Posted on 07/24/2009 3:06:29 AM PDT by Scanian
THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.
Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.
Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.
Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).
Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).
Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
i don’t know if you saw the report that is the basis for deciding who gets care and who doesn’t. written in part by Emanuel. But it reads out of some NAZI manual for death camps IMO.
“Department of Ethics” pdf file located at
http://tinyurl.com/lsgtfo
The argument that seriously upsets me, that they will use is that someone who is say 35 vs someone who is 65 both needing the same attention but only one may receive for whatever reason. (not enough staff, equipment, money time whatever)
The 35 year old should get it because they will miss out on years of life 35-65 that the 65 year old has.
WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE TO PLAY GOD WITH DECIDING WHO LIVES AND WHO DIES?
You'll be catagorized down to the last detail. This will be to facilitate the government's decision making process regarding your healthcare life.
PING YOUR PEEPS!
Blistering grassroots pressure appears to have forced Sen.
Majority Leader Harry Reid to seek some emergency relief by
announcing there would be no health care vote until after
the August recess.
But is it really good news?
Any delay is good, but Reid’s actions are little more than
political misdirection—a ploy to release some of the built
up pressure while the “dirty details” of ObamaCare can be
worked out and tidied up in the Senate Finance Committee.
Reid’s carefully calculated actions prove to me that we
are making a powerful—even historic impact! Imagine
the day after day deluge of petitions, faxes, phone
calls pummeling the Energy and Commerce committee—with
no end in sight!
Keith, we are overwhelming lawmakers.
With Obama breathing down his back demanding he get this done,
Reid had to do something to neutralize us. But that’s precisely
why we can’t fall for his “pressure release ploy.”
No, it’s paramount that we not allow Reid to silence us.
With ObamaCare now being worked on in the Senate Finance Committee,
I want to overwhelm them with a tsunami of protest from grassroots
Americans who refuse to allow the federal government to increase
their control over us by co-opting our health care system.
++ EMERGENCY Petition Delivery Wednesday!
Last week we directed petitions to multiple targets.
On Wednesday they will be delivered to the Senate Finance committee—
demonstrating to Reid and everyone else that
WE WILL NOT GO AWAY. WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED!
I’m asking ALL members of our team to help me rally an additional
50,000 citizen signers this weekend to help maximize our Wednesday
delivery by pushing us past the 300,000 mark!
Forward this message to 30-40 friends and family. Inform them
about Reid’s “pressure release ploy” and underscore to each the
importance of taking immediate action by signing our petition
and having a real voice in this unfolding and historic debate.
Click here to be included in our next delivery:
http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20491&PID=21718877
As the sordid details of ObamaCare leak out to the public it’s
becoming increasingly clear the true intent of this plan is to
exercise more control over the citizens of our nation.
Take immediate action with me by rallying your friends and family
today so that I can include them in our next delivery to Capitol
Hill this coming Wednesday!
Again, thank you in advance for your incredible support.
Steve Elliott, President
Grassfire.org
P.S: It’s the ObamaCare chart Democrats don’t want you to see.
In fact, they have outrageously refused Republicans to send it
out to their constituents! We have the chart, and we urge you
to take a close look. After review, we’re pretty certain you’ll
understand why Democrats don’t want it going out to the
American public!
Click here to see the contentious ObamaCare chart:
http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20491&PID=21718877
"Social Justice" is NOT justice, just as "Social Security" is NOT security and "Social(ized) Medicine" is NOT medicine! (In other words, whenever a leftist puts the adjective "social" before a noun and is referring to some government policy, you might as well translate "social" as "NO".)
"Social Justice" is NOT justice, just as "Social Security" is NOT security and "Social(ized) Medicine" is NOT medicine! (In other words, whenever a leftist puts the adjective "social" before a noun and is referring to some government policy, you might as well translate "social" as "NO".)
So which is it -
We need to tell doctors what to do because they operate on children just to get a higher fee OR
Doctors take their ethics too seriously and care for their patients too well as individuals and the Government must take over for the collective good
What they both have in common - a rationale for government takeover
Do you have a link or more info on that statement?
That's all I've got.
Since Dr. Mengel, aka Emmanuel, is already approaching his senior years, perhaps he can volunteer for an early death by assisted suicide. Practice what you preach, you Communist bastard.
In all this talk, there is an underlying assumption that the healthcare machine is a given and they just have to feed it more patients for less money.
This plan will cut the payments to hospitals so severly, that they will no longer have the money to support and staff the surgeries, radiation, etc that comprise “expensive” treatments. And after they are belly up from bankruptcy, it would take a huge effort to rebuild.
The years of training for the physicians and all the other medical specialties is a big investment that the Dems seem willing to trash so they have their government control.
What if the medical personnel walk away from trying to squeeze double the appointments into their schedule? What if they refuse to do abortions or euthanasia and just get out of the profession? We do not have enough physicians and staffing now - we cannot afford to tie them up with red tape, regulations, and over-scheduling.
I don’t like it that insurers have inserted themselves into the doctor-patient relationship because I don’t trust that their motives are all for my best interest. I sure as heck don’t want the governement in that role. At least the insurance companies have a business interest in keeping the patient and doctor satisfied. Who controls the government folks and what recourse will a doctor or patient have?
You mean my family has to give up care care and possibly die early so illegal aliens can get coverage?
Not on my watch.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
“Social Justice” is merely Marxist gibberish which translates into “NO Justice”.
Thank you. I did not see page 2 of the article.
I just posted the Zeke Emanuel article in all its sickening amorality
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2301006/posts
Also Betsy McCaughey wrote another great article in the WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574303903498159292.html
It was written by Anton Chaitkin, who is the son of Jacob Chaitkin, the legal cousel and strategist for the Boycott against Nazi Germany carried on by the American Jewish Congress in the 1930s.
I kid you not: what I learned is both terrifying and chilling":
"At his trial in front of the American National Military Tribunal in 1947, Karl Brandt, Hitler’s escort physician and later a leading euthanasia operative, testified that, sometime in 1935, Hitler had informed Reich Health Leader Gerhard Wagner of his intention to implement euthanasia of the mentally disabled once war had begun. According to Brandt, Hitler believed the opposition to euthanasia from church circles would be less pronounced during war than in peacetime.
—Michael S. Bryant, Confronting the Good Death: Nazi Euthanasia on Trial, 1945-1953 (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2005)
The dean of health-care economists, Victor Fuchs of Stanford, has long maintained that we will get health-care reform only when there is a war, a depression or some other major civil unrest. It’s beginning to look like we might just have all three. . . .
—Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, “The Financial Crisis and Health Care,” the Chicago Tribune, Oct. 12, 2008
When Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel wrote those words, he was chair of the Department of Bioethics (euthanasia education) at the United States Institutes of Health. Today he is President Obama’s leading representative on a Federal “death council” drawing up a list of medical procedures to be used to deny care to elderly, chronically ill, and poor people, whose lives are considered of less value. Ezekiel’s brother, Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, is ramming this Nazi-revival policy through Congress.
The President beat the drums on May 11, after meeting with private insurance companies, saying that because of the financial crisis, $2 trillion must be cut from American health-care spending. The companies promised to help him shut down more “costly” treatments, which typically prolong life.
In the Medical Case conducted from October 1946 to August 1947 as part of the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, the United States charged Nazi officials and doctors with mass killing of patients in the euthanasia (“mercy death”) program. Among the defendants, Hitler’s personal physician Karl Brandt created the organization for killing crippled children, and as National Health Commissioner ordered the murder of mental patients throughout the country.
The U.S. National Military Tribunal identified as a prime motive of the euthanasia program, “to eliminate ‘useless eaters’ from the scene, in order to conserve food, hospital facilities, doctors and nurses for the more important use of the German armed forces.”
That euthanasia program, and the rise to power of the Nazi regime that perpetrated it, had been sold to a population frantic from economic collapse and predisposed, from years of propaganda by the eugenics/euthanasia movement, to consider some lives unworthy to be lived.
After World War II, London and Wall Street supporters of Hitler’s program continued the eugenics/euthanasia movement and spread it globally. Under names including “bioethics,” this movement has prepared public opinion, medical education, and government policy to discard the notion of the sanctity of human life that holds our civilization together.
German advocates of eugenics (a crackpot notion of hereditary superiority and inferiority), law professor Karl Binding and psychiatry professor Alfred Hoche, had written a sensational 1920 pamphlet, The Permission To Destroy Life Unworthy of Life, a prime theoretical basis for the Nazi genocide. Binding and Hoche argued that society should cast aside the “obsolete” Hippocratic Oath, that binds doctors to do no harm to patients and commits them to consider only the patient’s welfare.
Obama advisor Ezekiel Emanuel likewise suggested that the Hippocratic Oath ought to be junked to cut costs, in an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008:
“Medical school education . . . emphasize[s] thoroughness,” he wrote. Doctors “are trained to identify and praised for . . . enumerating all possible diagnoses and tests that would confirm or exclude them. . . . Peer recognition goes to the most thorough and aggressive physicians. . . . This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically, the Hippocratic Oath’s admonition to ‘use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment’ as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others.”
The $2 trillion health-care cuts, now demanded by Obama and the financiers, were previously promoted in a speech by Dr. Gerhard Wagner, head of the Nazi organization for physicians, at the Sept. 8-14, 1936 Nazi Party rally at Nuremberg: “The millions and billions that we have spent . . . for care of the genetically ill, is a squandering of our national resources that we National Socialists cannot justify when we consider the needs of the healthy population.
Healthy working class families with numerous children today earn only enough for the necessities of life, which means that it is irresponsible that the state must provide the money for some genetically ill families who may have several family members in institutions costing thousands of marks annually. . . .”
The previous year, Hitler had told this same Dr. Wagner, that the doctors, primed for murder through the eugenics/euthanasia movement, would have to wait for the crisis of the war to convince the public to give up their moral principles—the identical point made by Ezekiel Emanuel in October 2008
The British royal family, whose palace physicians such as Lord Thomas Jeeves Horder had officially run the eugenics/euthanasia movement all through the Hitler era, now teamed with their Wall Street moneybags to retool the movement behind population reduction, especially for non-white peoples. This led to the initiative known as Bioethics (whose U.S. government chief in recent years has been Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel), and to the Obama “death council”—the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, of which Dr. Emanuel is a leading member.
A few highlights will suffice to show the nature of the beast.
• The American Eugenics Society merged with, and moved its offices into the headquarters of the Rockefeller family’s new Population Council in 1953.
• A eugenics zealot in the Ernst Rudin tradition, Daniel Callahan, got a Population Council grant and continual Rockefeller family sponsorship in 1968-69 to found the Hastings Center, in Garrison, N.Y., to push euthanasia under the new title, “Bioethics.”
• Geneticist and evolutionary biologist Theodore Dobzhansky was simultaneously a founding director of the Hastings Center and chairman of the American Eugenics Society. Hastings founder Callahan became a director of the Eugenics Society.
• The Hastings Center is now headquarters for the Obama reform agenda, still under the active leadership of emeritus president Callahan, the Hitlerian eugenist.
• Peter Orszag, now the White House Budget Director, sent his deputy Philip Ellis to Hastings last May to assure the Center that “comparative effectiveness” would be the criterion for an Obama Administration’s attack on respect for human life.
• Regular Hastings writer Henry J. Aaron has now penned a demand for tough adherence to the comparative effectiveness doctrine. Aaron is Orszag’s fellow “behavioral economist” and was Orszag’s partner on the Brookings Institution team for taking down medical care and Social Security. Regular Hastings writer Anthony Culyer is research director for the British Crown’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) the model for the Obama-Emanuel “death council.” NICE runs the rationing that has already killed thousands under Britain’s National Health Service.
• Ezekiel Emanuel is a Hastings Center fellow, as is his former wife and longtime bioethics collaborator, Linda Emanuel. She set up and ran the death education initiative for the American Medical Association, sponsored by George Soros’s Project on Death in America.
• Ezekiel Emanuel’s deputy director of the Federal Department of Bioethics, Christine Grady, is a director of the Hastings Center and a Hastings fellow.
• Animal liberation guru Peter Singer is no doubt the most famous Hastings Center fellow, and founding president of the International Association of Bioethics. Singer advocates the killing of handicapped infants, to stop them from being a burden to parents and a cost to society. He believes that humans have no right to life above that of beasts, and that it may be more appropriate to do medical experiments on disabled, unconscious people than on healthy rats.
• In 1980, Britain’s Voluntary Euthanasia Society founded the World Federation of Right to Die Societies. They sent London Times reporter Derek Humphrey to America, to found the Hemlock Society for euthanasia and suicide. The eugenics/euthanasia movement has now hammered the public for decades to give up their humanity and accept Hitler’s point of view, for example, to assent to the demand that old people die now, to make way for others.
The “debate” over this crime is sanitized by movement leaders, such as when “Ezekiel Emanuel argues that . . . a third of Americans endorse legalization under a wide variety of circumstances, a third oppose it under any circumstances, and a third support it in isolated cases but oppose it under most circumstances.”
(Ian Dowbiggin, A Merciful End: the Euthanasia Movement in Modern America).
Emanuel and some other movement spokesmen have stated that physician-assisted suicide is not necessary, that life-saving care can simply be denied to the elderly and costs will be saved. This will be painless, supposedly, if the patient is unconscious and is starved to death—starvation being one of the first methods used by the Nazi T-4 killers before gassing was adopted.
In line with the central euthanasia administration of the Hitler regime, Obama’s health-care advisors want to set up a “non-political” structure which would decide the parameters on who should live, and who should die.
In his 2008 book, Healthcare, Guaranteed, Dr. Emanuel calls for an independent National Health Board to oversee and cut health care in America, and to approve all payments and procedures.
“To reduce political interference and allow the necessary tough choices to be made,” Emanuel says, this board must be insulated from “pressure” by elected officials such as Congress or the President, and must get funding independently of Congressional appropriations. The board’s life-or-death decisions would proceed without possibility of objection from victims or voters.
Emanuel’s plan is a virtual carbon copy of that put forward by former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.)—originally slated to be Obama’s health czar—in his 2008 book, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis. Daschle demands the equivalent of the Federal Reserve Board, to be run just as the private financiers run the Federal Reserve. Daschle calls for a rule, that all who register for Medicare must sign a document outlining the degree to which they consent to be killed in an “end of life” situation.
Dr. Emanuel and the other 14 members of the Obama Administration’s death council were confronted by this author at their June 10 public hearing in Washington. I concluded my testimony: “You on the Council are drawing up the procedure list to be used to deny care, which will kill millions if it goes ahead in the present world crash. You think, perhaps, that the backing of powerful men—financiers—will shield you from accountability.
But you are now in the spotlight. Disband this Council, and reverse the whole course of this Nazi revival—now.”
The Muslim Messiah and Rahm Mengele have the same goals as the Nazis during the Holocaust; kill off as many as you can as fast as you can. They’re just trying to do it legally without concentration camps and with the aid of the US Congress and the likes of Pelosi and Reid and their thug accomplices.
They aim to cure that and exempt themselves just like any good dictatorship.
Based on the way the article quoted things, this point wasn't made by Ezekiel Emanuel but by Victor Fuchs. Emanual was just paraphrasing Fuchs. There isn't enough of Emanuel's commentary quoted here to assess what his position on what Fuchs said might be. Certainly we can guess based on the totality of what we know of these guys, but this quote doesn't imply support of anything because it is without context. All it does is state a fact. See:
The dean of health-care economists, Victor Fuchs of Stanford, has long maintained that we will get health-care reform only when there is a war, a depression or some other major civil unrest. It’s beginning to look like we might just have all three. . . . —Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, “The Financial Crisis and Health Care,” the Chicago Tribune, Oct. 12, 2008
The author should have included more of what was said. [Not that I'd be suprised to find anyone associated with Obama to be utterly hostile to life and liberty... it's just that to nail these people we are going to have to be more clear.]
There is a similar problem with the June 2008 quote from Rahm Emanuel:
“Medical school education . . . emphasize[s] thoroughness,” he wrote. Doctors “are trained to identify and praised for . . . enumerating all possible diagnoses and tests that would confirm or exclude them. . . . Peer recognition goes to the most thorough and aggressive physicians. . . . This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically, the Hippocratic Oath’s admonition to ‘use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment’ as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others.”
Again, there isn't enough of Rahm's comment quoted here. As is, it is just a statement of fact. What his position is on the oath is not clear in what is quoted. The author would be more convincing if he found a part where Rahm actually says the oath should be junked, and include that. Failure to do so leaves the author's assertions open to attack.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.