenever contending parties and interest groups are discussing and arguing over different options in our public square?
Update: (AP) ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is calling for civil discourse on President Obama’s health care proposal.
Palin now says there are many disturbing details in the bill. But she says people must stick to discussion of the issues “and not get sidetracked by tactics that can be accused of leading to intimidation or harassment.”
The former Republican vice presidential candidate asked supporters not to give “proponents of nationalized health care any reason to criticize us.”
Comments are closed.
Sarah Palin and people like her really are dealing with the question of rationing in health care; of course she extends what rationing is about in her response, to make it appear as certain classes of people will always be rejected (like the elderly) which is not the case here. On the other hand, the current system rations health care resources; that’s the problem as to why there is need for reform, and what is always ignored. The rationing is not related to any sound ethical considerations. I can understand why groups will be afraid change will make something also irrational, or more irrational. The fear of it is one thing, and should be used to make sure it doesn’t happen; but it should never be used merely to help those who profiteer on health care to continue such profiteering. Alas. Some people don’t see how they have become “useless idiots” for the capitalist regime.
Something that’s often intrigued me–but I’ve yet to see it done–is for Catholics to ask Protestants like Sarah Palin whether or not they use contraceptives? I know this is a very personal issue, so much so, that I’ve grown tired of people in Catholic parishes asking me and my wife, Kari, why we don’t have children and then assume that the only rational explanation is that we use birth control.
Protestants who advocate tough pro-life stances may or may not use birth control. If they do, this should immediately spark a much larger debate between Protestants and Catholics over what it means to be “pro-life” and what “universalized healthcare” is to mean for all of us in this country.
What I’m suggesting is tantamount to those Protestants in conservative, pro-life circles that often try to get Catholic support for this or that candidate during an election because this or that candidate may or may not be pro-life but pro-choice. I’ve always wondered why Catholics don’t bring up the death penalty at these meetings and say, “While we’re here talking about abortion, let’s talk about other pro-life issues such as the support that many of you in this room have for the death penalty.”
I ran into something like this during Lent. I was asked to join a 40 day movement for life, which was instituted by numerous Protestant groups in the Mid-West. My first question was, “So… we’ll not only be talking about abortion but also the death penalty right?” I assume all of you know the answer to this question.
David
Up until this statement, I’ve hada soft spot for Palin. I was happy when she was elected governor. I thought she was a bold choice for McCain. I thought she brought a populist element to the business dominated GOP. As her campaign gaffes emerged, I evolved into thinking that the GOP establishment had done her wrong by throwing her on the national stage too soon and unprepared, but I blamed them and not her. I later began to see her as erratic and, at times, not thoughtful, but certainly was much more restrained in criticism towards her than most on the left.
But this statement is over the top. She stated a falsehood. And these statements pollute civic discussion. She has disgraced herself.
I don’t think she did the President any harm. Palin, the teabaggers, the Town Hallers, the birthers, the ‘Obama wants to kill your granny and your baby’ caucus, the Notre Dame protesters, the “I hope Obama fails” club, and those calling the President a Marxist, have organized themselves into enough of a political force that the GOP can’t win without them, and have an extremism that the GOP can’t win with them.
Politcally, I have every reason to wish them well. But personally, I would be willing to take an electoral setback to have some decency and civility in politics.
Henry makes a good point: what Palin and others are describing is exactly what insurance companies do every day. Granted, it may not involve a “death panel,” but they routinely deny treatment (including treatment that is covered in a policy) to increase their profits. And I’m quite certain that it kills people.
The euthanasia argument is a red herring. No health care bill currently under consideration contains anything remotely along those lines. Abortion funding is a much more likely threat, which is precisely why this is the worst possible time for Palin and her ilk to discredit the pro-life movement with statements that are quite obviously lies.
I will just remind you of Cash for Clunkers and the TV converter boxes. What happens when the Government runs out of money? People go without. What happens when the Government runs short on money for health care? People will go without because they will have no option in a single payer system.
Why don’t you try a little reality. I couldn’t get 4500 bucks for a car and I had to wait for my converter box. So I can tell you the truth, the government can’t manage the money they spend and they show me no reason to think it will be different with health care. The “board” will have it’s hands tied because money will be short and they will be making decision about how to ration health care rather than provide sound medical decisions. It is the way they do every other project. It is the truth.
Dan,
A single payer system is not at all being considered in the health care discussion. I don’t wish to seem dismissive, but you really should educate yourself on the issues.
will be charged with the responsibility of determining who gets to live and who must die.
From the ap story
emphasis mine.
Let’s quote the woman accurately, and not let the PDS show to much.
Jeremy,
Why then her usage of the phrase “death panel”?
Henry
I don’t think these fears are overblown. If you set up a political board to oversee health care expenses, you are going to get political appointees and political decisions. Human nature being what it is, and the American political system being what it is, just how can that be avoided?
Why then her usage of the phrase “death panel”?
Didn’t say she wasn’t involved in polemics, just that you should quote her accurately. You made it sound like she said the panel would decide who would live and die, and she didn’t.
There was recently a case where a country (I think it was Australia) refused permanent residency to a Dr from Germany(?) because he had a downs child. I don’t think her polemics are lacking a basis.
You made it sound like she said the panel would decide who would live and die, and she didn’t.
It’s reasonable to say just that if she used the term “death panel.”
It is entertaining to hear calls for more civility in our political discourse. Many of those calls come from academic persons. If you know of a group that is more vicious in its infighting than the academe, please share the information.
Then one can study American history. Has anyone an example of politics “discussed” [fought] without rancor. William Clinton, in his ignorance of history, made claim that he was the most vilified president in our history. He should read [if he can] the history of campaigns since the first. One would think that Washington was the devil incarnate.
To cite the vilified HST: “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen”.
What happens when the Government runs out of money? People go without.
We have had 44 years of single payer Hospital and Medicial Insurance for the disabled and elderly without this problem. But nevertheless, the President’s plan includes individuals, employers, federal government, state government, insurers and providers all taking some responsibility. It doesn’t rest on one entity.
I don’t think these fears are overblown.
If former Governor Palin had prefaced her remarks by “I fear…” rather than “will” she could have mader her statement less despicable and avoided telling a falsehood.
There was recently a case where a country (I think it was Australia) refused permanent residency to a Dr from Germany(?) because he had a downs child. I don’t think her polemics are lacking a basis.
Or our own country that refuses such to people who are HIV+?
The bottom line is that there are no “death panels” of Obama “bureaucrats” to “decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether” a person is “worthy of health care.”
Palin is either lying or is misinformed on the bill. If the later, she might take a page from some of her camp followers and “read the bill.” Either way, she has shown herself to be an unworthy commentator on public affairs.
Wow, my comment deleted. Nothing foul or inflammatory, just noting a touch of inconsistency. Civility, indeed.
Jenny,
There is no mention in this post of “tea-baggers”. Your comment seemed out of the blue.
My apologies for not being more clear. My response was to a comment and not to the post.
Kurt says: “…I don’t think she did the President any harm. Palin, the teabaggers, the Town Hallers, the birthers, the ‘Obama wants to kill your granny and your baby’ caucus, the Notre Dame protesters,…
Politcally, I have every reason to wish them well. But personally, I would be willing to take an electoral setback to have some decency and civility in politics.”
I found it amazing that one could call names in one breath and plead civility in the next.
http://www.teabaggers.com/
This month’s special is the apple crumb cake, which I hear is divine.
Palin is a despicable woman who uses Christianity and exploits her own children for her own vain political ambitions. How anybody can admire her is beyond me.
A comment attributed to Max Liebermann when watching the Nazies march through the Brandenburg Gate in 1933 comes to mind
“Ich kann nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte.”
“I could not eat as much as I would like to vomit”