More like this
Sarah Palin’s ‘death panels’ named lie of the year
Her controversial claim was total fiction and yet many Americans thought it true
The claim made by Sarah Palin in August that President Obama's healthcare proposals included plans to introduce 'death panels' has been chosen as the political 'lie of the year' by the editors of PolitiFact.com, the fact-checking website of the St. Petersburg Times.
Palin, the former Alaska governor and failed Republican candidate for VP in 2008, made the claim on her Facebook page at the height of the debate over Obama's radical plans to reform the US health care system, which only this week cleared a major hurdle in the US Senate and finally look destined to become law.
"My parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide whether they are worthy of health care," she wrote.
The Facebook page generated huge controversy and the 'death panels' were mentioned almost 6,000 times in media items during August and September, according to a search of the Nexis website.
Yet Palin's claim was total fiction: there were never any plans to introduce 'death panels' to decide who should live or die.
"Of all the falsehoods and distortions in the political discourse this year," this one stood one stood out from the rest, said the Politifact editors. "Her assertion - that the government would set up boards to determine whether seniors and the disabled were worthy of care - spread through newscasts, talk shows, blogs and town hall meetings.
"Opponents of health care legislation said it revealed the real goals of the Democratic proposals. Advocates for health reform said it showed the depths to which their opponents would sink. Still others scratched their heads and said, 'Death panels? Really?'"
What was shocking was how many senior Republicans exploited Palin's lie for their anti-healthcare agenda. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, asked about the issue on television, said, "You are asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there are clearly people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards."
Two polls - one taken the week after Palin made the comment and the other a month later - showed that about 30 per cent of the public believed death panels were part of Obama's reforms.
As for Palin, there's no comment yet on her dubious honour from Politifact.com. She is now back in Alaska for Christmas having completed her book tour for Going Rogue, which has sold more than one million copies since publication a month ago. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
Well Well Well I was reading some of the bill Ahorse by any other name is still a horse
The current death panel in the US is your bank account or private health insurance. Can you pay?
Those you cannot pay are lined up to die.
Love your neighbour, even if she is poor.
Denmark Welles - you are clearly living in a fantasy-land. Sarah Palin isn't believed or trusted anywhere, except by neonazis.
Sarah Palin's integrity & veracity are unassailable. She is trusted & believed. Washington politicians are not.
I have little doubt that, 'death panels', compulsory euthanasia, or at least some way of destroying millions of people will be introduced eventually. The warning signs of dictatorial Governance and totaliltarian control are everywhere. As for how mass murder on a scale that would leave Hitler shocked would begin; First they will come for the paedophiles, then the rapists, then the armed robbers, then it will be all criminals, then it will be jobless white males and so on and so forth. Back to Hitler, first they came for the communists? I wish they would, because it is these white hating, man hating, anti-family abortionist lovers who are in control of the destruction of the family and therefore society itself, as advocated by the inventor of modern mass murder, Lenin. This madness is unfolding on a global scale and the evil men and feminists in control grow bolder by the day, due to the almost total absence of political or public opposition.
"Yet Palin's claim was total fiction: there were never any plans to introduce 'death panels' to decide who should live or die." Who are you trying to kid? There was a certain amount of exaggerated rhetoric, but it was in no sense 'total fiction'. What's more Politifact said "The phrase "death panels" appears to be original to Palin. A search of news databases showed no use prior to her Facebook posting." Oh, well, if they had looked a bit further they would have found it used in the book "The Murder Game" by Steve Allen in 1993. Obama didn't call it a "death panel", of course. The body was called IMAC (Independent Medicare Advisory Council). This council would determine what treatments can be given and who is 'worthy' to receive them. Yes, it's rationing, and by deciding who gets what treatment inevitably also determines who is not going to get the treatment, so who dies. The same happens after an accident where decisions are made, based on limited resources, as to how to spread those resources to give the 'best outcome'. This is triage, and patients are colour coded green, yellow, red and black accordingly. Black gets no treatment, red gets immediate treatment, yellow has to wait for treatment, and green can make their own arrangements. Unpleasant as it may sound, someone determines who cannot be saved, and then determines who is going to perish simply by choosing who is going to be saved. In naval disasters there was a protocol - women and children first etc. "Death panel" is a bit emotive, but let us not lose sight of the fact that the council that Obama proposed was effectively going to have to decide which classes of people were not going to be treated, and so consigned to death. To call that a 'death panel' is a bit OTT, but hardly the lie of the year - we would have to turn to Obama or Al Gore to find the really big fibbers.
What would you prefer, a "death panel" or an ATM? In a finite world (reality), some form of rationing is inevitable. The only question is "how do we ration?". It seems different situations may be best served by different mechanisms.