Who is Spreading "Disinformation"?

I'm just a simple guy, not a technocrat who can break down every facet of the health bill debate, and I presume I will be getting no more urgent e-mails from the Chief White House Spammer, David Axelrod, debunking all the "disinformation", but a couple of things have caught my eye-especially in regards to Sarah Palin's "death panel" comment-and all the uproar it caused.

* All you English composition majors, never write an introductory paragraph that consists of one long sentence, OK?

Palin caused a furor when she spoke of the death panel. All the liberal media pundits, the White House and the whole Democratic Party apparatus were quick to pounce on it. Even that vaunted Internet entity called "Fact Check" was all over it. The "explanation" is the language in the bill that deals with "end of life issues", by which Medicare would pay for periodic counseling sessions, in which a doctor could explain the various alternatives available to an elderly, sick patient and his/her family, such as living wills, further life-extending treatments, etc.

"What's wrong with that?", they say. Well, nothing except patients, doctors, families and counselors are already doing this as a matter of routine. Why does the government have to get involved? In my mother's final years, I often took part in doctor's visits where the doctor explained that at her age and her condition, such and such an operation was not advisable-nor was it desirable on the part of my mother.

So what interest does the government have in getting involved in this aspect of our health care? Could it be as President Obama has already said that there could be more "cost-effective" options? In the same breath, he mentioned "taking the pill as opposed to having the operation." Does anyone really believe he was talking about a curative pill as opposed to a pain pill?

We all know that the greatest expenditure of health cost comes in the final years of life. Thus, when someone mentions cost effectiveness, this is exactly what they are getting at. So when you set up that "health care board" in Washington or whatever they choose to call it, we are not talking about a board that will come back and recommend a quadruple by-pass instead a triple by-pass. No, what they are going to do is decline coverage on that pace-maker for your 85-year-od chronically-ill mother. This so-called "cost effectiveness" means nothing more than hastening the death process. Let me hasten to add here that patients, their families and doctors are already dealing with the issue of "needlessly and artificially prolonging life", but this is a province that government has no business being involved in-cost or no cost.

So, was Sarah Palin off-base when she called it a "death panel"? Perhaps her choice of terms was a little too morbid, but perhaps not. Isn't it interesting that amid all the hullabaloo over her statement, the Senate is now planning to eliminate that "end of life" provision out of its version of the bill? Why, I ask, would they eliminate something they said was not there in the first place?

Secondly, if all that uproar in the town hall meetings was based on so-called "disinformation", why is the White House, along with Kathleen Sibelius and other Democrats now backing away from the "public option"? Similarly, why are the more liberal Democrats like Howard Dean revolting over any such idea? Could it be that the town hall meetings are achieving their objective of letting the government know in no uncertain terms that most folks don't want a government health plan? Absolutely.

I say congratulations to those who have gone to the town halls and given them hell. We all need to keep up the pressure because now, what they are trying to do is give us a concession or two, hope we go back to sleep, them ram this thing through in September. We are winning. But we have not won yet. As we well know, liberals just don't go away.

Kudos to Sarah Palin. Her enemies may think she is a dumb hick, but she won this debate.