You're making a large accusation, so lets see your evidence. Come on, cough it up.

Even the Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee don't comprehend it.  They today managed to get the 'end-of-life consultation' provision dropped from their mark-up of the bill, ascribing the motive for the change to the 'death panel' characterization backlash.  The sad thing is that this is a meaningless concession.  We already have provisions for end-of-life counseling and 'giving this up' in the bill will be touted as 'listening to the people' without dealing with the real issue embodied in the 'death panel' moniker.

Of course, there's no indication they've taken another look at Section 123.  The 'death panel' is still there.  They've attempted to treat a symptom without bothering to treat the disease (which would require major surgery - a deathpanelectomy).

They are probably the same, but this is the one I'm referencing.

Zeke Emanuel has responded via ABC News, courtesy of HuffPo.

He, too, resorts to the misdirection play and pretends it's all about end-of-life counseling, avoiding any mention of what's really in the bill, as in Section 123.  I also thought it was interesting that Tapper just matter-of-factly refers to Palin's comment about 'death panels' as 'discredited.'  Hmm, wonder by whom.  Certainly not by BO or Zeke.  Certainly not if anyone actually reads the bill.

But Zeke is certainly distressed that he's been 'maligned' by his own words.  Of course, as usual, they were 'taken out of context.'  I will cut the guy some slack as being well-motivated and a compassionate physician and oncologist - his specialty carries a greater emotional burden than any other - but that doesn't mean his ideas on placing denial-of-care and rationing decisions in the hands of a group of unelected 'experts' is any better or more just than having those decisions made by those closest to them, those with the greatest breadth and depth of knowledge of the individual's circumstances.  The fact of the matter is, such a panel will never, in a country of 300 million souls, consider any individuals and will make all their decisions based on such things as 'comparative effectiveness research' and 'quality-life-years.'

I know that denial-of-care and rationing decisions are already being made, voluntarily by private organizations created to deal with limited medical resource allocation (transplant care, for example) and by commercial insurance companies.  At least these evaluate the actual individual's circumstances, and their decisions are appealable.  There is no appeal process for the decisions of the proposed 'expert panel.'

On a more general 'smell test' note, just trying to wade through even a small portion of the bill tells you it will be a worst-case-scenario marriage of Alice in Wonderland and Rube Goldberg.  Such finely granular control of our lives just feels wrong.

Wrong.  You haven't been paying attention (although you're not alone on that score - neither have the media or most of the politicians, Democrat or Republican).  The end-of-life-counseling provision (already a mandatory part of the Initial Preventive Physical Examination, also known as the Welcome to Medicare Physical) and the 'death panel' provision (as it has come to be called) are totally separate provisions of the bill.

The end-of-life-counseling provision of the bill is/was, by itself, not objectionable, provided it really is/was voluntary.  Those defending BO's plan (and, sadly, many Congressional Republicans who don't seem to get the distinction) are focusing on the end-of-life counseling provision, presumably because that's more reasonable and easier to defend, as a way of deflecting attention from the actual provisions that prompted the phrase 'death panels.'  While Palin specifically rebutted the end-of-life counseling criticism she's received, she also made it clear that wasn't what she was originally referring to.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/14/blayney.death.discussions/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/14/britain.america.nhs/index.html

Both worth a read.

Besides, the issue is less the plug getting pulled on grandma than getting grandma plugged in in the first place.

The left is perfectly OK with BO using his grandmother as an example in the debate over 'death panels' but is abhored that Trig Palin was mentioned in the course of the same debate.

Of course, BO is talking out of both sides of his mouth, but that's becoming increasingly obvious to everyone, even the NYT, though they still cling to the fiction that the 'guidance' promulgated by the 'expert panel' to be established will be entirely 'voluntary.'  It'll end up about as 'voluntary' as the tax code if history is any guide.

Where I read about the likely gop insertions in the (my bad) senate one, at the least.

http://www.slate.com/id/2223023/