The so-called "death panels," even if misinterpreted as such, have been dropped from the health-care bill. The White House email account set up to receive reports of "false" claims about ObamaCare has been apparently shut down; DrudgeReport reports that emails to it bounce back to sender. Obama's lackeys have made clear on various public affairs programs that a government-run insurance agency to compete with private insurers is no longer thought of as essential. But by placating public opinion on the public option, Obama may have sent the cannibal wing of his party into "eat" mode. This is Democratic Party governance, where liberal presidents perform a balancing act between the demands of the electorate and the demands of Democrats elected, who are often insulated from the broader electorate by representing districts in no way representative of America. Enjoy the show!

Cannibal wing of his party? That's racist! :-P

This means nothing. These people don't give up and it will be important for the public to remain ever vigilant to insure that not one small detail of this abominable plan gets enacted.

Only a mainstream, botched and bungled conservative would hope that no element of the health system be reformed. Denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions is an effective death sentence, and no rational moral agent would ever advocate for that form of private tyranny. Luckily for those who would otherwise die, that reform will more than likely be enacted, however the cost-control function of the public, democratized health plan will unfortunately not be.

More Taibbi glory from the Taibblog at True/Slant.
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/

"Now, obviously (and this is will be explored in more detail in the forthcoming piece, which will be out this week), the public option was not a cure-all. In fact, the Democrats had in reality already managed to kill the public option by watering it down to the point of near-meaninglessness. But the notion that our president not only does not have any use anymore for a public option, but in fact “will be satisfied” if there is merely “choice and competition” in the market is, well, disgusting.

I’ll say this for George Bush: you’d never have caught him frantically negotiating against himself to take the meat out of a signature legislative initiative just because his approval ratings had a bad summer. Can you imagine Bush and Karl Rove allowing themselves to be paraded through Washington on a leash by some dimwit Republican Senator of a state with six people in it the way the Obama White House this summer is allowing Max Baucus (favorite son of the mighty state of Montana) to frog-march them to a one-term presidency?

To quote Method Man’s Calvin “Cheese” Wagstaff character from The Wire, “This is some shameless s*** right here.”
-Aug. 17 2009 — 12:58 am"

“Denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions is an effective death sentence”.

That’s true. But who in this country is ever given a death sentence due to pre-existing conditions that are not covered? Nobody. In this most caring and benevolent of nations.

But under the government rationed healthcare system proposed and pushed by the leftist Democrats, whether pre-existing or post-existing conditions, the real possibility of death sentences will be assessed as an option to save money.

You know, I went to the doctor today. I called on Wednesday of last week with an issue and was given an appointment for this morning. I went in 15 minutes before my appointment at which time I filled out a few minutes of paper work, handed over my co-payment and by the time I was done (actually I hadn’t finished) I was brought in, weighed and waited for a doctor for 10 minutes in an examination room.

A lovely lady doctor came in, listened, checked me out and suggested a specialist who I will see a two weeks.

Call me crazy, but I kind of like that service. And call me double crazy but I don’t mind paying for that kind of service. And I'm not rich.

But Obama and the Dems want to make this process more expensive and more complicated. And it will NEVER ever run right because the government doesn't and also NEVER does anything less expensively.

There are approximately 300 million people in the United States, 40 million, or thereabouts, are said to have no health care. Take 3/4's of those off the top as people who are not looking for health care coverage and all of the illegal aliens that are, theoretically, not covered and you have a small fraction of the population that does not have health care. Technically. But in our terrible, cold hearted money hungry system, not one of those people would go to a hospital and get turned away.

So why screw up the best health care system in the world for EVERYBODY in the country for just the few?

I'll tell you why: socialism; Democratic control via government intrusion into every facet of life; the concept of equality (i.e. everybody has to have $ucky coverage under the Dems).

It's all quite insane. And anybody who thinks it's a good idea is quite insane as well.

asdf writes: "So why screw up the best health care system in the world for EVERYBODY in the country for just a few?"

I think this captures the essence of the problem. While our health care system is not perfect, it is still very good and most people are quite pleased with their health care coverage. Certain reforms are certainly needed but the system is not "broken." Experential common sense says you don't fix something that is not broken. The voting public gets this even if Mr. Obama and his cohorts do not.

As the saying goes, the voters are concerned that the government run health care system would "throw the baby out with the bath water." It is understandable why the voting public is balking at such a system. Furthermore the Democrats did not help their cause by accusing main stream Americans who have concerns about what they are proposing of being "un American" and worse.

The best reform to health care would be tort reform. If you bring a frivolous lawsuit and you lose, you pay all costs and strict limits should be placed on how much trial lawyers can be paid. These reforms would do a great deal to bring down the costs of health care and they would not result in the rationing of health care that would come as a result of Obamacare or the "co-ops" now being proposed.