<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Obama Who Stole Thanksgiving</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:41:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: YankInSlough</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/comment-page-1/#comment-5321262</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[YankInSlough]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2013 07:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211865#comment-5321262</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m afraid you&#039;re wrong and have fallen victim to a selective reading of history. The initial concerns about &quot;death panels&quot; were brought up years ago by principled, intelligent conservatives who were rightly concerned by the hubris of those who advocated an enlarged role for government in the management of healthcare.


Given that healthcare and its delivery are incredibly complex, they worried that centralized governmental structures were incapable of managing these complexities.


They were also concerned that there was a rapidly increasing backing away from traditional morality regarding abortion and end-of-life issues and a move towards a utilitarian &quot;pull-the-plug&quot; attitude. 


The convergence of these two trends fed a growing, and I think, justified concern, that ideologically-driven government appointees would increasingly gain power over the committees which allocated scarce resources. 


As the dysfunction in the healthcare system caused by government overreach increased, and the population aged, there was a legitimate concern that an out-of-touch bureaucracy might gain increased power over life-and-death decisions. 


When this was raised, the left-liberal advocates of big government went ballistic. &quot;How dare they question our motives, our idealism, our integrity!?&quot; They completely avoided the difficult ethical questions being raised and in fact refused to admit that there were any possible ethical questions which might come up as they took over management of healthcare. 


It is this hubris which has led to the present mess.


By the way, terms like &quot;schills&quot; (sic), &quot;yahoos&quot;, &quot;nothing to do&quot;, add nothing to the debate. We may be facing some very difficult problems as the population ages, and it would be nice to be able to have a rational discussion.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m afraid you&#8217;re wrong and have fallen victim to a selective reading of history. The initial concerns about &#8220;death panels&#8221; were brought up years ago by principled, intelligent conservatives who were rightly concerned by the hubris of those who advocated an enlarged role for government in the management of healthcare.</p>
<p>Given that healthcare and its delivery are incredibly complex, they worried that centralized governmental structures were incapable of managing these complexities.</p>
<p>They were also concerned that there was a rapidly increasing backing away from traditional morality regarding abortion and end-of-life issues and a move towards a utilitarian &#8220;pull-the-plug&#8221; attitude. </p>
<p>The convergence of these two trends fed a growing, and I think, justified concern, that ideologically-driven government appointees would increasingly gain power over the committees which allocated scarce resources. </p>
<p>As the dysfunction in the healthcare system caused by government overreach increased, and the population aged, there was a legitimate concern that an out-of-touch bureaucracy might gain increased power over life-and-death decisions. </p>
<p>When this was raised, the left-liberal advocates of big government went ballistic. &#8220;How dare they question our motives, our idealism, our integrity!?&#8221; They completely avoided the difficult ethical questions being raised and in fact refused to admit that there were any possible ethical questions which might come up as they took over management of healthcare. </p>
<p>It is this hubris which has led to the present mess.</p>
<p>By the way, terms like &#8220;schills&#8221; (sic), &#8220;yahoos&#8221;, &#8220;nothing to do&#8221;, add nothing to the debate. We may be facing some very difficult problems as the population ages, and it would be nice to be able to have a rational discussion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: YankInSlough</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/comment-page-1/#comment-5333548</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[YankInSlough]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2013 07:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211865#comment-5333548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m afraid you&#039;re wrong and have fallen victim to a selective reading of history. The initial concerns about &quot;death panels&quot; were brought up years ago by principled, intelligent conservatives who were rightly concerned by the hubris of those who advocated an enlarged role for government in the management of healthcare.


Given that healthcare and its delivery are incredibly complex, they worried that centralized governmental structures were incapable of managing these complexities.


They were also concerned that there was a rapidly increasing backing away from traditional morality regarding abortion and end-of-life issues and a move towards a utilitarian &quot;pull-the-plug&quot; attitude. 


The convergence of these two trends fed a growing, and I think, justified concern, that ideologically-driven government appointees would increasingly gain power over the committees which allocated scarce resources. 


As the dysfunction in the healthcare system caused by government overreach increased, and the population aged, there was a legitimate concern that an out-of-touch bureaucracy might gain increased power over life-and-death decisions. 


When this was raised, the left-liberal advocates of big government went ballistic. &quot;How dare they question our motives, our idealism, our integrity!?&quot; They completely avoided the difficult ethical questions being raised and in fact refused to admit that there were any possible ethical questions which might come up as they took over management of healthcare. 


It is this hubris which has led to the present mess.


By the way, terms like &quot;schills&quot; (sic), &quot;yahoos&quot;, &quot;nothing to do&quot;, add nothing to the debate. We may be facing some very difficult problems as the population ages, and it would be nice to be able to have a rational discussion.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m afraid you&#8217;re wrong and have fallen victim to a selective reading of history. The initial concerns about &#8220;death panels&#8221; were brought up years ago by principled, intelligent conservatives who were rightly concerned by the hubris of those who advocated an enlarged role for government in the management of healthcare.</p>
<p>Given that healthcare and its delivery are incredibly complex, they worried that centralized governmental structures were incapable of managing these complexities.</p>
<p>They were also concerned that there was a rapidly increasing backing away from traditional morality regarding abortion and end-of-life issues and a move towards a utilitarian &#8220;pull-the-plug&#8221; attitude. </p>
<p>The convergence of these two trends fed a growing, and I think, justified concern, that ideologically-driven government appointees would increasingly gain power over the committees which allocated scarce resources. </p>
<p>As the dysfunction in the healthcare system caused by government overreach increased, and the population aged, there was a legitimate concern that an out-of-touch bureaucracy might gain increased power over life-and-death decisions. </p>
<p>When this was raised, the left-liberal advocates of big government went ballistic. &#8220;How dare they question our motives, our idealism, our integrity!?&#8221; They completely avoided the difficult ethical questions being raised and in fact refused to admit that there were any possible ethical questions which might come up as they took over management of healthcare. </p>
<p>It is this hubris which has led to the present mess.</p>
<p>By the way, terms like &#8220;schills&#8221; (sic), &#8220;yahoos&#8221;, &#8220;nothing to do&#8221;, add nothing to the debate. We may be facing some very difficult problems as the population ages, and it would be nice to be able to have a rational discussion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cold_Drake_80</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/comment-page-1/#comment-5321231</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cold_Drake_80]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2013 06:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211865#comment-5321231</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The &quot;death panel&quot; debate drummed up by the right has nothing to do with what you are talking about. It was a talking point pushed by some corporate schills who didn&#039;t want to see any reforms made at all.
What you&#039;re talking about was never really part of the &quot;death panel&quot; debate. You&#039;re talking about reality while these yahoos are yammering on about how much they hate a piece of legislation.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The &#8220;death panel&#8221; debate drummed up by the right has nothing to do with what you are talking about. It was a talking point pushed by some corporate schills who didn&#8217;t want to see any reforms made at all.<br />
What you&#8217;re talking about was never really part of the &#8220;death panel&#8221; debate. You&#8217;re talking about reality while these yahoos are yammering on about how much they hate a piece of legislation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: YankInSlough</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/comment-page-1/#comment-5321197</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[YankInSlough]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2013 04:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211865#comment-5321197</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Look, &quot;death panels&quot; have been around ever since we became able to do kidney transplants. All it means is, that in a situation of scarce resources where there is no free market to allocate those resources (we&#039;re talking kidneys, hearts, lungs, etc.), a command mechanism will get set up to do the job of deciding who gets what, in what order.


Panels of doctors have been choosing candidates for heart transplants ever since we could do them: they assign priorities to the sickest patients who will benefit the most. Since there are not enough hearts or kidneys to go around, some folks are going to die. Hence the term &quot;death panel&quot;.


This concept has been extended in states like Oregon where there are limited Medicaid funds. Certain rare, expensive procedures are allocated to people chosen by a panel.


Instead of spewing insults at each other, could we have a rational discussion?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Look, &#8220;death panels&#8221; have been around ever since we became able to do kidney transplants. All it means is, that in a situation of scarce resources where there is no free market to allocate those resources (we&#8217;re talking kidneys, hearts, lungs, etc.), a command mechanism will get set up to do the job of deciding who gets what, in what order.</p>
<p>Panels of doctors have been choosing candidates for heart transplants ever since we could do them: they assign priorities to the sickest patients who will benefit the most. Since there are not enough hearts or kidneys to go around, some folks are going to die. Hence the term &#8220;death panel&#8221;.</p>
<p>This concept has been extended in states like Oregon where there are limited Medicaid funds. Certain rare, expensive procedures are allocated to people chosen by a panel.</p>
<p>Instead of spewing insults at each other, could we have a rational discussion?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: YankInSlough</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/comment-page-1/#comment-5333480</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[YankInSlough]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2013 04:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211865#comment-5333480</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Look, &quot;death panels&quot; have been around ever since we became able to do kidney transplants. All it means is, that in a situation of scarce resources where there is no free market to allocate those resources (we&#039;re talking kidneys, hearts, lungs, etc.), a command mechanism will get set up to do the job of deciding who gets what, in what order.


Panels of doctors have been choosing candidates for heart transplants ever since we could do them: they assign priorities to the sickest patients who will benefit the most. Since there are not enough hearts or kidneys to go around, some folks are going to die. Hence the term &quot;death panel&quot;.


This concept has been extended in states like Oregon where there are limited Medicaid funds. Certain rare, expensive procedures are allocated to people chosen by a panel.


Instead of spewing insults at each other, could we have a rational discussion?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Look, &#8220;death panels&#8221; have been around ever since we became able to do kidney transplants. All it means is, that in a situation of scarce resources where there is no free market to allocate those resources (we&#8217;re talking kidneys, hearts, lungs, etc.), a command mechanism will get set up to do the job of deciding who gets what, in what order.</p>
<p>Panels of doctors have been choosing candidates for heart transplants ever since we could do them: they assign priorities to the sickest patients who will benefit the most. Since there are not enough hearts or kidneys to go around, some folks are going to die. Hence the term &#8220;death panel&#8221;.</p>
<p>This concept has been extended in states like Oregon where there are limited Medicaid funds. Certain rare, expensive procedures are allocated to people chosen by a panel.</p>
<p>Instead of spewing insults at each other, could we have a rational discussion?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/comment-page-1/#comment-5320626</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2013 03:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211865#comment-5320626</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;The phoney argument was that if there is a parallel private for profit 
system that this would drain away doctors and nurses from the state run 
system.&quot;



It&#039;s the standard reply to failed socialist policies: More socialism (governmental control) is needed. That&#039;s in the communist playbook for &quot;democratic socialists&quot; and anyone with the same or similar agendas.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The phoney argument was that if there is a parallel private for profit<br />
system that this would drain away doctors and nurses from the state run<br />
system.&#8221;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s the standard reply to failed socialist policies: More socialism (governmental control) is needed. That&#8217;s in the communist playbook for &#8220;democratic socialists&#8221; and anyone with the same or similar agendas.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fritz</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/comment-page-1/#comment-5320624</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fritz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2013 03:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211865#comment-5320624</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you care about your family having affordable health insurance then why are you in favor of the ACA/Obamacare? I guess you missed the memo, you aren&#039;t supposed to refer to the ACA as Obamacare anymore because that has negative connotations.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you care about your family having affordable health insurance then why are you in favor of the ACA/Obamacare? I guess you missed the memo, you aren&#8217;t supposed to refer to the ACA as Obamacare anymore because that has negative connotations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fritz</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/comment-page-1/#comment-5320620</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fritz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2013 03:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211865#comment-5320620</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Amway is still very much around, believe me, nobody that I ever knew who got involved in Amway or any other multi level marketing scheme made a dime off of it. The least you can say about the MLM schemes is at least they do in fact sell real products, the part that is a lie is that you can get rich off of doing so. Timeshares are much more of a scam, at least with a MLM you can pull out, you are not hooked onto some sort of long term obligation on a useless property. Even with those you can make a decision not to get involved and it doesn&#039;t effect your life one way or the other, which is far different from the central planners in effect taking over 1/6 of the U.S economy.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amway is still very much around, believe me, nobody that I ever knew who got involved in Amway or any other multi level marketing scheme made a dime off of it. The least you can say about the MLM schemes is at least they do in fact sell real products, the part that is a lie is that you can get rich off of doing so. Timeshares are much more of a scam, at least with a MLM you can pull out, you are not hooked onto some sort of long term obligation on a useless property. Even with those you can make a decision not to get involved and it doesn&#8217;t effect your life one way or the other, which is far different from the central planners in effect taking over 1/6 of the U.S economy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fritz</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/comment-page-1/#comment-5320615</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fritz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2013 03:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211865#comment-5320615</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[They will probably have to go to India, Mexico, or even Thailand, just like the less well off Canadians do when they can&#039;t afford a U.S hospital. Ironically many in Canada are starting to push back, one of the absurd regulations was that Canadians were not permitted to pay for medical services that the public system provides. 
 However it has already been ruled unconstitutional, at least in the province of Quebec, because so called insurance coverage, and a number on a waiting list,  is not the same thing as treatment. Now someone is challenging the government monopoly in Alberta because they had to either wait in line for a year, while their condition deteriorated until it became untreatable, or go to the  U.S and pay $35K and have it fixed right away. The party involved is not trying to recoup the $35K but they are trying to make sure it doesn&#039;t happen again. 
  The phoney argument was that if there is a parallel private for profit 
system that this would drain away doctors and nurses from the state run 
system. Strange how in countries like German and France this has never 
been an issue.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They will probably have to go to India, Mexico, or even Thailand, just like the less well off Canadians do when they can&#8217;t afford a U.S hospital. Ironically many in Canada are starting to push back, one of the absurd regulations was that Canadians were not permitted to pay for medical services that the public system provides.<br />
 However it has already been ruled unconstitutional, at least in the province of Quebec, because so called insurance coverage, and a number on a waiting list,  is not the same thing as treatment. Now someone is challenging the government monopoly in Alberta because they had to either wait in line for a year, while their condition deteriorated until it became untreatable, or go to the  U.S and pay $35K and have it fixed right away. The party involved is not trying to recoup the $35K but they are trying to make sure it doesn&#8217;t happen again.<br />
  The phoney argument was that if there is a parallel private for profit<br />
system that this would drain away doctors and nurses from the state run<br />
system. Strange how in countries like German and France this has never<br />
been an issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fritz</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/comment-page-1/#comment-5333465</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fritz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2013 02:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211865#comment-5333465</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Because everyone knows that transgenders are dying in the wings because the evil insurance companies wouldn&#039;t pay for their sex change operations. Or that college girls, are dying from sexual frustration, because someone else wouldn&#039;t pay for them to have &quot;Free&quot; contraception.
 At least under the old private health insurance companies you could appeal if they refused to pay for something, or if you didn&#039;t like their plan you could buy a better one, or go to a competing company.
 With a committee of central planners deciding what treatments get covered, and which do not, you have no appeal. With everyone having the same plan you can&#039;t go out and choose a &quot;Better One&quot;. No they aren&#039;t saying that you personally &quot;John Smith&quot; , need to die to save the system money, it&#039;s even worse then that, someone whom you have never met, and will never know, will decide for your doctor how you will be treated.

 Oh, and before you start rambling incoherently about fear mongering I already have to live under such a system, I live in Canada, if the health bureaucrats decide that they will not pay for treatment your only option left is (A) Go to the U.s (or some other country) and pay for it out of your own pocket. (B) Go political and shame some politicians through the media.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Because everyone knows that transgenders are dying in the wings because the evil insurance companies wouldn&#8217;t pay for their sex change operations. Or that college girls, are dying from sexual frustration, because someone else wouldn&#8217;t pay for them to have &#8220;Free&#8221; contraception.<br />
 At least under the old private health insurance companies you could appeal if they refused to pay for something, or if you didn&#8217;t like their plan you could buy a better one, or go to a competing company.<br />
 With a committee of central planners deciding what treatments get covered, and which do not, you have no appeal. With everyone having the same plan you can&#8217;t go out and choose a &#8220;Better One&#8221;. No they aren&#8217;t saying that you personally &#8220;John Smith&#8221; , need to die to save the system money, it&#8217;s even worse then that, someone whom you have never met, and will never know, will decide for your doctor how you will be treated.</p>
<p> Oh, and before you start rambling incoherently about fear mongering I already have to live under such a system, I live in Canada, if the health bureaucrats decide that they will not pay for treatment your only option left is (A) Go to the U.s (or some other country) and pay for it out of your own pocket. (B) Go political and shame some politicians through the media.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/comment-page-1/#comment-5320090</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Dec 2013 05:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211865#comment-5320090</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;The basic problem with a system that seeks to serve everyone while only a few can really afford to pay is that overall medical care quality diminishes, shortages are created among physicians, health care workers, on and on.&quot;



I understand that in theory investing in early preventative care could lead to lower costs. That is NOT how Obamacare is designed, and even if there are some provisions like that, the major flaws destroy the overall efficacy. If they had a &quot;win win&quot; policy idea they should have tried that instead of this all or nothing, let&#039;s destroy the system to save the system mentality.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The basic problem with a system that seeks to serve everyone while only a few can really afford to pay is that overall medical care quality diminishes, shortages are created among physicians, health care workers, on and on.&#8221;</p>
<p>I understand that in theory investing in early preventative care could lead to lower costs. That is NOT how Obamacare is designed, and even if there are some provisions like that, the major flaws destroy the overall efficacy. If they had a &#8220;win win&#8221; policy idea they should have tried that instead of this all or nothing, let&#8217;s destroy the system to save the system mentality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/comment-page-1/#comment-5320089</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Dec 2013 05:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211865#comment-5320089</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;A friend of mine in Toronto with prostate cancer was sent home by Canada&#039;s top cancer hospital with the comment, there is nothing more we can do for you.&quot; They literally sent him home to die. His daughter in California arranged for him to see a top specialist in L.A., it cost him $100,000 but they saved him.&quot;



That&#039;s another key point: Other socialist countries depend on the USA to have a last resort place to go for free market innovations. Where will Americans go when that culture has been destroyed by socialized medicine?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;A friend of mine in Toronto with prostate cancer was sent home by Canada&#8217;s top cancer hospital with the comment, there is nothing more we can do for you.&#8221; They literally sent him home to die. His daughter in California arranged for him to see a top specialist in L.A., it cost him $100,000 but they saved him.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s another key point: Other socialist countries depend on the USA to have a last resort place to go for free market innovations. Where will Americans go when that culture has been destroyed by socialized medicine?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/comment-page-1/#comment-5320087</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Dec 2013 05:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211865#comment-5320087</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;The fact is that these systems are compelled to incorporate a type of death squad. A number of procedures become unavailable after you reach a certain age. It&#039;s simple economics. Why spend a hundred thousand on an individual who is bound to die of natural causes in another year or two?&quot;



The key point is that when you are sovereign over your own financial decisions, you are sovereign over medical decisions. If you fail to come up with the money for your healthcare, you can&#039;t blame the government...unless they&#039;ve been tapping your wallet for years to underwrite nonessential services for others who can&#039;t or won&#039;t work to pay for their own. The more the government interferes, the more they deny your right to work hard and become successful in order to enhance your own quality of life. Including your ability to keep it going.


Under these social justice schemes, they steal from hardworking people and give it to others who then have less incentive to work hard.


There is nothing wrong having safety nets and charitable programs that are not based on coercion and deception. But POTUS telling the nation that Obamacare is about &quot;rights&quot; is totally unhinged socialism. It&#039;s just that he can&#039;t get away with more under the circumstances and may not even get away with this scam.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The fact is that these systems are compelled to incorporate a type of death squad. A number of procedures become unavailable after you reach a certain age. It&#8217;s simple economics. Why spend a hundred thousand on an individual who is bound to die of natural causes in another year or two?&#8221;</p>
<p>The key point is that when you are sovereign over your own financial decisions, you are sovereign over medical decisions. If you fail to come up with the money for your healthcare, you can&#8217;t blame the government&#8230;unless they&#8217;ve been tapping your wallet for years to underwrite nonessential services for others who can&#8217;t or won&#8217;t work to pay for their own. The more the government interferes, the more they deny your right to work hard and become successful in order to enhance your own quality of life. Including your ability to keep it going.</p>
<p>Under these social justice schemes, they steal from hardworking people and give it to others who then have less incentive to work hard.</p>
<p>There is nothing wrong having safety nets and charitable programs that are not based on coercion and deception. But POTUS telling the nation that Obamacare is about &#8220;rights&#8221; is totally unhinged socialism. It&#8217;s just that he can&#8217;t get away with more under the circumstances and may not even get away with this scam.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DontMessWithAmerica</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/comment-page-1/#comment-5319899</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DontMessWithAmerica]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 21:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211865#comment-5319899</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have to partly agree with you.  Many schemes set up for good reason go wrong but can be changed.  I&#039;ve now caught up with more recent comments above and the childish bickering by the likes of the idiot, Cold Drake 80.  I&#039;ve lived under the Canadian socialized medical system.  In fact I may be on the No-Fly list because I wrote to Obama on the Obama-launched site he had put up to sell his scheme, &quot;If you plan to foist on Americans a Canadian type health care system you should be shot.&quot;  



The fact is that these systems are compelled to incorporate a type of death squad.  A number of procedures become unavailable after you reach a certain age. It&#039;s simple economics. Why spend a hundred thousand on an individual who is bound to die of natural causes in another year or two?


A friend of mine in Toronto with prostate cancer was sent home by Canada&#039;s top cancer hospital with the comment, there is nothing more we can do for you.&quot;  They literally sent him home to die.  His daughter in California arranged for him to see a top specialist in L.A., it cost him $100,000 but they saved him. 



But the death squad concept is not exclusive to socialized medicine.  Hospitals and cynical doctors are well aware that lawyers will dissuade patients or survivors of deceased patients from suing because court costs might easily exceed any award given.  They&#039;ll bust their balls to save the young because that could become costly.  



The basic problem with a system that seeks to serve everyone while only a few can really afford to pay is that overall medical care quality diminishes, shortages are created among physicians, health care workers, on and on. Austria had once the reputation of having the greatest medical care and folks from around the world ran to Austria for help. Then they socialized their system and it went down and England became the place to go for quality medical help.  Then England socialized and America became tops for medical care.  Now America&#039;s health care will join the others.  That&#039;s how Communism works.  It feels it is unfair to have rich and poor.  So it makes EVERYBODY poor.


It was better when there were only patients and doctors and when patients couldn&#039;t afford to pay, many doctors helped them for free. There were no HMO, no politicians, no civil servants, no hate-filled Marxists or their counterparts on the right.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to partly agree with you.  Many schemes set up for good reason go wrong but can be changed.  I&#8217;ve now caught up with more recent comments above and the childish bickering by the likes of the idiot, Cold Drake 80.  I&#8217;ve lived under the Canadian socialized medical system.  In fact I may be on the No-Fly list because I wrote to Obama on the Obama-launched site he had put up to sell his scheme, &#8220;If you plan to foist on Americans a Canadian type health care system you should be shot.&#8221;  </p>
<p>The fact is that these systems are compelled to incorporate a type of death squad.  A number of procedures become unavailable after you reach a certain age. It&#8217;s simple economics. Why spend a hundred thousand on an individual who is bound to die of natural causes in another year or two?</p>
<p>A friend of mine in Toronto with prostate cancer was sent home by Canada&#8217;s top cancer hospital with the comment, there is nothing more we can do for you.&#8221;  They literally sent him home to die.  His daughter in California arranged for him to see a top specialist in L.A., it cost him $100,000 but they saved him. </p>
<p>But the death squad concept is not exclusive to socialized medicine.  Hospitals and cynical doctors are well aware that lawyers will dissuade patients or survivors of deceased patients from suing because court costs might easily exceed any award given.  They&#8217;ll bust their balls to save the young because that could become costly.  </p>
<p>The basic problem with a system that seeks to serve everyone while only a few can really afford to pay is that overall medical care quality diminishes, shortages are created among physicians, health care workers, on and on. Austria had once the reputation of having the greatest medical care and folks from around the world ran to Austria for help. Then they socialized their system and it went down and England became the place to go for quality medical help.  Then England socialized and America became tops for medical care.  Now America&#8217;s health care will join the others.  That&#8217;s how Communism works.  It feels it is unfair to have rich and poor.  So it makes EVERYBODY poor.</p>
<p>It was better when there were only patients and doctors and when patients couldn&#8217;t afford to pay, many doctors helped them for free. There were no HMO, no politicians, no civil servants, no hate-filled Marxists or their counterparts on the right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cold_Drake_80</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/comment-page-1/#comment-5319797</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cold_Drake_80]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211865#comment-5319797</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ah, the bigot&#039;s mind on full display. The same bigoted thinking that allows FPMers to delude themselves into believing they are empowered to say who is and isn&#039;t in a group.

As for this:

&quot;&quot;You can find someone who will say ANYTHING if you&#039;re willing to throw around enough money or quote mine&quot;

Uh....sure....whatever that meant. I guess you&#039;re talking about the 
Left  (Obama) throwing around money in an incoherent manner. 
All alternative interpretations of your comment make progressively less sense.&quot;


You&#039;re failure to comprehend what I wrote is your personal defect. Deal with it on your own time. Granted it comes as no surprise since you&#039;re so rock stupid you can&#039;t even distguish Obama&#039;s centrism from the left. Never mind you think he IS the left.
I really shouldn&#039;t be that surprised. You are so mentally unstable that you end your post with a (death?) threat. It would seem you are carrying on the FPM tradition of the first resort being to violence.
Have a nice day psycho.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, the bigot&#8217;s mind on full display. The same bigoted thinking that allows FPMers to delude themselves into believing they are empowered to say who is and isn&#8217;t in a group.</p>
<p>As for this:</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8221;You can find someone who will say ANYTHING if you&#8217;re willing to throw around enough money or quote mine&#8221;</p>
<p>Uh&#8230;.sure&#8230;.whatever that meant. I guess you&#8217;re talking about the<br />
Left  (Obama) throwing around money in an incoherent manner.<br />
All alternative interpretations of your comment make progressively less sense.&#8221;</p>
<p>You&#8217;re failure to comprehend what I wrote is your personal defect. Deal with it on your own time. Granted it comes as no surprise since you&#8217;re so rock stupid you can&#8217;t even distguish Obama&#8217;s centrism from the left. Never mind you think he IS the left.<br />
I really shouldn&#8217;t be that surprised. You are so mentally unstable that you end your post with a (death?) threat. It would seem you are carrying on the FPM tradition of the first resort being to violence.<br />
Have a nice day psycho.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cold_Drake_80</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/comment-page-1/#comment-5319786</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cold_Drake_80]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211865#comment-5319786</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Of course you&#039;re such as sociopath that you don&#039;t care about the preventable deaths that occur under the current insurance regime. You only care about hypothetical deaths because you think it gives you a momentary, political advantage.
You are one messed up piece of work.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course you&#8217;re such as sociopath that you don&#8217;t care about the preventable deaths that occur under the current insurance regime. You only care about hypothetical deaths because you think it gives you a momentary, political advantage.<br />
You are one messed up piece of work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cold_Drake_80</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/comment-page-1/#comment-5319785</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cold_Drake_80]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211865#comment-5319785</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For your comment to make any kind of sense you either 1) think of yourself as a god (when have you scheduled your own execution?) 2) have appallingly low reading comprehension.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For your comment to make any kind of sense you either 1) think of yourself as a god (when have you scheduled your own execution?) 2) have appallingly low reading comprehension.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tagalog</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/comment-page-1/#comment-5319769</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[tagalog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211865#comment-5319769</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A genocidal holiday?  Tell it to the 90 Wampanoag Indians who showed up at the first Thanksgiving celebration and were invited to partake of the food.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A genocidal holiday?  Tell it to the 90 Wampanoag Indians who showed up at the first Thanksgiving celebration and were invited to partake of the food.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: truebearing</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/comment-page-1/#comment-5319690</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truebearing]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211865#comment-5319690</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for yet another incoherent comment. It sure makes us &quot;War Gods&quot; feel more justified.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for yet another incoherent comment. It sure makes us &#8220;War Gods&#8221; feel more justified.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tagalog</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-obama-who-stole-thanksgiving/comment-page-1/#comment-5319673</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[tagalog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=211865#comment-5319673</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the story of the Pilgrims, they (the ones who LOVE &quot;Les Miserables,&quot; about Jean Valjean and the stolen loaf of bread) never forget to remind us that when the starving Pilgrims first landed on Cape Cod, they stole some corn that the Nauset Indians, who had deserted their village, had left behind.  They NEVER seem to get around to telling us that, once the Pilgrims discovered that the Indians considered that corn stolen, they paid the Indians back as soon as they harvested their first crop the next season.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the story of the Pilgrims, they (the ones who LOVE &#8220;Les Miserables,&#8221; about Jean Valjean and the stolen loaf of bread) never forget to remind us that when the starving Pilgrims first landed on Cape Cod, they stole some corn that the Nauset Indians, who had deserted their village, had left behind.  They NEVER seem to get around to telling us that, once the Pilgrims discovered that the Indians considered that corn stolen, they paid the Indians back as soon as they harvested their first crop the next season.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 724/769 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-29 16:42:09 by W3 Total Cache -->