In what has to be one of the most stunning turn-abouts in political pandering, Palin now believes in death panels despite the fact that she declared a “Healthcare Decisions Day” in Alaska just a little over a year ago.  Here is her proclamation for digestion:

Healthcare Decisions Day

WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions. WHEREAS, in Alaska, Alaska Statute 13.52 provides the specifics of the advance directives law and offers a model form for patient use.

WHEREAS, it is estimated that only about 20 percent of people in Alaska have executed an advance directive. Moreover, it is estimated that less than 50 percent of severely or terminally ill patients have an advance directive.

WHEREAS, it is likely that a significant reason for these low percentages is that there is both a lack of knowledge and considerable confusion in the public about Advance Directives.

WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to volunteer their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaska’s citizens with advance directives.

WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives.

WHEREAS, as a result of April 16, 2008, being recognized as Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, more citizens will have conversations about their healthcare decisions; more citizens will execute advance directives to make their wishes known; and fewer families and healthcare providers will have to struggle with making difficult healthcare decisions in the absence of guidance from the patient.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sarah Palin, Governor of the state of Alaska, do hereby proclaim April 16, 2008, as: Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.

Dated: April 16, 2008

Holy hoppin’ health care hypocrisy!  Let’s parse through some of her remarks.  Ehh, never mind – the entire Declaration laments over and over that the citizens of Alaska just don’t have enough information about advance directives and end-of-life planning; therefore, the government, health care professionals, and lawyers should all jump on board and provide those consultations which could very well steer Alaskan seniors to commit suicide.

Ah – Palin touting  advance health care directives?  What a difference a year makes.

Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin


About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Health Care, Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Andy says:

    Is she winking at ME ???

  2. Iceironman says:

    ONCE again, this is OPTIONAL to help focus on a subject. IT IS NOT MADATORY. BIG FREAKING DIFFERENCE. I suppose you will say she is against healthcare because she is against the govt running it. Makes no sence.

    Obama says, I dont want to own the auto industry and run it, we own 62% AND he fired the ceo,
    Obama says, I dont want to come between you and your doctor, but he will.
    It isnt what he says, its what he does.

    OPTIONAL CHARLOTTE, OPTIONAL. One day a year to focus on healthcare OPTIONALY. Hell, even I can agree to that.

    I dont think Sarah was planning on taxing the Alaskans if they didnt attend a meeting or the institutions if they didnt hold a meeting. That called FREEDOM.

    By the way, are you not going to answer my questin posed before, do you read the bill as saying I will lose my options if I switch jobs?

    Love this part I just read

    6 The Secretary shall give priority to applicants
    7 that have developed partnerships with commu
    nity organizations or with agencies with experi
    ence in language access. PAGE 407,

    Looks like anyone associated with community organization will get PRIORITY??????? I though govt was to level the playing field, oh thats right, ACORN already gets a % of home sales….

    From page 422
    ‘‘(A) identifying individuals that are enti
    tled to coverage of immunosuppressive drugs by
    reason of section 226A(b)(2); and

    I guess the secratary will decide who gets the drugs here??? I thought we would all get them???

    So the part on page 426 that concerns me again is

    ‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the
    continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail
    able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene
    fits for such services and supports that are available
    under this title.
    •HR 3200 IH
    1 ‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of
    2 orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar
    3 orders, which shall include—
    4 ‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of
    5 such an order is beneficial to the individual and
    6 the individual’s family and the reasons why
    7 such an order should be updated periodically as
    8 the health of the individual changes;

    The development of such an “order” who is giving this “order” and what if I dont follow it?
    And again Pallitive means they dont want to cure, this is fine if its my decision, but whos is it when the govt takes over? The whole goal of this bill is to reduce healthcare cost, how do you do that with the latest greatists treatments, the answer is you dont. The govt will scimp.

    And if you think it is a coicedence that the bill is “To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.

    And now it is the health insurance reform bill. As I said it isnt what Obama says, it is what he does.

  3. Ice:

    Where on earth do you see “mandatory” consultation? Absolutely nowhere. Again, this is a scare tactic by opponents. Never the actual facts – see

    Since you read a lot, you have to already understand that insurance companies are in charge of life and death decisions every day of the week. How can you possibly justify a private, capitalistic entity that decides a treatment is not justified thus sentencing a patient to death as different than what you are claiming the government version attempts to do?

    Or is your real issue that it is a government run health care insurance system? Please answer how you justify the actions of private insurance companies who deny critical coverage to their clients.

    By the way, you asked in an earlier post whether or not I wanted to see the demise of an enitre industry. It isn’t an entire industry – it is only the health insurance portion. The companies will still be able to rip people off for home owner’s, vehicle, life, flood, etc.

  4. Iceironman says:

    Charlotte, just because one reads it differently and the word manditory is not in the bill does not mean it is not manditory. From page 426. It also doesnt mean its fear mongering.

    ‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation
    1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the
    term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a con
    sultation between the individual and a practitioner de
    scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning,
    if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has
    not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such
    consultation shall include the following:

    Do you see the part that says the subject SHALL include. So is this manditory or not? Good question because I bet Obama cant answer it honestly.

    And about insurance, I love mine and want to keep it but that isnt going to happen. You can argue all day what the bill says, but it is a trojan horse, even Obama said it will take time to transition everyone to the govt policy and he advocates for that.
    Back on insurance, my companies have treated me with respect and have provided a service above and beyond when I needed them, not once rejecting a claim.
    My car was wrecked and they followed up and asked if I was please with the body shop, I said quite frankly, no. The insurance company called the body shop and requested that they take the van back in and correct it to good as new statis. Did they have to do that? I sent them a thank you card!

    I owe my health insurance a big thank you, as I have 8 screws and cadaver bone holding my head up. I had a life interfering disc and vertibrea problem, went in on a Monday, they schedule the surgery for Friday. They could have done it sooner but they wanted me to have consultations about risk reward, never questioning whether I needed the surgury. Ten days and back to work. Pretty nice and the professionals at the doctors are GREAT. 800 out of pocket, not bad for being able to go thru life normal. I guess I should complain about that too????

    I dont know why you want to take down the insurance companies? Go ahead and drop or change the insurance you so much hate, find a new company (while that is still an option). Again, if insurance companies refuse treatment, I can SUE, if Obama gets his way I cant. Besides, this bill is to IMPROVE the status quo right, how the hell is not getting treatment from the govt better than not getting treatment from an insurance company???? Your argument stinks.

    I also love how the govt will make everything fair and equal???? Check out who benefits.

    From page 881
    PREFERENCE.—In awarding grants or contracts
    under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to
    entities that have a demonstrated record of the following:
    (1) Training the greatest percentage, or sig
    nificantly improving the percentage, of health care
    professionals who provide primary care.
    2) Training individuals who are from under
    represented minority groups or disadvantaged back

    From 884
    PROGRAMS.—In awarding grants and contracts under subsection (b)(2), the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of training—(1) a high or significantly improved percentage of health care professionals who provide primary care;(2) individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds; or (3) individuals who practice in settings having the principal focus of serving underserved areas or
    populations experiencing health disparities (including serving patients eligible for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act or for child health assistance under title XXI of such Act or those with special health care needs).

    Page 908
    PREFERENCE.—In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following:
    (1) Training the greatest percentage, or significantly improving the percentage, of public health
    professionals who serve in underserved communities. 2) Training individuals who are from under
    represented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.

    This one deals with the “public workforce” that wont exist according to Obama. He is so full of it. Please read about 800-950. I dont like the term public workforce, and I dont think I should have to pay for doctors and nurses to train. I dont think the govt should chose people on their skin color or background (a little vague, does that mean downtown Chicago???)

    PREFERENCE.—In awarding grants and contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a donstrated record of the following:
    (1) Addressing, or partnering with an entity with experience addressing, the cultural and lin18
    guistic competency needs of the population to be served through the grant or contract.(2) Addressing health disparities.(3) Placing health professionals in regions experiencing significant changes in the cultural and linguistic demographics of populations, inluding communities along the United States-Mexico border.

    There is also a part in there that the grant monies will go to public and private non profits and community organizations. Does that sound like a system you want to be involved in.

  5. Iceironman says:

    As to fear mongering, I like John Conyers reaction to reading the bill

    Maybe there would not be so much disinformation if we could trust our politicians and they actually read the bill. Why would I trust Obama who said he would fundememtaly change this country and has sought out marxists and communists and surrounded himself with them?? You can scoff, but at the end of the day it is a fact.

    Another good insurance story, I had AFLAC for a year or two. One day I got a check from them giving me money back because I didnt use their service for emergencys…. Those bastards.

  6. Ice:

    And for every “wonderful” story you have of your insurance companies’ treatment of you, I can probably find 10 where insurance companies have refused to cover an illness, injury, etc.

    I think it is great that you have had such good fortune, but that isn’t the typical story. I have good insurance, and I feel I am fortunate given the physical problems I have.

    And to the mandatory issue – you are confusing a mandatory conference with the material that is to be inlcuded if the conference is held. The conferences are not mandatory – the statement to which you refer:

    “Such consultation shall include the following:” refers to the contents of the consultation not holding the actual consultation itself. Please note the difference, and, I will ask you once again, where do you see the words “shall” in reference to the consultation itself?

  7. Iceironman says:

    If it is not going to be manditory, why is the number of 5 years thrown out there???\

    I like to work in the real world on examples, you always “know” someone and can PROBABLY name 10 for my one etc. No one was marching on Washington for this. And for everyone of your 10 bad insurance stories, I could PROBABLY name 1000 poor govt expreriences.

    Even Obama admitted the post office is shamefull compared to fed x and UPS. What a smart Harvard comparison when trying to sell the program. To quote our smart leader “I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about, if you think about it, um, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. Right? The, uh, no they are. I mean, it’s the post office that’s always having problems”

    Fricken brilliant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    You want to argue about specifics that must be interpreted by the courts. You say “shall” this “shall” that. I dont like it. It is the same as asking if Americans can own guns. Its pretty clear to me, it gets fuzzy to liberal democrats and they want the judges to define it. Quick point on that,,,considering the founding fathers that wrote the constitution did not try to take guns away from the individual, and the authors of the second amendment didnt try, doesnt that mean they supported the individual having firearms??? Otherwise when the ammendment went into action, homes would have been cleared of all firearms?????

    I saw a bumper sticker on a black truck once that read “no, you cant have my rights, Im still using them” Probably a dippy liberal, I digress.. Do you think this bill takes away more FREEDOM or gives more FREEDOM.

    You just keep defending this….When Obama himself tells me exactly word for word the document means, I will make my mind up, until then, I say no thank you.

  8. Iceironman says:

    How about all of the monies “all things being equal” going to minorities??????? Seem like something that is good for America?? What about my equal treatment under the law. I guess it shouldnt suprise me as Obama advisors have said

    “Former Labor Secretary and current Obama Advisor, Robert Reich, said he doesn’t want the money from the stimulus package going to professionals or “white male construction workers.” Recorded on Jan…

    Pretty sad where America is headed under this leadership. Nothing but race bating, and class warfare.

  9. Iceironman says:

    So from page 428

    (3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).

    So again, if this inital prev. physical exam is not considered advance care planning consultation, It would mean you cant sub in the intitial prev. physical for a (manditory) adv. care planning consultation??? Why would they need to say this doesnt sub for that if neither one is manditory??

    Why is there a 5 year limitation???????? More questions than answers.

  10. Ice:

    Citations please when you attribute statements to anyone. You say you are quoting Obama, but I have no way of verifying that or whether or not you have taken the comments out of context. Please provide the places where you got the statements.

    The provision you keep mis-interpreting is an amendment to Medicare and simply provides that Medicare will now pay for consultations when in the past, they did not.

    As to the 5 years, the section is putting a time frame on the number of PAID consultations a person may have; otherwise, a person could go every 6 months or year when it is not necessary and have Medicare foot the bill. The 5 years does not prevent anyone on Medicare from having as many consultations as they want – Medicare just won’t pay for them. Sounds to me that is a frugal measure, not one that drives seniors to suicide.

    Again, you cannot show me where it says the consultations are mandatory, but rather than acknowledge you are wrong, you will continue to cloud the issues with misleading statements.

  11. Iceironman says:

    So, people cant disagree on how the bill is read. Because you sited a left leaning factcheck, I am to go away and not question this. It is nice that I am the one mis interpreting, could you be wrong? Could a court read it differently.

    So your arguement is that an prev. Phys. exam can be paid for AND the Adv care planning, but only one consultation every 5 years. That is fine. But after you read all of that, the person if their conditions changed can go in for free???? Here is the issue, I should not be force to argue your healthcare plan. I have my own and I am happy, obama wants to take it a way, I believe you call that a right???

    Can you show me where the consultations are VOLUNTARY????

    Which quotes, if it is the ups stupid quote of the year, google it. If it is rober reich, google it. I couldnt make stupid statements like those up, I have to wait for obama to say them first.

  12. Iceironman says:

    Little video to prove he wants to end my CHOICE on healthcare.

  13. Iceironman says:

    How many people will have to be employed to track whether my 5 year period is up? More govt waste.

  14. Judith says:

    In 2003 there were 204 Republicans in the House of Representatives, and 42 Republicans in the Senate who voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Moderization Act of 2003. This includes in Section 512, “counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options and advises the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning.” Sen Chuck Grassley and Rep. John Boehner were among the “yes” votes.
    And in a law passed in 1992 there is a requirement for hospitals and nursing homes to help patients with end-of-life documents such as Living Wills.
    The current uproar has everything to do with spreading myths and nothing to do with laws and beliefs.

  15. Iceironman says:

    Judith, not a bad point, Is medicare voluntary???

  16. iceironman says:

    Hey guys, just another example of why Palin was telling the truth

    Reich now advises Obama

  17. Foundersten says:

    What’s the big deal? This is about an individual’s “advance directive”. This is also known as a Living Will and is exceedingly important to determine what a person’s desire is in the event he/she is totally incapacitated. You are reading WAY too deep into this proclamation. Death panels are government bureaucrats deciding that the cost of your medical needs are disproportionate to your remaining usefulness. Advance directives and Death Panels are not even remotely related.

  18. Founder:

    I assure you I know what a living will is, and I understand advance directives.

    What amazes me is individuals such as yourself who fail to see hypocritical stances. There are no “death panels” in the health reform bills – any of them. This was a tactic to scare people and to create a panic among older citizens. And, you ask me what is the big deal? There wasn’t one – Palin and others like her created one, and that is what I am addressing.

    At one point she backed provision of information distributed by the Alaskan government about the very same things contained in the health care legislation, but when it came to health care reform, she spun on a dime and changed her position, labeling such information provided by the government “death panels.” Insane and ridiculous.

    You show me where it says a “death panel” is created with the ability to decide who lives or dies. My point was – and apparently you missed it – that the issue was amending medicare to provide access to advice about end-of-life decisions – something you, yourself, appear to favor. No where, and I mean nowhere, did the legislation set up a death panel.

    I suppose it doesn’t bother you that insurance companies make life and death decisions everyday when they refuse to cover medical treatments under the guise of too costly or too experimental. And how about panels of doctors who decide who gets a transplant? Where is the outrage over these issues? Is it okay with you that private enterprise does such things?

    Palin acted like the classic fear-mongering politician she proved herself to be during the 2008 campaign.

    • Foundersten says:

      I suppose we need to define “end-of-life decisions” and “death panel” as well as hypocritical. I don’t see how your logic applies to Palin’s proclamation yet it’s so outrageous to conclude that if insurance companies determine access to life saving procedures then government bureaucrats certainly will and with far less incentive to at least make a quick decision instead of dragging a medical case on for years with the hope that the patient dies before a decision is made.

      Let’s look at the proclamation again:

      “…more citizens will execute advance directives to make their wishes known; and fewer families and healthcare providers will have to struggle with making difficult healthcare decisions in the absence of guidance from the patient.”

      Where is any sort of “counseling” in this as it relates to “end-of-life” decisions? Palin’s intent is clearly stated and it puts the decisions and responsibility squarely on the patient. Furthermore, this proclamation is intented for everyone to make responsible planning for advanced directives- not just those poor souls facing a terminal situation. Remember Terri Schiavo???

      No, I don’t think the current health insurance situation is ideal, but it’s infinitely better than when government attempts to run anything. My God, just look at how much H1N1 flu shots are literally being rationed and tell me with a straight face that government won’t ration expensive life saving medical procedures. What is happening now is not healthcare reform- it’s the reshaping of the fundamental structure of our economy with very little interest in actual reform.

      Tough medical decisions will be made regardless of who is running the system. The difference is how much of our national identity we are willing to sacrifice for the coziness of being convinced that government is somehow better at making those decisions despite decades of similar failures.

Comments are closed.