Roger Ebert; "Death Panels." A most excellent term.

"Death Panels." A most excellent term.
By
Roger Ebert
on August 17, 2009 12:37 PM

..................

Of course the term is inspired by a lie. There are no conceivable plans to form "death panels" or anything like them. The Obama plan, which has some bipartisan support, doesn't seek or desire to get involved in any decisions about who should live and who should die. But now we hear "death panel" repeated so often that the term has taken on a sort of eerie reality, as if it really referred to anything.

...............

Of course I am happy that heroic measures were made to save my life. It was still worth living. I had a sound mind in an (otherwise) sound body. I received excellent medical treatment, which we all have a right to. I had good insurance coverage. I am not willing to say that the millions of Americans who cannot afford insurance would have been left to die, but throughout the course of their lives they would have lacked much medical care they needed. And we've all heard stories of hospital refusing admission to people without coverage. I think it would be difficult to check into many hospitals for cancer surgery if you had no insurance.

......................

Would (a public option) replace private health insurance? Not at all. It would provide an option. Who opposes it? Do the math. The insurance companies do. It would provide price competition for their extremely profitable businesses. Price competition. It's the capitalist way. Besides insurance companies, who else opposes it? The unwavering opponents of all things Obama.


more:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/08/death_panels_an_excellent_phra.html
VIA:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/17/768560/-Roger-Ebert-writes-about-health-care-reform

Just pondering that one a bit...

Recommended. :thumbsup:

Here is the money quote:
The notion of "universal health care" does not mean "socialized medicine." It means just what it seems to mean. America is the only developed nation on earth that does not provide it. Why does it inspire such virulent opposition? Who is behind it? It is opposed mostly from the far right, whose enthusiasm seems to be encouraged by financial support from some (not all) insurance companies. Those companies have priced American insurance out of the reach of millions.

One result has been that our national life expectancy ranks 42nd among all developed nations. We spend more on medical care that any other nation, and get less than 41 of them. These figures are pretty clear.

I love Ebert!

Ebert's progressive, liberal thoughts & essay's....including this essay ("Death Panels." A most excellent term) which is the reason this thread was started.

Roger's reviews (and essays) are priceless, I have volumes in book form and now I never miss his weekly updates on his website...A very talented man with an incredible sense of humor, that usually shines through his perceptive writings....Roger Ebert is the master! (Bar-none, and that includes the late great Pauline Kael).

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/

"If you lack insurance coverage, are you opposed to the public option? If your premiums have increased so much that you can't afford them, do you oppose it? If you have a "preexisting condition" that disqualifies you from insurance, do you oppose it? If it would provide you with equivalent insurance at a lower cost, do you oppose it? Most Americans, even those angry people at town hall meetings, now approve of MediCare. The public option would essentially make a system like MediCare available to the general population.


Would it replace private health insurance? Not at all. It would provide an option. Who opposes it? Do the math. The insurance companies do. It would provide price competition for their extremely profitable businesses. Price competition. It's the capitalist way. Besides insurance companies, who else opposes it? The unwavering opponents of all things Obama."

and check out Ebert's reviews on Moore's other films.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0601619/

:kick:

I had the pleasure of taking a class with him once and I watched his show back during the Siskel and Ebert years. Really a brilliant man.

One of my favorite writers, period.

Lies and distortions from the RW and the insurance companies have turned the healthcare reform debate into a pathetic, shameful farce. As you mentioned, we have the "We Don't Wants" yelling and screaming to drown out meaningful debate. What possible benefits do these folks derive from such a ridiculous display of rudeness and ignorance? NOTHING...they get no benefit from the "status quo." They are dupes who are doing the bidding of the insurance companies. There is a young man is this thread who has no job, and I assume no health insurance, but he wants to be "convinced" that healthcare reform with help him and his family FIRST before he supports it for anyone else...that's his definition of "caring."
I attribute most of these town hall tantrums, which is exactly what they are, to white people behaving badly. Not only are they angry because there is a black man in the white house, they are LIVID because they think that black man might use "their tax dollars" to help <gasp> black people...and asian people...and latino people...and poor people, not "regular americans" like them.
This is the crux of the issue...and twisted intersection of racism, selfishness, ignorance, and idiocy. Average working people doing the bidding of mega-corporations, fueled by the ugliness in their souls. God help us. Better yet...I think I'll just move to Canada