Pit bull in lipstick

"I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200). It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones."

Thus starts Sarah Palin's Facebook post from yesterday, August 14, 2009. Drunk with victory she warns us that she is not done; she remains a wingnut on the loose. She continues "As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time" [emphasis mine]. Does this statement shock anyone? Let's repeat what she said: "There is simply no way to cover everyone".

Now, let's deconstruct it. Is she in fact saying that it is OK to leave our fellow citizens in the healthcare dust? Meaning that if we as a nation do not think we have the means to cover you, you poor slob, well, too bad, you're on your own, hasta la vista, baby! Is she advocating what I think she is advocating? Death squads for those who are not deemed deserving of coverage? And, by the way, of course, dear Sarah, there is a way to cover everyone -- the rest of the developed world is doing it rather successfully. But of course, you know this, being the world's expert on foreign policy. What's that? You can see Russia from your window? Now about holding down the costs: I know that you are an expert on economics as well, so I am sure that you do not need to blame your economic advisors for not sharing the PriceWaterhouse Cooper's report, which estimates that over 50% of our national health expenditures is wasted on things like defensive medicine, inefficient claims processing and simply because of our national bad behavior? Finally, Dr. Palin, being an expert on healthcare, you have neglected the small detail, in the name of political expediency perhaps, of what the consequences of providing "everything" really are.

The Senate has caved in to a bunch of toothless thugs running around with pitchforks and threatening doomsday. In a Quixotian act they struck down a non-existent provision to appease them. But knowing that the senate does not really respond to the wishes of the public, it is a forgone conclusion that the thugs' strings are being pulled by powerful moneyed interests who know how to manipulate the gullible masses. Wake up, America, this is politics in the 21st century, neatly packaged in fortune cookie slogans shrouded in moral absolutism. Interesting experiment, but do we really want to be its guinea pigs?