As I’m sure you’re aware, the original references to “death panels” were objections to “end-of-life counseling. These were entirely bogus scare tactics, meant to conjure up images of Nazi-like eugenics programs. Any sane person recognizes this.

But now you’re saying “But wait a minute, since there are limited resources, there must be limitations to health care. Aha! and Voila! “Death Panels” are not only possible, but inevitable!”

Well, yes. But only because you’ve re-defined what “death panel” means. You are entirely correct that resources will always be limited - as they are today, and as they will be in the future with or without health care reform - but what does that have to do with “end-of-life counseling” (the former “death panel”)? Nothing at all.

Put differently, now that “end-of-life” counseling has (unfortunately) been dropped from the health plan reform proposal, do you expect that there will now never be “death panels” as you’ve now re-defined them? Of course you don’t. Because your new definition of “death panels” has nothing to do with the health care reform at all. It’s just a convenient way of legitimizing talk about “death panels”. That, and nothing more.

Btw, after reading your post, I saw this post by Jeffrey Miron who makes the same point, see here.

Opponents of health care reform may be exaggerating cost. Who knows what the real costs will be.

But the charge of “death panels” is not an exaggeration. It’s an inevitability. There’s no way we can continue to spend so much of our limited health resources on older people. It’s not a happy thought, but it’s a fact. And it will become even more of a problem as the baby boomers get older.

To the extent that “health care reform” localizes health care decisions in one organization (no matter what that organization is), there will have to be “death panels.”

Nobody is willing to address this honestly, or to propose a solution. Probably because there really isn’t a solution. The sad fact is that older people will not be able to get all the care that they could receive in a world with unlimited resources.

So, is Glenn Beck a LaRouchite? I’m just asking.

Nike Men Women Air Zoom Dunkesto

Also would you mind giving us a post to let your readership know about rightriot.com? We’re rebuilding our userbase from a hacking attack and we need all the help we can get from other conservative net people. Thanks!

LaRouche can choose what ever party he thinks is better for his bid, that doesn’t make him representative of the Democrats. Timothy McVeigh was registered as a Republican. It takes a big leap to say that “Republicans” were blowing up buildings. I am an independent, but lean Democrat–does that say much about the party given that I think they suck on many policies? In any case, Democrats do oversimplify when they assume the Hitler people are Republicans. As for the other crazies? What party might they belong to? I admit that I haven’t done the research…

In any case, whenever you have big visible events, the crazies come out of the woodwork. I created a vibrant, successful activist club on campus in my undergrad days. How do I know it was successful? The Spartacus Youth Club started setting up tables (without asking) at our meetings and events.

Lack of the same seems to pretty significantly undercut HP’s entirely bogus claim that Democrats are responsible.

Look, none of us knows what percentage of Hitler signs belong to LaRouchites, and what percentage belongs to Republicans, but we do know that if there were no Republican politicians claiming that Obama wants to pull th”e plug on Grandma” or institute “death panels” there would be a lot less of those folks at the town halls. There’s just no getting around that fact.