Obamacare: Death Panels and Liberal Control


About the author: Becky is a conservative citizen activist who grew up in the 1980's Reagan era. During that time it was not unusual for American's to hear a great deal about the Cold War and to be concerned about the possibility of a nuclear war. When the Cold War ended, American entered an era of peace and prosperi ... [read 's FULL BIO]


In August of 2009 Sarah Palin, in reference to the pending doom popularly known as Obamacare, called the selected group of people who will be in charge of determining the worthiness of everyone’s healthcare a death panel. Immediately the left went into attack mode. They called Palin a liar and defended Obamacare to the hilt. Palin cited section 1233 of HR 3200 as her reason for coming to this conclusion. The left, of course, derided her for pointing out that the obvious end game would be rationing of care by the panels who are charged with “counseling” people on things like end of life decisions and living wills. To be specific, page 430 of the above mentioned section clearly states;

“(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions…”

When you read the Affordable Care Act verbiage, you do, indeed, see the emergence of death panels, bureaucrats who will sit in an office far away from you and decide you are not worthy of the cost of treatment, or that your case is too severe, or you are too old. But hey, if you’re a liberal you are taught not to let things like facts stand in the way of a good argument, especially when it comes to those nasty conservatives.

Worse still, our young people are being further indoctrinated to accept socialized medicine as the norm, as the right thing to do for the collective good, and they are becoming more and more desensitized to death. The good of the many out weights the good of the few, or the one. Already we have seen recent generations regard their elders with disdain. Parents are afraid to discipline their children for fear they won’t be liked, and for fear that a child or school official will call authorities on them. Recent reports have doctors asking children if their parents own firearms and there are rumors of children being encouraged to report their parents (reminiscent of Hitler encouraging children to report parents who were critical of the Nazi’s) for certain behaviors, though I find no substantiation of that accusation. Still, you can see it coming.

But if liberals are so sure there will be no death panels, then why are they trying to prepare our children for just such an occasion? Case in point: a high school in St. Joseph, Illinois has a class called Social Science. Recently they gave the children an assignment that required them to determine which six of ten patients would receive critically needed medical care, with the clear understanding that the other four would die if treatment was not received. These children were to assign value to the lives of these ten people using information like age, marital status, sex, number and ages of children, occupation and ethnicity. Those who scored the highest would, presumably, receive treatment. The lowest scoring four would be out of luck.

See the article and the assignment here: http://www.championnews.net/?p=46699

See the Affordable Care Act here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3200ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr3200ih.pdf

The Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is the official name of the more apt moniker Death Panel, is seeing more and more opposition from the left, however. Several Democrat senators and representatives have joined the call to repeal the boards powers, including the three from Arizona, Reps Ron Barber, Ann Kirkpatrick, and Krysten Sinema. Each of these face elections next year in a state that proudly touts Jan Brewer as their governor. Recent attempts by liberal legislators in Colorado to enact more restrictive gun laws saw two legislators ousted in a recall. Arizona voters have indicated their distaste for further restrictions of their liberties too, and it must have some legislators thinking. While the Supreme Court struck down Arizona’s voter ID law recently, conservatives in that state are not backing down. An Arizona Republican state rep, Brenda Barton, recently referred to President Obama as “De Fuhrer” on her facebook page, a move that garnered a lot of criticism from Democrats in her home state, but is almost certainly indicative of the mood of her constituents. Her comment was born of her disgust for Obama’s political strategy of closing national parks and monuments during the government shutdown fight. And that fight was born of the bigger fight to rid us of Obamacare, effectively making it unenforceable by defunding it.

Liberals, however, have asserted their desire to see a more fair society that is inclusive of everyone and takes care of all people. To this end, they want free education, healthcare, and in some cases, housing. It has proven futile to explain how economics works to them. While these things may end up being free to those who would take advantage of such things, they are never free. There is always a cost. The question is, who pays it? The schmucks who have a work ethic and ambition, that’s who. Of course, in this increasingly fair society, someone has come to the realization that Obamacare and other socialist ideals are hurting the working man. Namely, the unions. Unions are accountable for many millions in campaign contributions and the majority of it goes to Democrats. Unions supported Obamacare, even spending money to buy ads to promote it. In return, they were made promises, according to union leaders, including James Hoffa. The insurance plans that unions have fought to perfect over the decades are now in jeopardy, contrary to what unions were told would happen. Oddly, the unions promote Obamacare for everyone else but are livid at the notion that they may be included. Now they want their own waiver.

The idea of some panel of bureaucrats in Washington deciding whether or not my mother should receive care based on their idea of her worth sickens me. The fact that fairness, to a liberal, is defined by what they want for everyone else, and not what might actually be fair (not that life is fair), reminds me of tyranny at its worst. Keep an eye on things close to home. Check your kids homework. Some of us must work to stop the progression of socialism in this nation. We must be ever diligent.

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Robert Myles

    We the People must Stop this crap with Obama and his being “Untouchable” We must bring him down and down hard and fastor our next meal may be in a FEMA internment camp while we await or date with the death squad

  • coastx

    America is a party culture. Obama’s an entertainer. Government’s promoting his street theater, and US citizens are vomiting up their popcorn. Just in time for Halloween. KEWL!

  • Great article Becky! thanks!

  • Becky

    Thanks, Jan.

    It is my sincere hope that this and other information will get all the patriots of this nation riled up enough to finally band together and do something about it. United we stand, divided we fall. We must defeat socialism before it takes root here. The only and natural progression of socialism is communism. Neither is “fair” to the average person, as the result is that the vast majority of us will become serfs at the mercy of the handful of elites who are created in the debacle. But Americans are made of better stuff and won’t let that happen. God bless America.

  • Capt. B.G. Cory

    I also liked Becky’s article. I think it would be wise to remember that HR 3200 as cited by Palin, was not passed. It was obsoleted. The actual act, entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that was passed is HR 3590. There are considerable differences between the two bills. You can not find any reference to Independent Payment Advisory Board in HR 3590 or HR3200, you only find Independent Medicare Advisory Board, which is also found in both bills.

    I don’t have a life time or the ambition to go through these bills. It is hard to imagine the complexity involved in both bills. These bills had to be written months and months in advance by lawyers with access and knowledge of other bills and their structure