Nice , good job

Did he seriously say that Sarah Palin coined this "ingenious" term. I didn't think she was supposed to be capable of that.

Yes she did. I'm sure she's quite proud.

Expertly written. I sent it to everyone I know.

No, he acknowledges that it is most likely a phrase that she picked up from another source. What he does say is that she was the perfect mouthpiece for such an asinine concept.

It just boggles the mind that people would believe in such a concept... Either the country is the same place they loved under Bush, and would NEVER do such a thing, or it isn't. They need to figure out reality and not believe everything they hear without vetting it. But that would take effort, wouldn't it?

The reality is that medical decisions on whether to continue treatment or mechanical life support have always been made by doctors, insurance companies, and goverments, with varying degrees of consultation and consent with the patient and his or her families.

To use an obvious example, a 98 year old man with advanced cancer would not benefit from radical surgery or chemotherapy. It is a doctor's duty to tell him and his family to get his affairs in order, and not provide services on demand as if the patient were ordering off of the menu, notwithstanding any denial and delusional thinking from the patient who thinks that treatment would benefit him.

Where the medical system is publicly funded allocation of medical resources must be made to the greatest need. But even in a purely private system a rich 98 year old with terminal cancer should not be encouraged to spend all his money on futile and likely painful treatment. Yes, I suppose he has the right to do what he wants with his money but the medical profession, being a profession first and a profit making scheme second, has a duty to dissuade him from such a foolish course of action.

The anti-Obamites who have latched on to the so called "death panels" and the alleged barbarity of Obama's plan ignore the fact that right now in the US people who could be saved are denied coverage and treatment because they cannot afford it. Is a poor person less deserving of life saving treatment than a rich one?

Even if medical panels were to review and decide whether treatment was meaningful and should be continued, the likelihood is that more people would get treatment than now. I for one would rather have my situation reviewed by a panel of doctors than decided by my ability to pay -- you would be surprised how quickly the money runs out when you are off work due to illness or caring for a sick child, and how often the insurance coverage you paid for isnt really there because the insurance co finds some reason to deny coverage and you are too sick and destitute to sue them.

I am a Canadian and we have had universal health coverage now for many decades. Are there problems? of course. But no one here is denied medical help and no one is bankrupted from having to pay for medical treatment for themselves or their family. In my view this is a more dignified and humane system than basing eligibility for treatment on ability to pay.

I applaud Obama's attempt to create a more egalitarian system, and seriously worry about the crazy backlash that is being fermented by the right wingers.

All I know is I blame Bush. At least that used to be the slogan for everyone on the left. If the left can dish it out, they gotta be able to take it too.

*Salutes*

Well said, sir. Well said.

Yeah! Blame Bush! That's really hitting the left where it hurts!

(Did you mean to say Obama there?)

Lots of very sensible comments.
It deserves a lot more upvotes.