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.