Well, in that case, you can kiss your balls goodbye then.
LOLZ
eugenics anyone?
by ninja 76 Replies latest jw friends
-
passwordprotected
-
Yizuman
DEADLY DOCTORS
O ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
Emanuel: Believes in withholding care from elderly for greater good.
Last updated: 1:13 am
July 24, 2009
Posted: 1:03 am
July 24, 2009THE 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.
Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.
Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.
He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).
-
Yizuman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWr9rJCMlI8&fmt=
Transcript....
CONCERNS FROM A VOTER WITH A DISABILITY
McCASKILL TOWN HALL MEETING
JULY 27, 2009
I am a young adult who is profoundly deaf with a cochlear implant, starting my second year of college in September.
I would not be able to hear anything without my implant, except maybe a jet engine.
With my cochlear implant, I can talk on the telephone, I can carry on oral conversations, and I can hear music. It has enriched my life tremendously.
Cochlear implant surgery is not inexpensive. Currently it costs between $50,000 and $60,000 per ear.
After this surgery it is important to receive the correct education afterward so the child can learn how to talk. It is expensive to educate a child who is deaf.
It is also expensive to provide services to a child who is deaf who is not oral. Interpreters are needed for them to talk to people who are hearing.
When my mother told me of the health bills being considered by the House and Senate, and how they impacted disabled people, I wanted people to know how that would impact me and how difficult it would be to succeed in life without the services I have received.
Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm Emmanuel’s brother, who is involved in the wording of the House Bill said, “Medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens…” “.
Does that include me? If medical decisions are being made by the government; not by my doctors, my parents, or me, I would be determined to be too expensive to receive the services I need to be able to navigate my way in the world.
This is a bad plan for those with special needs. Tell Senator McCaskill to vote NO.
Noah Logue
St. Louis, MO -
passwordprotected
Scientists know best, right?
-
Psychotic Parrot
How can you catagorise scientists all in one go?
You might as well sit there & write 'blacks know best, right?'
-
Farkel
:This is an emotionally-charged issue, no doubt.
It's more than that. It's an ethics issue and one that goes to very core of what makes humanity. Anyone who even thinks the issue is worthy of debte, will never have my respect.
The United States Government has ALREADY placed a dollar value on the life of each and every American. That value is what the Government thinks our LIFE is worth. Any amount higher than that value makes our life disposable, and that value will be used by the Government to arbitrarily decide whether we can live in their Health Care System, or just be left to die.
If that doesn't make you sit back and cringe, then look at the slippery slope that was created by eugenics. It was fabulously popular for over 50 years in this Country. Leading scholars and famous people sang its praises for nearly 50 years in the early part of the 20th Century.
To many, it seemed practical, rational and "made sense."
Eugenics reached its crescendo in the 1940's. It was called the "Holocast" and was accompanied by Stalin's "Purge." I'm sure it didn't "make sense" to the THIRTY MILLION people who were deemed "disposable" by their Governments.
Farkel
-
passwordprotected
Sorry, which scientists should I point at?
-
Yizuman
Ezekiel Emanuel: Deny Coverage to Elderly and Disabled for the Greater Good
Posted by Kim Priestap
Published: July 26, 2009 - 1:20 PMBetsy McCaughey brings to our attention the Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel's views regarding universal health care. Dr. Emanuel is a health policy advisor to President Obama and brother of Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, so what he thinks may impact all of us. As Betsy points out, Dr. Emanuel has some very radical views regarding the rationing of health care. Take for example Emanuel's comments in a 2008 article in which he says cutting costs won't be easy:
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.
In other words, these procedural changes aren't really change at all. Instead, he thinks we need change in how we apply health care coverage. As Betsy notes, Dr. Emanuel believes doctors try too hard to apply the Hippocratic Oath to everyone as equally as possible, which is what drives up costs. Instead Emanuel thinks we need to ration basic, guaranteed care to only those who can fully participate in society. Betsy points out a 1996 Hastings Center article in which Emanuel wrote this:
This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.
So, according to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health care advisor to President Obama, the elderly with dementia and the young who have neurological disorders should be sacrificed for the common good. I can tell you that as a mom to a four year old girl with severe speech apraxia that prevents her from being able to speak intelligibly, this scares the living hell out of me. If you have a child with autism, cerebral palsy, Downs syndrome, or any other neurological disorder or chromosomal defect that prevents him or her from participating in society in the manner Dr. Emanuel or the government thinks they should, that neurological care would not be guaranteed as basic and would, therefore, not be covered in a government takeover of health care.
Making things even worse, private health care companies will be driven out of business, so that won't be an option for parents with disabled children, either, leaving them with no coverage whatsoever. This kind of policy would drive up the abortion rate, which Obama and other liberals want covered as a basic care, as doctors urge parents go out of their way to screen their unborn babies for any and all disorders and defects that would not be covered under basic care. If a child's disorder is undetected by prenatal testing, what happens when the disorder becomes obvious after birth? I shudder to think what the government would come up with then.
Emanuel's policies would lead to a further deterioration of our nation's culture as people begin to look at those with disabilities as objects that drive up collective health care costs instead of as individual human beings who have intrinsic value and rights endowed to them by God.
-
Farkel
Don't believe me about eugenics? Don't believe me about the Government defining whether we deserve to live or die based upon how much THEY think WE are "worth" in dollars? Read this:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32904
Dems Won’t Sign On to 'Obamacare'
by Connie Hair
07/29/2009
Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) is a practicing family physician of 33 years. He is serving his freshman term in the House, first elected to Congress in late elections from the Bayou State in December of last year. Fleming currently practices medicine in Minden, La.
Last week, Fleming introduced House Resolution 615 which would oblige any member of Congress voting in favor of a government run health care bill to leave their private insurance plan and join the Democrats’ “public option” boondoggle.
Any member of Congress who votes against Obamacare wouldn’t be obliged to sign up for it but those who do, would. So far, Fleming told me, the entire Republican leadership has signed his Fleming pledge.
I asked him how many Democrats have signed the pledge. “Despite reaching out to the Democrats, including the Speaker, we’ve had no Democrats sign up for it.”
“Americans know that there’s a disconnect between the American people and Congress,” Fleming continued. “Congress and Washington in general have become sort of a ruling elite. We have a bad habit of passing laws that subject the population to all sorts of problems and headaches, yet we exempt ourselves. So I think it’s time the American people hold Congress accountable. If Congress thinks that there should be a public plan, which would effectually lead to Canadian-style/United Kingdom-style socialized medicine, then they should be the first to sign up for it.”
Since he is intimately familiar with health insurance, and having recently signed up for his Congressional benefits, I asked Fleming talked about claims Democrat members were making from the House floor yesterday that their health care bill would offer the same plans that a member of Congress gets to choose from.
“That is absolutely incorrect,” Fleming said. “The public option plan is what people on Medicaid have today. Government funded, government run, government regulations, very restricted, one-size-fits-all. What we have in Congress today in the Federal Employees Benefits Plan is really an exchange. I can go on an internet site and I can choose from hundreds of private insurance plans. In fact, the private insurance plan that I’m on is Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana, which is no better, no less certainly, than any other good private plan, but it is a private insurance plan. It is not a government plan.”
“To suggest that somehow Congressional members are under a government run healthcare plan, that is not the truth,” Fleming said. “We enjoy private insurance and will continue to do so even under the Democrats’ plan even though most of the nation will be pulled off of private insurance and onto a Medicare-style insurance program.”
President Obama yesterday assured an AARP tele-town hall audience that Medicare would not experience cuts under the Democrat plan, yet admittedly Obama doesn’t actually know what’s in the bill. I asked Fleming to clarify and if there were cuts in Medicare or any risk to coverage to the elderly under the Democrats’ government run plan.
“I think that seniors have the most to lose out of this,” Fleming said. “The bill takes out of Medicare $400 billion dollars over the next 10 years for things provided to seniors. What the President is saying here, I think in a dishonest way, is we’re going to take money out of Medicare because you don’t really need it. We’ve figured out a way that we can get that care to you more cost efficiently. But the fact is that there’s no government run insurance program in the United States or any other country where that’s ever been true. The nature of government itself is that it causes an explosion of fraud, waste and abuse. Anytime a politician tells you that in a government run program he can rid fraud, waste and abuse, he’s just not being honest with you.”
Fleming also confirmed the mandatory end-of-life consultations included in the bill.
“The bill also requires mandated visits between doctors and elderly patients periodically to discuss end of life,” Fleming continued. “And if you’re in a nursing home, the requirement is even more frequent. That means euthanasia -- that we need to be talking to the elderly about the fact that maybe they’re using up more resources and that perhaps they should not use more health care resources and allow younger, healthier people to use that resource money. That’s the kind of savings the President wants to have. As a physician, I am definitely against that.”
“There’s going to be this bureaucracy that is going to determine what procedures and what treatments and what medicines are cost effective,” Fleming said. “It’s going to reward doctors for withholding certain types of care that the government deems to be unnecessary care. Your doctor would be rewarded to provide less care for you and perhaps even remove care from you. As a physician and a potential patient, I am not very happy about that idea either.”
Welcome to Congress, Dr. Fleming.
-
passwordprotected
Don't believe me about eugenics? Don't believe me about the Government defining whether we deserve to live or die based upon how much THEY think WE are "worth" in dollars
And who do the Government get advice from on how to determine who lives or who dies? Scientists. Whoops...it's time to roll out the Hitler reference....