Republicans-- Plus Blue Dogs Steve Israel And Collin Peterson-- Gave Us Death Panels... And Only Idiots Think Otherwise

Has Wasserman Schultz ever asked her pal Steve Israel why he voted for death panels?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz doesn't write to me too often. Ever since I helped expose her endorsements of 3 Miami-Dade Republicans-- Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and the Diaz-Balart brothers-- in 2008, when she was chair of the DCCC's Red to Blue Program no less, she's been a little stand-offish. (Or maybe she just doesn't like me calling attention to her financial relationship to the sugar cartel or the private prison industry. Who knows? Who cares?) Yesterday, though, I did get some spam from her. "Whatever happened to those 'death panels?'" she asked.

Last November, a certain Senator from Utah confidently predicted that we “would never be able to meet [the Affordable Care Act’s] enrollment goals.”

Yet here we are, four years after President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act-- and we’ve clearly met, if not exceeded, our enrollment goals. Thanks to the law, over eight million people have quality health insurance. And those facts drive the Tea Party absolutely nuts.

CHORUS: [send me money, send me money, send me money… press here to send me money… money, money, money… money makes the world go round. Send money or the big bad Republicans will kill you. $5, $5, $5 please send $5 so I can buy off my colleagues so they make me the first Jewish Speaker. Don't forget to click.]

I’m not going to allow these extremists to take us back to the days of people being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, insurance companies canceling coverage when you get sick, or charging women a lot more simply because they are, in fact, women. But I need your help to keep fighting-- can you spare $5 to keep our campaign growing strong?

REPEAT CHORUS

The Affordable Health Care law is something we should all be really proud of. I know many of you understand what health care coverage means to millions of Americans. Thank you for standing with me and being part of our grassroots effort.


REPEAT CHOUS-- More cowbell

You tell me… what did that have to do death panels? I've come to know what death panels are lately-- and they have nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act. The death panels I've been experiencing come from the horrible Bush drug plan-- Medicare Part D. It's the perfect example of what happens when you give people who don't believe in health insurance control over health insurance. The plan passed in June 2003 and only 9 Democrats voted for it, all corrupt, sleazy, bribed Blue Dogs like Steve Israel, Collin Peterson, Jim Matheson and some scumbags who were subsequently defeated a nd a couple who switched parties . The final vote for this monstrosity was 216-215. It originally failed, 214-218 but Ernest Istook (R-OK), Butch Otter (R-ID) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) were willing to buckle to pressure from the drug industry and the corrupt party leadership to sell out their constituents and America by changing their votes. Part of the scheme to pass give the drug industry a big wet kiss was to lie to Congress about the costs. Although the Bush Regime were well aware the projected ten year cost was $500 billion (it has actually cost $534 billion), they lied to Congress, telling them it would be $100 billion less.

I have Humana. They suck. They're the death panel. My doctor prescribes a drug I need and they say NO. She appeals. It takes time and I don't have the drug. They suggest other drugs that don't work. They turn down the appeal. My doctor appeals the appeal. Weeks later they say, "Oh, OK," by which time my condition has drastically deteriorated. The doctor says I need a high dosage. Humana says NO. That's a death panel. And it isn't government bureaucrats feared by the Tea Party morons. It's a private insurance company, empowered by bribed Republicans (+ Steve Israel and Collin Peterson), who get richer by not OKing drugs prescribed by doctors. I bet Debbie Wasserman Schultz doesn't understand that. She gets special elite treatment for the ruling class.

E. J. Dionne Jr. challenges the House Republicans to expand their moral imaginations -- good luck with that

by Ken

Oh, that E. J. Dionne Jr.! He not only listens to what people say but challenges them to live up to it!

Today he's been led to wonder how the Republicans might direct the debate they insist on having ("House GOP to launch health-care repeal effort") aimed at repealing the health-care law so that it lives up to the inspiring words from the president's big speech:

Give the Republican leadership this: They have set up what may be the most challenging test possible of our determination "to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy." May this week's health-care debate do all those things.

And, perhaps suspecting that the Republican House leadership may not be in the forefront of the world's moral imaginers, or listeners, or empathizers, he has some concrete suggestions:

* "May I suggest in the warmest way possible that it would be an excellent start to a new era if opponents of the law would acknowledge that at no point did any version of the proposed reform include 'death panels'?"

The sensible idea on which this incendiary phrase was falsely based once had Republican as well as Democratic support and sought only to make it possible for those with life-threatening illnesses to get good information from their doctors -- if patients wanted it -- on the various treatment paths open to them. Really, nothing in the health-care debate was more destructive to honest discussion than the "death panels" charge. Can we at least put that behind us?

* "As The Post reported, the Republicans plan to argue 'that Obama's health-care promises -- including that the legislation would lower insurance costs and help spur job creation -- have not materialized.' Could they at least acknowledge that the law isn't even fully in effect yet?" And, he suggests,

perhaps they should explain why it's fair to hold the 10-month-old health-care law to this standard while they insist on continuing the Bush tax cuts, which, after a decade, still haven't produced the jobs they were supposed to create. Please note that I could have described the impact of the Bush tax cuts less charitably.

* Now it gets tougher. "It would also be hugely helpful if the Republicans began to detail what they would put in place of the existing law, and how their ideas would expand coverage, hold down costs and contain the long-term deficit. Constructive alternatives are essential to productive debate." And in the spirit of humility urged by the president, E.J. suggests: "In that spirit, the Republican leadership could graciously change its mind on the rules governing consideration of this bill and allow some amendments to be voted on."
E.J. has a thought too for "those who believe the new law is a large step in the right direction and that repealing it would be a terrible mistake": They "should freely acknowledge that it's not perfect and could use improvement. "

They should welcome bipartisan efforts to make it better. Many supporters of the law already think it should cover more people, could usefully include a public option and do more to control future health-care costs. The truth is that nobody has a monopoly on health-care wisdom and so, as the prophet Isaiah said, "Come, let us reason together."

Slyly played, E.J.! Still, this is another of those times when I wouldn't hold my breath. Remember who we're dealing with.

#

We knew: (1) How unimaginably bad the New Era was going to be, and (2) how badly we could imagine how bad it would be

With moral support provided by the craven slugs of the Obama administration, the death-panel nonsense won't die.

by Ken

As the disaster of the coming election took shape, and that shape then became real, we knew two things about what was to come:

(1) It was going to be horrible, just horrible, unimaginably horrible.

(2) However horrible we imagined this unimaginably horrible time to be, there was no way we could imagine the reality of the horror.

Of course the ascendancy of the assorted life forms that make up the latest Republican coalition would be, and sure enough, they're performing as expected -- witness today's pathetic spectacle of their demented and dishonest pretense of fealty to the Constitution today. it wasn't just the fact of the hybrid Republican-Teabaggers' two years (minimum) in the sunlight. It was the certain knowledge that the shellacked Democrats would respond in exactly the wrong way.

Exactly the wrong way, with the usual mantra that what the party, which had committed ritual suicide by failing even to pretend to believe in anything, had to "move to the center" while dumping doody on us left-wingers -- you know, the ones who were right again, while all the faux-centrist Village-careerist lowlifes dug graves for themselves by being wrong about everything. That's the part that at the moment is really getting to me.

Is it any wonder, then, that some of us are doing our utmost to filter out the news oozing out of our nation's capital? For me the craven capitulation that hit hardest was the utterly indefensible and unnecessary capitulation to the loonies of the right-wing loons, the truly psychotic fomenters of the "death panels nonsense -- no fooling, these people should be in the "dangerous" wards of loony bins -- prompted by the simple provision to have Medicare cover end-time planning for citizens who wish to avail themselves of it.

Even USA Today gets it (though, naturally, with an "opposing view" provided!):

Our view on health care: Nonsense about 'death panels' springs back to life

Here we go again. A clumsy bit of rulemaking by the Obama administration has revived nutty talk about "death panels" — the inflammatory but thoroughly debunked notion purveyed last year by opponents of the new health reform law.

OPPOSING VIEW: On the road to rationing

The idea that the law promoted government-encouraged euthanasia was transparently false, but it went viral among terrified seniors. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll showed that almost a third of Americans 65 or older still believe— wrongly — that the government can pull the plug on them against their wishes.

At issue was an innocuous, bipartisan proposal for Medicare to pay doctors for their time if their patients wanted to discuss end-of-life issues, such as whether they wanted to be kept alive at all costs if there were no chance they'd ever leave the hospital. The fear-mongering was so effective that Democrats dropped the provision from the final bill, but late last year Medicare officials quietly revived it as a regulation.

Faced with more over-the-top reaction, the administration hastily withdrew the regulation.

By then, though, "death panel" hysteria had spread to an even more contentious aspect of medical decision-making: which drugs the government should certify as safe and effective, and therefore likely to be covered by insurers. When the Food and Drug Administration recently said it plans to withdraw approval of the drug Avastin for treating breast cancer because trials showed it to be ineffective or dangerous for most patients, Sen. David Vitter and Rep. Rodney Alexander, both Louisiana Republicans, likened FDA to a "death panel." Hardly. Does anyone believe that leaving such decisions to politicians driven by desperate patients and drug-company lobbyists would yield better results? . . .

Oh, there's more, but that's enough for me.

I suppose it would be unfair to focus on woefully unprincipled and corrupt Dems while passing over the Tiny Tent of Today's GOP, united by the ties that bind those morons, crackpots, cynical opportunists and thugs, and outright economic predators (or their hired stooges). So here's Paul Krugman blogging this evening:

The Conscience of a Liberal
PAUL KRUGMAN

January 6, 2011, 5:31 pm
The Repeal the Senior-Murdering Secret Muslim President Act

I wish I could work up some more outrage about the willingness of Republicans to simply ignore the CBO’s verdict that repealing the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, aka Romneycare, would increase the budget deficit. But anyone who had been following the politics here, not just this year, but for the past 15 years at least knew this was coming.

The only lingering surprise I can muster is at the sheer tackiness of the bill’s title. The Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act? Really? Have they, at long last, no sense of shame?

No, Paul, no sense of shame. (By comparison, Senator McCarthy's minions were models of fraternal concern.) Say, are you new to these parts?

#

Death is too important a subject to be left to the mercy of rampaging, reality-defying numskulls

UPDATE: New gloss on the eternal question:
Are they liars or just morons?

What was old is new again: Since the "death panels" lies are back, it seems only appropriate to bring back this offering by the great R. J. Matson from last year's holiday season.

by Ken

I know we're supposed to make nice to those poor misunderstood Teabaggers, and bow before the legitimacy of their grievances. It's just kind of hard when, besotted by their newfound power, they're off on a screaming rampage, wildly wielding their weapons of psychotic destruction against every vestige of reality and human decency caught in their path.

Since, on a scale of zero to a gazillion, they know less than nothing about life (I'm deducting points for the preposterous wrongness of nearly everything they think they know), and have chosen to devote their lives to a relentless war on reality, it's hardly surprising that they're both totally ignorant of and in denial about death. The only clue these wacko scumbags may ever get about the subject is likely to come at the very "moment of." If then.

To the extent that the human race has a lick of sense, death is something we attempt to incorporate into our lives, to understand the reality of it and, as best we can, plan for the eventuality that none of us can avoid. But again, just as the Teabagger spit on life, they defecate on reality, and will do everything in their power to eradicate it.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that back to the "death panels" lies. Now personally, I don't give a damn how clueless these people wish to remain about their own deaths, and I can only wish them the speediest possible encounter in the hope that something may perhaps penetrate those seemingly impenetrable skulls. But when they screech and foment and wield their bloody axes to prevent other people from attempting to cope with reality, they go too far.

Of course it served the demagogues of the Right only too well to pretend to go along with what even they surely knew was a conspiracy of cretinousness, that there was something insidious about the sane, sensible provision included in the health care package to enable people who so wish to avail themselves of professional counsel in anticipating and preparing for death. But apparently for people who believe that they have the right and power to turn back reality, this incredibly modest proposal is intolerable.

More power to Media Matters' Jamison Foser for trying to blow the whistle on the media enablers of the big lie:

If Media Won't Correct The "Lie Of The Year," What Will They Correct?

December 26, 2010 8:01 pm ET by Jamison Foser

If you thought the New York Times' write-up of a Medicare regulation about advising patients of end-of-life care options was bad, wait until you see the Associated Press. The Times article invoked Sarah Palin's 2009 claim that a similar provision constituted "death panels," while explaining only that Palin's (deeply false) claim was "unsubstantiated." The AP didn't even offer that caveat. Here's how the wire service's report handles Palin's lie:

[T]he practice was heavily criticized by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and some other Republicans who have likened the counseling to "death panels." . . .…

Prominent Republicans singled it out as a glaring example of government overreach. Palin's use of the phrase "death panels" solidified GOP opposition to the health care bill.

That isn't even "he said, she said" reporting (which is bad enough.) That's just "she said." But what she said was false. That's worth mentioning, don't you think?

Nobody should be surprised when Palin lies -- after all, she knows news organizations like the AP will just type up what she said and pass it along to their readers, without lifting a finger to correct the record.

It's an interesting question, of a thumb-suckingly intellectual sort, as to whether someone like Princess Sarah knows better and is simply being conveniently cynical or is sincerely befuddled when she spews nonsense like this. Right now it doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference. Those of us left behind in what the Bush regimistas referred to sneeringly as the reality-based community have to stick together to insist on, at the very least, equal time for reality.


UPDATE: SO TELL US, CONGRESSMAN-ELECT
JOHNSON, ARE YOU KIDDING OR WHAT?

From Morocco Howie passes on a post from Modernesquire on Plunderbund, citing the case of incoming Rep. Bill Johnson of Ohio, who early this month made a great show of announcing his refusal to accept Congressional health care benefits as an expression of his outrage at the newly enacted national health care package. As the Ohio Free Press reported:

“Lincoln famously put forth the notion that government should be of the people, by the people and for the people,” Johnson said. “This is one substantial way I can show that my commitment to the people of Eastern and Southern Ohio is to help them, not to gain exclusive benefits for myself.”

Johnson said Congress must focus on repealing Obama Health Care and instead adopt patient-based, market-driven health care solutions.

“I oppose ObamaCare because government-controlled health care will create more debt and huge bureaucracy,” Johnson said. “We need to reverse the government takeover of our health care, and we should adopt common sense, patient-centered, private sector solutions like making health care portable from job to job and state to state, tort reform, and promoting health savings accounts.”

Does this man know how to do "self-righteous," or what?

The only wee problem, as Modernesquire notes via the Youngstown News's Windy.com blog, is that the congressman-elect left out a tiny bit of the picture. In foregoing congressional health care coverage, which actually is provided through private insurers, he isn't exactly falling back on a "common sense, patient-centered, private sector solution." As a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, Johnson "has and will continue to receive federal health-care benefits from that branch of the military."

The point is not -- as lame-brained, similarly fake-self-righteous apologists for the congressman-elect have blustered -- that he didn't earn that coverage. The point is that he has declared himself unalterably opposed to "exclusive benefits" for himself and to "the government takeover of our health care." The reality is that his much-derided "ObamaCare" is provided entirely by market-driven private insurers, whereas his military health care is in fact government-run health insurance.

So there's no question that Congressman-elect Johnson is a 100 percent raving hypocrite. The only remaining question is: Is he really that stupid, or is he just another right-wing pathological liar?

#

The GOP Isn’t Interested In Helping The Economy As Long As A Democrat Is In The White House

The title above is a direct quote from yesterday's Paul Krugman column in the NY Times. It's quite extraordinary when you think about it. Steve Benen had something similar to say last week but yesterday, one of the most distinguished economic thinkers in the world, a columnist for the most important newspaper in the world just leveled a charge akin to treason against a major political party. In fact, he did it several times in the column, just in case anyone is skimming and missed it once.

The fact is that one of our two great political parties has made it clear that it has no interest in making America governable, unless it’s doing the governing. And that party now controls one house of Congress, which means that the country will not, in fact, be governable without that party’s cooperation-- cooperation that won’t be forthcoming.

Elite opinion has been slow to recognize this reality. Thus on the same day that Mr. Simpson rejoiced in the prospect of chaos, Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, appealed for help in confronting mass unemployment. He asked for “a fiscal program that combines near-term measures to enhance growth with strong, confidence-inducing steps to reduce longer-term structural deficits.”

My immediate thought was, why not ask for a pony, too? After all, the G.O.P. isn’t interested in helping the economy as long as a Democrat is in the White House. Indeed, far from being willing to help Mr. Bernanke’s efforts, Republicans are trying to bully the Fed itself into giving up completely on trying to reduce unemployment.

And on matters fiscal, the G.O.P. program is to do almost exactly the opposite of what Mr. Bernanke called for. On one side, Republicans oppose just about everything that might reduce structural deficits: they demand that the Bush tax cuts be made permanent while demagoguing efforts to limit the rise in Medicare costs, which are essential to any attempts to get the budget under control. On the other, the G.O.P. opposes anything that might help sustain demand in a depressed economy-- even aid to small businesses, which the party claims to love.

Right now, in particular, Republicans are blocking an extension of unemployment benefits-- an action that will both cause immense hardship and drain purchasing power from an already sputtering economy. But there’s no point appealing to the better angels of their nature; America just doesn’t work that way anymore.

And opposition for the sake of opposition isn’t limited to economic policy. Politics, they used to tell us, stops at the water’s edge-- but that was then.

These days, national security experts are tearing their hair out over the decision of Senate Republicans to block a desperately needed new strategic arms treaty. And everyone knows that these Republicans oppose the treaty, not because of legitimate objections, but simply because it’s an Obama administration initiative; if sabotaging the president endangers the nation, so be it.

How does this end? Mr. Obama is still talking about bipartisan outreach, and maybe if he caves in sufficiently he can avoid a federal shutdown this spring. But any respite would be only temporary; again, the G.O.P. is just not interested in helping a Democrat govern.

My sense is that most Americans still don’t understand this reality. They still imagine that when push comes to shove, our politicians will come together to do what’s necessary. But that was another country.

Krugman's immediate concern is the "mainstream" Republican Obama appointed to the Deficit Commission, Alan Simpson, who seems to take great pleasure in public displays of derangement. His latest was a shrill cry for "the blood bath in April... When debt limit time comes." Krugman points out that the Republican strategy is to "probably try to blackmail the president into policy concessions by, in effect, holding the government hostage; they’ve done it before. Now, you might think that the prospect of this kind of standoff, which might deny many Americans essential services, wreak havoc in financial markets and undermine America’s role in the world, would worry all men of good will. But no, Mr. Simpson “can’t wait.” And he’s what passes, these days, for a reasonable Republican."

The question for the rest of us is why is Obama appointing saboteurs like Alan Simpson? A Democratic Member of Congress-- until recently one of Obama's most fervent and public defenders, someone who is so disillusioned with him that he now says he'll vote for him in 2012 as the lesser of two evils-- told me last week that Obama isn't just willing to do the bidding of the ruling elite on Social Security, but that he wants to. Obama sees himself leading a great conservative coalition of the center, between Republican-dominated reactionaries and incoherent teabaggers on the one hand and progressives of his own party on the other hand.

Howard Dean, Alan Grayson and Dennis Kucinich have all said they will not primary Obama. Will Bernie Sanders? In that case he'll continue moving inexorably to the right. That isn't just a label. It will mean more of everything we hated about the Bush Regime-- from the national security state to the dismantling of the American social contract. Alan Simpson wants blood. He's liable to get it when ordinary Americans get pushed too far over the edge to not react. Arizona's Republican death panels are for real. And what they come down to is now standard GOP political philosophy-- better to condemn the poor to death than ask the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes.

Instead of trying to save the lives of these people, who had been told that they had a chance to spend a few more years with their families, the Arizona legislature has chosen to take away their hope in order to save an estimated $4.5 million.

Facing a projected $1.5 billion budget deficit, the state of Arizona has decided to make poor people pay with their lives instead of making rich people pay with their treasure.

This didn't have to happen. In a special election in January 2010, the people of Oregon (a state with a comparable average income as Arizona) decided to raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporations instead of cutting essential services. Despite an all-out effort to convince voters that taxing the rich would hurt the poor, voters approved Measures 66 and 67, raising tax rates on those most able to pay and allocating the money to preserve state services.

Our economy for the past decade or more has been built on lies. Superfueled by greed and so-called "innovation" in the financial sector, it finally careened off the road and slammed head-on into the cement wall of reality. Instead of taxing the people who caused and profited from this situation, our political system has bailed them out, buried their crimes and passed the costs onto the most vulnerable-- people like the 98 poor men and women who were told their lives might be saved, only to have that hope taken away.

I don't think anyone's going to shoot anyone because a TSA agent gropes their junk... but what happens when members of your family as condemned to die? How many Arizonans would love to take a potshot at Jan Brewer or Russell Pearce about now?

What the "death panel" lies have "protected" us from discussing about end-of-life care

"About $67 billion -- nearly a third of the money spent by Medicare -- goes to patients in the last two years of life. The need to spend less money at the end of life 'is the elephant in the room,' Evan Thomas wrote in 'The Case for Killing Granny,' the cover story in last week’s Newsweek. 'Everyone sees it but no one wants to talk about it.'"

-- Timothy Egan, in his Tuesday night NYT "Outposts"
blogpost, "The Way We Die Now"

by Ken

John Kitzhaber, M.D., was governor of Oregon from 1995 to 2003. He's 62 now, and has announced his intention to seek the office again next year. After he left the statehouse, his 88-year-old mother, Annabel, "with a weak heart, and tests that showed she most likely had cancer" (according to the above-linked Timothy Egan NYT blogpost), made the decision "to go home, walking away from the medical-industrial complex," and spend her remaining time with her also-failing husband, Albert. Annabel Kitzhaber died four months later, in 2005; Albert died eight months after that.

“The whole focus had been centered on her illness and her aging,” the Kitzhabers' son the former governor told former NYT reporter Timothy Egan in his Tuesday night NYT "Outposts" blogpost. “But both she and my father let go that part of their lives that they could not control and instead began to focus on what they could control: the joys and blessings of their marriage.”

Egan does a lovely job telling the story of those end-of-life decisions of Annabel and Albert Kitzhaber and the story of John Kitzhaber's horror at the way the end-of-life subject has (finally!) entered the national conversation. Egan writes:

Nobody was more frustrated than John Kitzhaber as the health care debate got hijacked over the summer by shouters and misinformation specialists. And no politician is more battle-scarred on this issue. He looks, at 62, still the Western man, with his jeans, his shag of gray hair, the face weathered by days spent trying to lure steelhead to the surface in the Rogue River. It has been his life work to see if at least one part of the country could join the family of nations that offers universal coverage.

With his mother's death in 2005, Kitzhaber lived the absurdities of the present system. Medicare would pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for endless hospital procedures and tests but would not pay $18 an hour for a non-hospice care giver to come into Annabel's home and help her through her final days.

"The fundamental problem is that one percent of the population accounts for 35 percent of health care spending. So the big question is not how we pay for health care, but what are we buying."

He is not, he says, in favor of pulling the plug on granny. The culture of life should be paramount, he says, following the oath he took as a doctor. But Oregon, years ahead of the rest of the country, has talked and talked and talked about this taboo topic, and they’ve voted on it as well, in several forms. They found -- in line with national studies -- that most people want to die at home.

The governor insists that we really do need to rethink the way we spend health care dollars on the dying -- not setting up death panels, but recognizing that aging is not a "disease" that can be "cured," as part of a process of rethinking the way we spend precious health care dollars on terminal patients. It's a piece that's well worth your time.

#

Day 5: Catching up with Mike Doonesbury's mom's War on Death Panels

"Don't worry, when it's my time, I'll drive into the sea."

-- Daisy Doonesbury, to her son Mike in Tuesday's strip

As regular Doonesbury readers know, Daisy Doonesbury's "golden years" (am I the only one who didn't know the Widow Doonesbury's first name till yesterday?) haven't been easy. Now, in angry revolt against "death panels," which Mike tries to assure her don't exist, and all "government-run health programs," she's prepared to burn her once-treasured Medicare card.

Don't forget to click on each strip to enlarge. And check here for tomorrow's end-of-week installment -- and for every day's Doonesbury "Daily Dose." -- Ken

DOONESBURY Monday, Sept. 21

DOONESBURY Tuesday, Sept. 22

DOONESBURY Wednesday, Sept. 23

DOONESBURY Thursday, Sept. 24

DOONESBURY Friday, Sept. 25


COMING UP (at 6pm PT): What the "death panel" lies have "protected" us from discussing about end-of-life care

#