Robert Gibbs Confirms Existence of Obamacare Death Panels

Robert Gibbs Confirms Existence of Obamacare Death Panels. Nothing to see here. It’s just a faster way to redistribute grandma and grandpaw’s wealth to the IRS.

CO2Insanity: Tired of the CO2 BS and all the other BS in the US and the world.

View Comments (66)

  • You know when the subject of death panels comes up, most people think about refusing t\care to the elderly. I wonder if they realize that cost control could also affect victims of severe strokes, accidents (where the injuries are so severe, with no hope of full return to pre accident functioning, preemies on which we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars PER CHILD to try and save a baby born to early, or for that matter a child with a severe, but reparable birth defect. I am thinking Heart anomalies, a birth defect where all the organs of the abdomen are OUTSIDE the skin. Lung problems et al.

    • I am the proud owner of a VERY expensive right leg, thanks to some awesome doctors, and being covered by three insurance policies at the time. I hate to think what Obama's bureaucrats would have done, especially if they could find proof I was a Libertarian. I wasn't at the time, but what if I had another horrific accident now, with tons of anti-Obama quotes all over the interwebs?

      I wouldn't put it past Obama's people to make decisions based on a quick perusal of a person't FB account.

      • flashingscotsman:"what if I had another horrific accident now, with tons of anti-Obama quotes all over the interwebs?"

        Say it was your evil twin. That's what I'm going to do.

  • Now the truth is slowly coming out of their lying mouths. What is next, we can't keep our current doctor? All you fools who bought into the three card monty routine from the street hustler from Chicago, now you are seeing what he is all about.

    SCREWED to the wall.

    • I just had a FB conversation with a ladyfriend of mine, who is all excited about the fact that she is going to have insurance soon, which she couldn't afford to have before. I showed her the proof that yes, she WOULD have insurance, but she would have to pay for it, whether she could afford it or not. Those thousands of new IRS agents aren't there for nothing. She said she would still vote for Obama, and cited Akin as one of her reasons.

      • Well then she gets what she bloody deserves. But I want to take the next step. I want to be there when 1 of these people who think they are getting something for nothing through Obama-care gets hit with the reality of being denied service because of cost controls. I want to see their anger when they cannot understand why the drugs they need, which exist & are availble, are not covered because of cost. They can't get them. I want to then look those people dead in the eye when they tell their story about how socialized medicine killed their family member & say, "Too damn bad". They were warned about Obama-care, & they went for the shiny object rather then the facts based upon the experiances of every other socialized medical system out there, & they still fell for it. Sucks to be you.

        • danybhoy, we could see all this suffering if we had a neutral press, but since we don't, the suffering caused by liberal policies usually takes place off camera.

        • Problem is, WE who know better will be dragged into the same shitty situation as those who didn't. Yes, she deserves what she gets. But,....do I?

  • Still yet another example of the Demoturds and their ass kissing Mediaturds lying through their teeth to the nitwit public. "Ah that Sarah Palin, what a flake." But then virtually 100% of the time she is right and they are LYING. Yet the next issue comes up and the dynamic duo, Liars Inc., say, "Oh that Sarah Palin, what a flake." How many times to these assholes get to be wrong before their zombies see the effing light.

    • So, to enforce the point we were making about Sarah Palin always being right, this Todd Akin idiot who won the GOP primary for senator in Missouri and just stepped on his you-know-what by implying that women can't get pregnant from a rape? Well, Palin has a remarkable record for endorsing conservative nobodies who then go on to win, but in Missouri she did NOT endorse Todd Akin. Hucklebee and Bachmann endorsed Akin, Palin endorsed Sarah Steelman (can't remember for sure how she spells it). So once again, Palin was right.

      • Not trying to defend him in any way but I have heard that argument before (can't remember exactly where) so he isn't the first to make such a statement. Is there any science to it at all or is this something that someone pulled out if his/her backside and others ran with it??

        • This is something someone pulled out of there backside and ran with it. In higher life forms, we are unable to "prevent" or even to reabsorb a pregnancy under stress. THere is the same chance of getting pregnant from rape as from consensual sex. The concept may be floating around out there, but I can't believe anyone with a brain could believe it! Besides. What is a "legitimate" rape? I am not familiar withthat activity!

          • I think that the idea could have come from a mish-mash of truth and leaping to conclusions. For example, I believe that the Feds report that the incidence of pregnancy from stranger (legitimate?) rape is about 32,000 per year, which is about 4% of the the victims. (Don't quote me --- I am going from memory here.)

            This seems like a rather small percentage of pregnancies. UNTIL we consider that stranger rape is usually an isolated incident. Women are fertile for around 24 hours in a given month. (Not the days she should "consider herself" fertile, but the actual time.) So, in an average month at the time of the rape, she has somewhere around a 1/30 (3.3%) chance of being impregnated. In fact, the rate is probably right around the same rate as any other encounter.

            The thing is - Akin says he was TOLD that. If he was and just ran with it it's not really a big deal. I personally would want to know where he got the info from. A staffer? A friend? A McCaskill plant? Whoever it was needs to be vetted on his end. But I seriously don't see him just pulling this from his own orifices. He HEARD it somewhere - I truly believe that.

          • Yes but what are the odds for someone actually being raped during her 24 hour chance? Yes I know it's possible, I'm talking about the actual statistic. I think MDLion once provided a link to that statistic at one time, I think it said it was like 2% (based on reported rapes; I would think unreport rapes would be statistically similar) but I'm not sure I can trust my memory on that one.

          • Right - it would actually be a 1/28 chance that a woman would be raped in her 24 hour window with no additional factors taken into consideration. that is 0.0357, or about 3.57%. That is of the RAPE occurring during that time. If the rapist didn't "complete" the rape, or if none of the sperm fertilized the egg, the victim was infertile or on contraception, the rapist used a condom, or if there was a spontaneous (natural) abortion you would expect even fewer pregnancies.

            I guess what this illustrates mostly is that abortion for rape pregnancies is really a very small number overall. Not to mention that many women would never consider an abortion regardless of the circumstances of conception. So why is that really even a major consideration? I mean, for the individual in question it is of the utmost importance, but have we really spent so many years, and so much social bad will and fighting over such a small number of abortions?

            According to Wikipedia there were 191,670 male on female rapes in 2005. At most, that would be 6800 pregnancies (not accounting for women who are already pregnant, infertile, post menopausal, raped with condoms, not vaginally raped, on the pill or spontaneously abort.)

            WOW! I never did the math before. It looks like once AGAIN, the pro-abortion-weasels have lied to us. Where did they get the 32,000 figure? Maybe they made it up, like they did the original numbers in the 1970's. I have a story somewhere about one of the scumballs who did that, and how they just laughed their butts off that everyone bought their phoney numbers.

            I may be missing something, but based on what I just looked at, it seems improbable that there are more than 5000 post-rape pregnancies a year. Just WOW.

          • Is the 24-hour window accurate? I thought it was days (natural planning methods certainly rely on a longer period of restraint)

          • The woman releases an egg monthly. Its lifespan is 12-24 hours. However, sperm can live inside the body for up to 72 hours. Since most women are unaware of when they ovulate, the rhythm method takes a better-safe-than-sorry approach. SOmetime evaluating the cervical mucus can help pinpoint ovulation days, but of course, a rape vicitm is not paying any attention to that.

          • Karmaa, don't stop with your research, we all learn something through your efforts, and we appreciate it.

            Dean, I think you may be right, I always wondered about the hallucinations.

          • AHHHHHH!!!!
            Acid! Girls are full of acid! All those lies about sugar and spice and all that crap was LIES! I knew it. This might also have something to do with the hallucinations.

          • The female reproductive tract is a hostile environment for sperm. It is highly acidic, and of the millions of sperm released, only a few hundred actually make it through to the end of the fallopian tubes. So, while they might technically be able to live for quite a long time, it would be like camping out in a desert wasteland. If the little guys don't hit the target right away, it's not likely that they will be able to later.

            Plus, here's a little more stuff I have learned:
            Female orgasm helps to keep the sperm in (via muscle contractions), and may help protect the sperm on the trip up the tubes. Clearly, in a rape situation this assistance is not given.

            There is also some discussion about how (ehem) experience of the male can increase sperm ability. I am not going to go into this too much, but there is REAL research that suggests this. My guess is that whatever techniques the experienced males use are less likely to be used by a guy who is in the mental space as a rapist.

            I need to stop looking at this stuff, but I am a research-geek!

          • right.. seems to me that the "window" is more a function of sperm longevity.. perhaps in some cases of rape, there are conditions within body that decrease lifespan

          • You know what? I just found the article on Bernard Nathanson and it occurred to me that you guys might like to read it if you haven't. It is amazing. It is such an insight into HOW these radicals manipulate us, and it never hurts to brush up on their tactics. http://tinyurl.com/gpw6b

            In case you don't know, he was one of the initial members who formed NARAL. Many years later, he turned pro-life and confessed to many of the dirty, sleazy, slimeball things they did. It is mind boggling, especially when making the comparison to other things - like Islam in America.

          • I believe that data is STILL being made up. I read the paper that all this "Akin is an idiot" is based on, and it was written by a guy with a PhD in English, and his wife who was a PhD candidate. They are blowing off at least 9 previous research papers, and basing it off of models. 29 pregnancies from 405 victims, but they didn't bother to ask simple questions like "are you on birth control?" - instead applying statistical BC data. What? REALLY? Are we being had again? Is there an agenda from this pair? Why in the world do we TRUST them? It's infuriating that their paper is sacrosanct and we must accept it, yet they have no real authority, other than "it was published."

          • Karmaa:"Bernard Nathanson"

            Bernard Nathanson was an interesting figure. They HATED him because of how he gave a blow by blow from the inside of the lies that legalized abortion. He said they made up the numbers about how many women were dying from illegal abortions and found all too willing, unquestioning accomplices in the media. I think his family was nominally Jewish, but he was basically an atheist much of his life. He converted to Catholicism towards the end of his life. Though he estimated he performed 75,000 abortions, he was a great believer in God's Mercy.

            "Your hands are full of blood!
            Wash yourselves clean! ...
            Come now, let us set things right,
            says the LORD:
            Though your sins be like scarlet,
            they may become white as snow;
            Though they be crimson red,
            they may become white as wool.
            If you are willing and obey"
            -Isaiah 1:15,16,18,19

          • wow, murderdata is awesome.. nice tip

            always loved the CIA World Factbook. I can remember at least a decade ago when they were listing China as 2nd largest economy (in terms of PPP), when MSM hardly seemed to be noticing its rise

          • I will employ it frequently. Handy thing you found for us! It isn't too much trouble to preface the statistics as gleaned from all the states except Florida, because unlike the other 56 states they don't follow the FBI guidelines.

          • I wondered too defhm, dug some more
            "The FBI collects this data from the states, except for Florida. Florida doesn't use the FBI's guidelines when reporting additional information about homicides."

            It's a good tool, I stumbled on it after hearing some numbers and thinking they just didn't sound right and looking for back-up before throwing the BS flag, tool being the operative word. They also add this about their methodology

            "The states' reporting is voluntary, and the country's thousands of police agencies aren't consistent in how they report[ ]"
            "The data in this interactive is best read as a big-picture summary of the crimes committed nationwide... "

          • Pretty neat thing. I just opened it up and had to wonder about why murders in Florida are not included.

          • I do vaguely recall posting something about a low percentage of rapes leading to pregnancy. I've always heard that this was the case, but for a long time couldn't find anyway to document it.

            Some people for religious or health reasons practice natural family planning. They point out that a woman is only fertile one day a month but that the man's sperm can live for up to 3 days. And so these people will avoid relations for 6 or 7 days in a row once a month. If they have serious health or financial reasons to do so, I've heard that some of them will avoid relations 10 to 14 days in a row. These people talk about how another child would break them financially or might endanger the mother's life. It seems like a young couple would have to be saintly and heroic to do this, but there are a few who do.

          • Ahhhh. THe highly unreliable rhythm method. Ask any pre Vatican 2 Catholic how well THAT works! I personally don't have a problem with birth control. I DO NOT approve of abortion as birth control.

          • Again referring to CO2"s post, AJOG (Am. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology) did a study that estmated pregnancies resulting from rape at approximately 32,000 a year. I would assume that is based on reported rapes.

          • Yes but I'm not entirely sure we should trust that article either...look at the sources not exactly what I would call "objective" every one of them takes the pro abortion stance.
            Sources: The Atlantic (2), BuzzFeed, The Daily Beast (2), Firedoglake, The Guardian, The Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Daily News, Talking Points Memo, The Washington Post

            And even in the article itself, it doesn't give an exact quote from AJOG it says they did a study and then give their interpretation of the study. Where's the link for us to review for ourselves? The article just says it "widely known" but is it?

          • Good points drb. A link to AJOG would certainly have been appropriate. The entire article is clearly an opinion piece ragging on Republicans for not supporting abortion. In some ways, he has a point. If we believe that life begins at conception, then technically there should BE no exceptions to the no abortion rule. Having said that, while I know that some women have indeed carried rape-conceived children to term, and even kept and raised them, I would hardly expect EVERYONE to feel they could do that. Maybe an aborion is the lesser of 2 evils, rather than beat the child to death at age2.

          • For the record, I am pro-choice to some degree. I would prefer that women not kill their babies. I would MOST prefer if they kept the babies from being conceived in the first place. But. it's between them and God if they choose to do it. And after witnessing the children who often come from bad environments, I can't argue with the people who say that maybe unwanted children are worse off if they are born.

            What I STRENUOUSLY object to is any government funding of abortions. Period. Our government has no business in abortion at all.

          • Yes Karmaa, I'm sure he WAS told this by somebody, or read it somewhere, he didn't just make it up. But how stupid is he to spew such nonsense without looking it up to see if it's true? Or have a staffer spend a couple of minutes verifying it? He's an idiot, and conservatives need to rid themselves of such baggage.

          • As I said elsewhere (under tips) - he was actually given this information from a respected doctor. The theory and low pregnancy incidences were widely spread until a single research paper written by an PhD in English and a PhD candidate, which the articles all refer to. (There could be other papers but I haven't seen/heard of them). I am not saying this paper is wrong, but one of the first thing you learn in scholarly research is to look at the source and look for possible biases. The authors of this paper look a little wiggly to me, and the methods they use look pretty squidgy too. (YES those are professional terms!)

            So really, since he is not an OBGYN, and he had a respected source, the only thing that Akin can really he held accountable for IMO is saying the term "legitimate rape". Maybe he should have used the lib's preferred term "rape-rape" ala' Whoopie-pie Goldman.?

          • I figured it was something that started long ago...I actually suspected that it might have started in churches waaaaaayyyy back when no one dared question a man of the cloth.

          • According to the link CO2 posted, it has been documented since the Middle Ages when medicine was sooooo advanced, scientific and accurate!

        • Since there are MANY people walking around today that are a product of rape, I would assume that there is no science behind it. If there is, I wish somebody would show it to us. The guy is a moron, believing something that has no facts behind it, because it's what he wants to believe. We need to rid the party of idiots that make us look bad. Not the ones who the Dems have to lie about to make us look bad, Like Sarah Palin, but the ones that truly show themselves to be morons.

        • In terms of evolution, rape would be an expensive proposition if it only rarely led to pregnancy, though captivity (virtual or not) would increase the odds.. I speak of prehistoric man here. I believe much of civilization's progress simply involves quelling the systematic plundering of womenfolk, and keeping bandits (or robber barons) off the market road.

          In this context, i think Akin's comment was foolish. However, i've gotten into some fights about the "legitimate rape" phrase. I figured he was talking about legitimate claims of rape--made by women seeking abortions--and wasn't trying to establish various categories of rape. Regardless of the scope of such rape/abortion fraud, its valid to make that distinction. I've seen many with valid concerns about abuse of such a loophole.

          This is why I don't understand why he jumped at the chance to switch to "forcible rape"

          • I'm trying to remember what the theory was exactly. I think (don't quote me) it went along the lines of if is was a single incident then natural defense mechanisms within the body would be activated by the fight or flight response and this prevented a pregnancy from resulting. However, if the woman was in an environment was there were repeated incidents such as with incest or in places where women are thought of as property, then this defense weakens and is overridden as the women comes to accept and expect the rape to occur. So, I guess, the defense falters when her mindset does. Still, IDK if the is any fact to any of it.

    • You beat me to it. They make unceasing and virulent fun of Sarah Palin, but she's always right. Trouble is, the average liberal is too ignorant to realize it. Ever been at a social gathering where some libtard mocks Sarah Palin? And you know as certain as the sun will shine tomorrow that the libtard doesn't have HALF the brains or courage of the woman she's mocking?

  • The no Death Panel lie was as big a line of bullshit as the "If you like your insurance, you can keep it" fable. These commie bastards want total control over your lives, and especially your wallet.

  • Gibbs then apologized to Sarah Palin, correct?

    Gibbs:"preventative health care"

    People should try to take care of themselves, but there comes a point when one is old or a disease has taken hold or progressed and then there isn't really anything "preventative" to be done. I suppose then when you're suffering they'll cut you off and as Obama once said, tell you to take an aspirin. These bureaucrats who are Pro-Abortion, wanted Terri Schiavo dehydrated to death, and who think too many human beings are overburdening Mother Earth, are the WORST people to make such decisions.

    • Tony Scott just did that sort of "health care" on himself over the weekend. Sad. It's incredibly sad when someone commits suicide. It doesn't become civilized or any less sad just because we add some doctors and paperwork to the procedure.

      • RKae:"Tony Scott"

        I really like his movie "Man On Fire" with Denzel Washington. I saw "Taking Pelham 1 2 3" with Washington and John Travolta on FX which was pretty good. I have been meaning to see his movie "Unstoppable" about a runaway train with Denzel Washington from a couple of years ago but haven't seen it yet. Parts of "Beverly Hills Cop 2" were funny, but I thought "Top Gun" was a bit overrated. "Enemy Of The State" with Will Smith and Gene Hackman was pretty good.

        • Every citizen of the US needs to see and ponder Enemy of the State. THey don't realize how true it is!

        • Unstoppable was not one of his best works, by any stretch of the imagination. A bad film. I did like Enemy of the State the best, though. Man on Fire is absolutely one of the top movies.

  • Standard arguing procedure from the left:

    1.) "That'll NEVER happen! It's offensive that you would even suggest it! You've been reading the scare-tactics from right-wing extremists!"

    2.) Evidence comes out.

    3.) "Well, yeah. Of course it's true. It only makes sense."

    I'm weary of it.

  • Apparently Team BO has fallen back on the plan to save Medicare by eliminating "waste and fraud". The ink wasn't dry on Johnson's signature of the Medicare bill before politicians were promising to cut all the waste and fraud from the program...but somehow the waste and fraud continue. Go figure.

Related Post
  1. DALLAS POLICE SHOOTING: ‘ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE ASSAULT VEHICLE AND TROOP TRANSPORT’
  2. Kim Jong-un was a child prodigy
  3. Top GOP Leader Promises Total Amnesty In 2015