White House Talking Points for Speech Include Palin

UPDATE: Palin Responds Scroll Down for her response

Mark Ambinder urges the media not to boost Palin's credibility by addressing her WSJ op-ed or include her opinion in the debate. Little does he know the White House has already elevated her to equal by specifically addressing her in their talking points. Witness a few selected responses in the comments from Ambinder's Atlantic piece:
Idiots. They took her bait AGAIN.
Agreed, she is going to play them for a fool again. Sheesh, Rahm, wake up!
Palin has officially been legitimized. Bad move, White House.

Read the White House talking points below the jump:


From Politico these are the White House talking points for the health care speech tonight:

When the President is finished speaking tonight, everyone who listens will understand that his plan has at its core two overriding goals: to bring stability and security to Americans who have insurance today, and affordable coverage to those who don't.


The President's plan will bring reforms that will reduce the unsustainable growth in the cost of health care, which has doubled in the last decade and will continue to rise at that untenable pace unless we act.


From the beginning of this process, the President has said that he believes reform should be bipartisan. And the plan he outlines tonight will be consistent with that goal it will contain Republican proposals and Democratic proposals.


So the Republicans will have to decide whether they are genuine in their wish to work in a bipartisan manner, or whether they will continue to vote against proposals they have said are key to reform.




He will clearly lay out what health reform means to Americans both those that have insurance now and those that don't. He will also be clear about health reform doesn't mean clearing up the confusion that has been fomented by the special interests and defenders of the status quo.


He will also answer the big questions about how to move the health reform process forward and make clear exactly what he considers real reform to be.


It is important to recognize how far we have come.


Four of the five House and Senate committees have marked up bills. Today Senator Baucus, who chairs the fifth committee, announced that his committee will move to markup shortly. Among those bills there is, essentially, 80 percent agreement, and each of them is in line with the principles the President has laid out.


We are entering a new phase in the debate.


Now is the time to begin pulling together the various strands of the bills that have been written and the solutions that have been proposed to create a final product that lowers costs, ensures that Americans cannot be denied coverage because they get sick, and provides
access to affordable health care for all.


As the President will say tonight, he is not the first president to take up the cause of health reform but he is determined to be the last.


Members heard a lot from their constituents over August including stories from people who are struggling with the rising cost of health care or who have been denied coverage because they or someone in their family got sick. One thing has became crystal clear to any member who really spent time talking to constituents last month: Doing nothing is not an option.


After this speech, opponents of health reform will need to either propose their own plan or explain why they think it is best to do nothing while health care costs continue to rise 3 times faster than wage, millions of Americans continue to be denied coverage because they got sick, and insecurity continues to grow. In just 2 years, 1 in 3 Americans experienced a gap in coverage. What the President will offer the country is stability and security in our health insurance system.


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.

UPDATED:  Response From Palin on Facebook:

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.

SEND BARACK OBAMA A MESSAGE

CBS News reports a slightly different version of the ad pictured above is currently running on Facebook. The ad is scheduled to target 800,000 Sarah Palin supporters. Americans United For Change is sponsoring the ad. Maybe they should concentrate on the beam in the eye of their leader who repeats the following distortions daily:

Lie One: No one will be compelled to buy coverage.

Lie Two: No new taxes on employer benefits.

Lie Three: Government can control rising health care costs better than the private sector.

Lie Four: A public plan won't be a Trojan horse for a single-payer monopoly.

Lie Five: Patients don't have to fear rationing.

Lie Six: You can keep your doctor

Lie Seven: You can keep your current health care plan.

Lie Eight: Taxpayer money will not be used to fund abortions.

Lie Nine: Reform will bend down costs over time.

Lie Ten: Will keep health care decisions between you and your doctor. Pay no attention to that panel who will decide what is worth paying for and what isn't. This could not possibly be confused with a death panel or anything, just like whether you get the pain pill or the operation. You know minor stuff like that. Don't worry. Be happy.

If anyone has any more feel free to write them in the comments. I will update the list as needed.

Palin Continues Challenging Health Care on Facebook

Undaunted by the outrageous outrage from Zeke Emanuel or taunts by the fair and balanced media types, Palin continues to voice concerns over the proposed House health care reform. Palin tackles the outrage from Emanuel, the charges of hypocrisy from Shuster and Think Progress. She also tackles the most glaring problem with the proposed legislation, we can't afford it. Palin ends with suggestions for change we can afford that would both address real problems in the health care system and leave Americans with greater freedom.

First Palin tackles Emmanuel's "Complete Lives System," and questions Emanuel's role in health care reform:

As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama’s key health care advisors is particularly disturbing. I’m speaking of the “Complete Lives System” advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff. President Obama has not yet stated any opposition to the “Complete Lives System,” a system which, if enacted, would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential. [1] Why the silence from the president on this aspect of his nationalization of health care? Does he agree with the “Complete Lives System”? If not, then why is Dr. Emanuel his policy advisor? What is he advising the president on? I just learned that Dr. Emanuel is now distancing himself from his own work and claiming that his “thinking has evolved” on the question of rationing care to benefit the strong and deny the weak. [2] How convenient that he disavowed his own work only after the nature of his scholarship was revealed to the public at large.

Emanuel is a key adviser to Peter Orszag, the White House Budget Director, and both have been very involved in health care reform. A New York Times piece noted:

Nancy-Ann DeParle, charged with leading the White House health effort, has a standing biweekly meeting with Mr. Baucus, while Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director, has spent so much time in the senator’s office that he helps himself to the Coke Zeros tucked away in Mr. Baucus’s personal refrigerator.

Emanuel was proclaimed "Obama's Health Care Alchemist," in a March piece in the Huffington Post. Palin is quite correct to question what Dr. Emanuel would be advising the President on, if not his own academic opinions.

Palin addresses the President's repeated overpromise that we can keep our private plans and his denials of a preference for a single payer plan:

The president is busy assuring us that we can keep our private insurance plans, but common sense (and basic economics) tells us otherwise. The public option in the Democratic health care plan will crowd out private insurers, and that’s what it’s intended to do. A single payer health care plan has been President Obama’s agenda all along, though he is now claiming otherwise. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what he said back in 2003:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan.... A single payer health care plan – universal health care plan – that’s what I would like to see.” [3]

A single-payer health care plan might be what Obama would like to see, but is it what the rest of us would like to see? What does a single payer health care plan look like? We need look no further than other countries who have adopted such a plan. The picture isn’t pretty. [4] The only way they can control costs is to ration care. As I noted in my earlier statement quoting Thomas Sowell, government run health care won’t reduce the price of medical care; it will simply refuse to pay the price. The expensive innovative procedures that people from all over the world come to the United States for will not be available under a government plan that seeks to cover everyone by capping costs.

Palin tackles the charges of hypocrisy on "end-of-life" consultations that stem from a program she ran as Governor of Alaska called "Health Care Decisions Day," by addressing the obvious incentives built in the House proposal that are quite different from the voluntary nature of her program:

Our senior citizens are right to be wary of this health care bill. Medical care at the end of life accounts for 80 percent of all health care. When care is rationed, that is naturally where the cuts will be felt first. The “end-of-life” consultations authorized in Section 1233 of HR 3200 were an obvious and heavy handed attempt at pressuring people to reduce the financial burden on the system by minimizing their own care. Worst still, it actually provided a financial incentive to doctors to initiate these consultations. People are right to point out that such a provision doesn’t sound “purely voluntary.”

In an article I noted yesterday, Charles Lane wrote:

“Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life’s end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it’s good to have a doctor’s perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.” [5]

Palin then points to the voluntary nature of her program:

I agree. Last year, I issued a proclamation for “Healthcare Decisions Day.” [6] The proclamation sought to increase the public’s knowledge about creating living wills and establishing powers of attorney. There was no incentive to choose one option over another. There was certainly no financial incentive for physicians to push anything. In fact, the proclamation explicitly called on medical professionals and lawyers “to volunteer their time and efforts” to provide information to the public.

Comparing the “Healthcare Decisions Day” proclamation to Section 1233 of HR 3200 is ridiculous. The two are like apples and oranges. The attempt to link the two shows how desperate the proponents of nationalized health care are to shift the debate away from the disturbing details of their bill.

Palin concludes by addressing the affordability problem:

There is one aspect of this bill which I have not addressed yet, but it’s a very obvious one. It’s the simple fact that we can’t afford it. But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Doug Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. He told the Senate Budget Committee last month:

“In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.” [7]

Dr. Elmendorf went on to note that this health care legislation would increase spending at an unsustainable rate.

Our nation is already $11.5 trillion in debt. Where will the money come from? Taxes, of course. And will a burdensome new tax help our economy recover? Of course not. The best way to encourage more health care coverage is to foster a strong economy where people can afford to purchase their own coverage if they choose to do so. The current administration’s economic policies have done nothing to help in this regard.

Health care is without a doubt a complex and contentious issue, but health care reform should be a market oriented solution. There are many ways we can reform the system and lower costs without nationalizing it.

Palin offers a patient-centered policy promoted by Arthur Laffer in the Wall Street Journal:

"A patient-centered health-care reform begins with individual ownership of insurance policies and leverages Health Savings Accounts, a low-premium, high-deductible alternative to traditional insurance that includes a tax-advantaged savings account. It allows people to purchase insurance policies across state lines and reduces the number of mandated benefits insurers are required to cover. It reallocates the majority of Medicaid spending into a simple voucher for low-income individuals to purchase their own insurance. And it reduces the cost of medical procedures by reforming tort liability laws.” [8]

Those are real reforms that we can live with and afford. Once again, I warn my fellow Americans that if we go down the path of nationalized health care, there will be no turning back. We must stop and think or we may find ourselves losing even more of our freedoms.
- Sarah Palin

Palin's point is irrefutable, though I am sure many will try, there are many options to reform health care that will increase competition and remove barriers for the uninsured without creating a nationalized health care system. The idea the only was to increase competition in the insurance industry is to make the federal government a competitor is, well, laughable.

Sarah Palin's Facebook Response to Obama's New Hampshire Town Hall

Sarah Palin posted a response to President Obama's statements yesterday on her Facebook page. Palin includes a statement from Eugene Robinson, I first saw referenced the other day at Pundit & Pundette. Palin hits this one out of the park, read for yourself below the cut:

Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore....It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. 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." [3] During those consultations, practitioners must 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. [4]

Now put this 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.” [5] 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 Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it’s all about alleviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]

As Lane also points out:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]

Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees 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.” [8]

So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:

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. [9]

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel 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.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces 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.” [11]

President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.

[1] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/president-obama-addresses-sarah-palin-death-panels-wild-representations.html.
[2] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[3] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1); Sec. 1233 (hhh)(3)(B)(1), above.
[4] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1)(E), above.
[5] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[6] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html].
[7] Id.
[8] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html].
[9] See http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/letter-congressman-henry-waxman-re-section-1233-hr-3200.
[10] See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
[11] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions.

Palin Divorce Rumor Debunked

UPDATE: McCain has the low down on the the low-down "journalist" Dennis Zaki here: Bozo the CNN Stringer and at The Spectator Kudos to him for getting a quote from Sarah herself, see the quote here.


Robert Stacy McCain has a piece in The American Spectator that completely refutes ridiculous rumors of a Palin divorce, being spread by a few irresponsible bloggers. The aptly named blog "The Immoral Minority" appears to be the ground zero source for the rumor that is being fueled by some of the usual suspects like Mudflats. In a moment of true Théâtre de l'Absurde, Mudflats in an entry filled with abject speculation and innuendo based on claims of not a single named source makes the following closing statement:

And before anyone out there starts looking for that frogman gear, underwater flashlight and metal detector, we don’t know exactly which lake presumably became the final resting place of the ring. No folks, you can’t make this stuff up.

This from the source of some of the most irresponsible and patently false claims about Sarah Palin is truly astonishing.