Sarah Palin is right. Well, sort of. Before I explain any further, bear in mind I’ve long borne witness to Palin’s gaffes. And though she and I share nearly identical ideologies, her political missteps have soured her to me. But regardless of my distaste for her as a politician, I have to admit she has managed to aim roughly in the correct direction with her “death panel” dialogue, even though her delivery was botched.  The crux of the argument is that the provision for federally funding end-of-life consultations is worded vaguely, which could result in a situation where patients may be counseled to end their life.  Here is where I believe she is wrong. The provision she cited was vague and not suggestive enough to be threatening.  Those provisions didn’t explicitly provide us with a “death panel.”  They didn’t need to, because one already exists. It was authorized in the stimulus bill passed Feb. 13, granted $1.1 billion and titled the “Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research” at the bid of former senator Tom Daschle, D-S.D. Betsey McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York, first criticized the council in February. She wrote an article in the Washington Times expressing her concern about the council, emphasizing the vague nature of its power as the main danger. Here is where Sarah Palin’s general thesis comes back into play. Her concern is similar to McCaughey’s: loose wording will result in details being filled in by regulatory czars and stimulus-funded boards.  Meaning there is no possible way to verify details, and the general public is left to frustrating speculation, which could result in widespread confusion. This lack of detail is exactly what’s causing the mass confusion concerning the health care bill.  Sarah Palin made the mistake of speaking of “death panels” as if they were absolute fact and furthered this oversight by using the wrong provisions to back up her position. The truth is speaking in absolutes is not necessary – the only necessity is to be honest about the ambiguity of the provisions in the bill and to speak of this in conjunction with the truth about Daschle’s Council. This is especially significant because the elasticity of the syntax in the health care bill is directly correlated to the council’s empowerment. The next logical step is to investigate the persuasions of council members. Careful examination unearths disturbing philosophies which, empowered by loose legislative wording, could easily turn Daschle’s council into a “death panel” equivalent. Daschle has outlined a formula for the board to follow. It is designed to divide the cost of treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit to “slow costly medical advancement and consumption.”  Considering this, it should come as no surprise he also encourages patients to accept a “hopeless diagnosis”  because we need to accept the reality that reform “will not be pain free.”  Another alarming ideology is espoused by council member Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who has stated that prioritizing the health of younger people is sensible, because “every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age.”  He also has the audacity to claim his philosophy is by some stretch of absurdity “not ageist” because age is a changeable characteristic.  Given the vague power bestowed to men with such philosophies, is it really improbable to consider a “death panel” equivalent is a reality? Without details, it’s impossible to say with certainty either way.  Remember, the devil lies in the details. Which is why the details are often absent.  Linnie Leavines is a 19-year-old mass communication sophomore from Central City. Follow her on Twitter @TDR_lleavines.– – – -Contact Linnie Leavines at [email protected]