OK, perhaps you would like to tell us what "facts" are behind the following
scare mongering statement: " Lets hope we
still have dentists after the public option "needs to be  triggered" or some
such wording."

Oh?  Do you suppose it was liberals who made up the "death squads" and other
health care fear mongering we have been subjected to?

Vaughn

It's probably 10,00000 pages long.

Would you call the New Deal fascist? Would you call Roosevelt fascist?

Does this sound familiar? If your not for war you don't support the
troops?

Such a definition get's turned upside down when it is the industrial
complex which runs society. This is the problem we have now.
Obama cannot be taking over, because the government has "sold out" to
the industrial complex. In the last 30 years there were three
forces, the middle class, the government and the industrial/business
complex. I will admit that it could happen that the only remaining
groups with any power are the government and the industrial/business
complex, but then it is only a matter of time before the government
and the industrial/business complex become the same institution (if
they are not already). I do not believe that it is Obama's intention
however to have the government take, over, but his options are much
more limited, than say in the 70's when there was strong government
regulation of business/industry and strong enforcement of antitrust
laws by the government.

        What is a hedge fund?

What is a hedge fund?

[5] and

See above

Remember that Obama is a member of a minority. It's in his best
interests to make sure that the government cannot supress minorities.
Yes, I've compared Bush to Hitler. Interestingly Hitler viewed himself
as a member of the majority, but was not himself German.

Yes I have, and there are still no "government death panels" in it.  The concept
is still a lie.  A lie is still a damn lie even when you wrap it up in a veneer
of political rhetoric.  In fact, the current Health Care Reform proposal is
mostly about folks less than 65 and therefore has little to do with "end of
life" issues.  Those issues have been faced for years in  the Medicare system,
and the bill proposes few changes there.  (You know; Medicare.  That
government-ran, single payer, socialized medicine plan that enjoys over an 80%
satisfaction index?)

I guess you are talking about the Medicare pay code they are adding to allow a
doctor to be paid for providing "end of life" counseling. "The provision allows
Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the
complex and painful decisions families face when a loved one is approaching
death.  The legislation would allow Medicare to pay for a counseling session
with a doctor or clinical professional once every five years. The bill calls for
such sessions to be "completely" voluntary, and prohibits the encouragement or
promotion of suicide or assisted suicide."  No "death panels" there!  The only
folks who could see "death panels" in something like that must be tinfoil
hat-wearing paranoids, or damn liars who wish to obstruct any meaningful dialog
on any real issues at any cost.

So why are conservatives so intent on distracting the conversation away from the
important parts of the plan?  Honestly! I really wish that both sides of the
political spectrum would engage in an honest debate and both work to solve what
is now an unsustainable health care system.  If they could manage that, I would
not care who got the credit.  I just know that health care insurance is (by far)
my largest expense.  I *can't wait* for Medicare to "kick in" for me and
Margaret.  My biggest disapointment for 2009 is the low quality of the debate
concerning our health care system.  Hell, for a while there we even had troops
of brainwashed folks organized for the express purpose of attending public
meetings to attempt to *stop* the debate.

But if you insist on pretending to believe in death panels, then read on.  I
will give you death panels!

There is certainly room for disagreement, but I would  much rather have a
government "death panel" deciding my fate than a corporate "death panel".  The
government panel would be governed by Administrative Law (thus, a meaningful
appeal process).  All of its procedures and regulations would have to conform to
underlying law and could not be changed without public comment.  Further, if
folks did not feel that they were fairly treated by their government "death
panel", they could apply pressure to their elected representatives (political
pressure) for change. Of course, these government "death panels" would be
subject to "government in the sunshine laws" and therefore to full exposure by
the media.  Every internal memo and e-mail would be a public document!

On the other hand, the corporate "death panel" could be isolated from the
political system, have no real appeal process, could operate in secret, could
change the rules as necessary, and could be relied upon to be 100% profit
motivated.

If you think that "corporate death panel" is too wild a concept,  then I invite
you to look into the Medicare "Advantage" HMO plans that were set up by the Bush
administration for the purpose of inducing our parents to sign away their
Medicare health care rights in favor of corporate-ran HMO managed care.  Any HMO
managed care plan is simply health care rationing by another name.  The HMO can
make treatment decisions, can tinker with its drug formulary if it includes drug
benefits, and otherwise do pretty much what it wants, even if those decisions
result in the certain death of their customers.

Yes that is exactly right!  The same folks who are now lying about "Government
Death Panels" have already set into operation "Corporate Death Panels" for our
parents, (and they are waiting for you and me to get a bit older...)

Dictionaries  at 50 yards!   Thanks, but I am going to respectfully decline a
fight over which of us can look up the definition that most supports our
personal view of the world.  Nobody's opinion will be changed, and it would be a
distraction from the part of this thread that really interests me; the health
care debate..

Regards,
Vaughn