posted September 15, 2009 09:34 AM            

quote:

---

What would you advise a doctor do if the doctor can only save 5 of 20 people with his/her resources?...acoustic

---

It is indeed gratifying to see you pull the pin on the grenade, drop it in your hip pocket and blow the ass off your own argument...and your idol...O'Bomber's.

You have now validated everything Sarah Palin said about O'BomberCare and it's "death panel"...including the "evil" inherent in what Doctor Death, Zeke Emanuel and O'Bomber propose for seniors.

I would go further because denying seniors life saving surgery, treatments and drugs to save their lives isn't going to be an "unintended consequence" of O'BomberCare.

All that's necessary is to take 564 BILLION DOLLARS out of Medicare...more than half a TRILLION DOLLARS to make Dr Death's death panels a reality....and thus bringing about the very set of "intended consequences" you brought up. Removing more than half a TRILLION DOLLARS from Medicare is part of O'BomberCare.

LIMITED RESOURCES TO TREAT SENIORS...and others who O'Bomber and Dr Death do not deem to be citizens "useful to society" IS part of O'BomberCare.

It's an intended consequence, it's planned that way, it's intentional, deliberate medical murder and it's not only evil but it's intended and deliberate evil.

You never could think past the end of your nose acoustic. That's the reason I encourage you to talk. Eventually, you destroy you own arguments.

Btw acoustic, we don't do triage in America. That's battlefield or mass casually emergency medical practice.

Sarah Palin was right about Dr Death's death panel. She just didn't go far enough and call it what it really is. It's evil but it's "intended deliberate evil". People all over America have arrived at the very same conclusion...the right conclusion about O'BomberCare and Dr Death's death panels...and they say NO WAY.

I suppose your fall back position is going to be that O'Bomber will make up taking more than half a trillion dollars out of Medicare by eliminating fraud, waste and abuse from the Medicare system.

Fat chance acoustic. Medicare is a government funded system. Waste and abuse are part of any government funded or government run system where government bureaucrats are in charge. O'Bomber could have began working on that from day one and given the fact a Socialist Health Care system is O'Bomber's "Signature issue", that was the very place to start...but, he didn't do that.

Further acoustic, "Fraud" is both a state and federal felony offense. Where are O'Bomber's federal prosecutions for "fraud" against medical providers? Not found.

You have a singular deficiency in ability to take a concept, march it down the road to see where it inevitably leads.

posted September 15, 2009 01:47 PM            

Do stop posturing acoustic.

After torpedoing your own dinghy argument; the least you could do is go down gracefully with your shattered dinghy like a good little boy.

posted September 15, 2009 03:05 PM              

you know these ridiculous tactics are getting old even with the people who are right beside you. might be time to try a better way!

posted September 15, 2009 03:56 PM            

Acoustic posed the exact scenario of what is going to happen under O'Bomber's death panel. Not enough money to treat patients when you take more than half a TRILLION Dollars out of Medicare; untreated patients who will die right on schedule under O'BomberCare..

All I did was point out to acoustic that he validated Sarah Palin's comment about Bomber's and Zeke Emanuel's death panel. Which he did.

In this case I didn't even need to wind acoustic up. He self actuated and self destructed by marching himself off the cliff.

Nevertheless, the answer to acoustics question is implicit in what I've already said.

Never mind, let me explain it for you.

You deny the set of circumstances acoustic propounded by denying Bomber and his own Dr Death the chance to set up those circumstances in the first place. You do that by rejecting O'BomberCare and making sure the demoscat majority in Congress know they are going to be handed a one way ticket back to where ever they came from on November 2, 2010.

posted September 15, 2009 04:16 PM              

do you use medicare?(for the 8th time i believe)

do you not know that insurance companies also budget (= ration) services to their customers? why should i, a healthy person who hasn't been to the doctor in almost 2 decades, have to pay $1000/month for the offchance of needing one in the future? i would be covered if there were a decent policy out there to hedge against emergencies. a friend of mine recently had to decide to sweat out a flu rather than pay $150 for a diagnosis - a no-brainer under the circumstances.

when i talk about your tactics, people are getting tired of the same old phrases and belligerence, even the people who agree with your premises are starting to distance themselves from the rabble-rousing. instead of the bottom line of attacking people personally and attributing nasty motives to their suggestions, why not deal in facts and solutions?

how do YOU propose to bring the profiteers into line without regulation? those "free-market" insurance companies have lost a huge percentage of potential customers by making it so hard to get in the door, or to collect when you need it.

first, you complained that you didn't want to pay more taxes so the "freeloaders" could have healthcare.

next, you complained that if the government ran it you would be left out to die.

now that a plan for people to pay for their own insurance has been put forward you STILL don't like it. you prefer EXPENSIVE PRIVATELY RUN HEALTHCARE RATIONING to ANYTHING obama or the administration might suggest.

posted September 21, 2009 08:56 AM            

It's no wonder leftists everywhere hate Sarah Palin. She's a truth teller and that's one thing self congratulatory leftist elitists can't handle.

"Death Panel" and "Medical Murder" ARE the right words to describe what O'Bomber and his sleazy pal Zeke Emanuel have planned for America's senior citizens.

The best "medicine" for these people is to strap them to a medical gurney, roll them into a convenient closet and come back to check their pulse and respiration in about 20 days. No doubt an autopsy would reveal they were in their last 20 days of life when they were strapped to that gurney and left for nature to take it's course...and that no medicine or medical intervention were necessary after all.

September 21, 2009
'Killing Granny'
By Cliff Thier

A virulent moral blindness has seized hold of a substantial slice of America's educated elite. Convinced they know better, they argue for a shallow, illogical, and horrifying vision of people as disposable.

I was wrong last week when I declared that Newsweek's cover showing a baby next to a headline declaring that we're all born racist was evidence that the mainstream media had hit bottom and destroyed itself. It was intellectual arrogance on my part that led me to underestimate the determination of Newsweek's editors to find new deeper bottoms to hit.

This week's Newsweek cover exceeds the sheer breathtaking ugliness of last week's cover: "The Case for Killing Granny." Alongside a photo of an electrical plug. The cover story is penned by Evan Thomas, (Andover, Harvard, Virginia Law), currently teaching at Princeton, alongside Peter Singer, who believes newborn infants can be killed because they lack "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness" and thus don't qualify for personhood.

There is also an opinion piece declaring that America's "character" is less than the "character" of those countries that have government-provided ("universal") health care. It's by Washington Post columnist T.R. Reid (classics, Princeton, who coincidentally is the author of a new book pushing for "fairer" health care).

A third "thumb-sucker" piece titled "I Was a Teenage Death Panelist" (yuk, yuk) argues that we all need to be "more comfortable" with death. It also attacks "right-wing opponents" of ObamaCare for the "lie" that ObamaCare will include "death panels." The author Jon Meacham, Newsweek's editor (summa *** laude, English, University of the South), doesn't explain why that is a "lie," and is content to only say that the idea of death panels arose from the "sensible and humane" idea that families should discuss end-of-life options.

The central idea behind each of these three pieces is that we spend too much money on people during their last six months of life. We all should be more willing to die, say these writers. And, we should all be more willing to "let" other people die (by withholding medical treatment, water, food, air, etc.)

Newsweek seeks to make us more comfortable with the idea of killing our parents and grandparents. The ObamaCare deal they want us buy is that only if more old people die, will there be better medical treatment for everyone else. That is, you and me.

It's a sucker's deal. Because not only will more "old" people die with ObamaCare, but more of everyone else will die too. Because the quality of care for everyone will deteriorate for a long list of behavioral and economic reasons. Clearly, all of us would be at the end-of-life way station much, much earlier in life if we didn't get medical care we need. The same is as true for a person over 65 as it is for a person who is 25 -- only more so. Not just rationing for Granny and Gramps, but rationing for Mommy and Daddy and Dick and Jane, too.

The dishonesty of the we-spend-too-much-money-on-the-last-six-months crowd is a result of their inability to think clearly. In the course of their elite educations, they came to think of themselves as a lot smarter than they really are. They mistake verbal and written analytical skills with wisdom. Surrounding themselves with like-minded people, they don't question their own choice of perspectives and premises.

Consider the 65-year-old individual who needs an expensive medicine. If the government decides that a person over 65 shouldn't get that medicine, then almost every one of those people are in their last six months of life.

If, however, they get that medicine, their lives may be extended another 10 years.

Which category do we count such people in?

T. R. Reid, while saying that the US is morally inferior to countries with socialized medicine, doesn't get around to postulating what it says about the "character" of those countries deprive older citizens of life-extending medicines and treatments.

I'll take a crack at it, though. I think that we (society, you, me, us) owe the oldest among us the most. The world we live in, our affluence, our civil rights, our drugs and life-extending technology, all exist because of their work. The America that we (and the entire world) benefit from would not exist but for the work and sacrifices of those people over 65, over 75, over 85.

All the medicines and all the health care technology that we have we owe to them. They already "bought" them by making their discovery and invention possible.

What kind of country would we be if we withheld the fruits of their labors so we can have them all for ourselves?

posted September 21, 2009 11:30 AM              

does he think this is a serious article? even though i haven't read it the title is obviously a joke...i'll have to go find a newsweek where i'm sure the quotes will read very differently in context.

edit: yes of course. these people are talking about the myriad old people who are kept on life-support without hope of recovery, and similar situations where spending more money will not only NOT HELP them, but syphon care away from people who could be recovering nicely thank you if only the system weren't so determined to keep a bunch of mummies on tap.

posted September 21, 2009 11:41 AM            

The author was commenting on an article...by that name...which appeared in Newsweek.

Yeah katatonic, why don't you...for once...do your homework and actually read an article before commenting...."i'll have to go find a newsweek where i'm sure the quotes will read very differently in context."

posted September 21, 2009 02:02 PM              

did you read it yourself?

posted September 21, 2009 02:35 PM            

What is this? Are you trying to cover up your losing the plot? I believe you were supposed to answer for me how YOU would ration care if YOU had limited medical resources.

posted September 21, 2009 04:03 PM            

You're free to go back and re-read what I said about denying rationing of health care by rejecting the circumstances which would make rationing an option. By that, I meant reject O'BomberCare and his "Death Panel". Reject the principle under which rationing of health care would surely happen.

"What would you advise a doctor do if the doctor can only save 5 of 20 people with his/her resources?...acoustic"

You must have pulled that 5 out of 20 people out of the same place you pull most of your nonsense. Let me supply you with a Proctologists map and a searchlight acoustic.

No katatonic, I didn't read the Newsweek article. I have no intention of reading every article contained within another article I post here.

posted September 21, 2009 04:43 PM            

All talk of "Death panels" is complete nonsense. I've already refuted that one to death, and I'm not going to listen to or tolerate any such nonsense around here.

quote:

---

You must have pulled that 5 out of 20 people out of the same place you pull most of your nonsense.

---

I pulled it out of my head to make a point. You were or are playing dumb about what Dr. Emanuel wrote about, so I was illustrating it in a way your simple mind SHOULD be able to understand.

posted September 21, 2009 07:10 PM            

Senior citizens are not the only group this moron thinks should be denied health care services. ANYONE who disagrees with the majority in the society is on the immoral little twits chopping block to be denied medical care.

Sarah Palin nailed this imbecile and O'Bomber's O'BomberCare Socialist health care initiative and she did it with only two words.

Death Panel

Too bad you are not in a position to figure out what taking $564,000,000,000 out of Medicare would do to the system.

Sarah Palin is mentally sharp enough to figure it out and she got it right the first time out.

posted September 21, 2009 07:25 PM            

quote:

---

Clearly, the immoral, unethical little jerk Zeke Emanuel WAS talking about the United States with his writings about denying health care services to senior citizens.

---

How do you make this claim? Post his writing.

quote:

---

Senior citizens are not the only group this moron thinks should be denied health care services. ANYONE who disagrees with the majority in the society is on the immoral little twits chopping block to be denied medical care.

---

Also completely unsubstantiated.

quote:

---

Too bad you are not in a position to figure out what taking $564,000,000,000 out of Medicare would do to the system.

---

What's that? You haven't got a source for that figure, nor are you accurately portraying what is proposed to be trimmed?

posted September 22, 2009 12:10 PM            

Nothing further needs to be known about this immoral, unethical bottom feeding moron.

Since you are the one defending this jackass, how about you post his own words...which I have read...on the subject of limiting or denying health care to seniors...who do not contribute anything further to society and also limiting or denying health care to the very young because they are not old enough to contribute to society AND limiting or denying health care to members of society who are not marching in lockstep with the goals of society.

Get back to me when you've done that acoustic but I'm not holding my breath waiting for you.

You're just angry and embarrassed that Sarah Palin exposed both Zeke Emanuel and O'Bomber's plan called O'BomberCare.

We already know what President Infanticide thinks about killing live babies. We already know O'Bomber thinks it's perfectly OK to take a baby born alive, deny the live baby any medical services, lay the baby on a shelf in a closet and wait until the live baby becomes a dead baby.

We already know what President Death Panel thinks about denying health care to senior citizens because he told America that it's better to send grandmother home with some pain pills than to give grandmother a pacemaker. In the particular circumstances in which that subject came up, a woman questioned O'Bomber about his thoughts about her own grandmother who did receive that pacemaker after fighting with some of her so called doctors and finally finding one who would do the procedure...when she was 100 years old.

posted September 22, 2009 02:43 PM            

quote:

---

Zeke Emanuel is an immoral, unethical little twit who is prepared to commit medical murder to lower Social Security Medicare costs by setting up Death Panels to dispense death sentences to senior citizens.
Nothing further needs to be known about this immoral, unethical bottom feeding moron.

---

How about the truth, Jwhop?

The truth is that "Zeke" has nothing to do with the health care overhaul bill.

The truth is that he didn't agree with Obama's team regarding health care when he joined them.

quote:

---

Since you are the one defending this jackass, how about you post his own words...which I have read...

---

This appears decidedly like you balking. This makes it look VERY MUCH like you don't want to reveal your wrongness.

I have claimed you took his writing out of context, and you've not shown ONE, SINGLE INSTANCE of me being wrong about this. Not one. And now you're so trapped, all you can do is try to put it back on me. Completely ridiculous, Jwhop. I mean, really...

I'll do a few just for kicks

WSJ idiot opinion writer wrote:

In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he writes. "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 Wall Street Journal, 8/27/09]

Wrong:
At least 7 factors drive overuse, 4 related to physicians and 3 related to patients. First, there is the matter of physician culture. Medical school education and postgraduate training emphasize thoroughness. When evaluating a patient, students, interns, and residents are trained to identify and praised for and graded on enumerating all possible diagnoses and tests that would confirm or exclude them. The thought is that the more thorough the evaluation, the more intelligent the student or house officer. Trainees who ignore the improbable "zebra" diagnoses are not deemed insightful. In medical training, meticulousness, not effectiveness, is rewarded.

This mentality carries over into practice. Peer recognition goes to the most thorough and aggressive physicians. The prudent physician is not deemed particularly competent, but rather inadequate. 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. [Journal of the American Medical Association, 6/18/08] http://www.fresh-thinking.org/publications/JAMA_perfect_storm.pdf

Do you understand that? He's saying that effectiveness trumps thoroughness.

Rationing:
Ezra Klein: The New York Post quoted a 1996 article you wrote saying that some people believe health-care resources shouldn't go to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens." What was your point?

Dr. Emanuel: I was examining two different, abstract philosophical positions to see what they might offer in the context of redoing the health-care system and trying to reduce resource consumption in health care. It's as abstractly philosophical as you can get on a practical question. I qualified it in 27 different ways, saying it wasn't my view.

Ezra Klein: Before you joined the White House, you were a bioethicist. What does a bioethicist do?

posted September 22, 2009 10:39 PM            

“He is a serious oncologist and bioethicist, so the kinds of charges that have been raised against him are particularly inappropriate,” said Gail R. Wilensky, a Republican and senior White House health care adviser under the first President George Bush who criticizes Mr. Obama’s plan as being too reliant on the federal government.

Given Dr. Emanuel’s well-publicized repudiations of doctor-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia, and his calls for a national health insurance voucher system that would eventually eliminate Medicare, Medicaid and employer-provided insurance — nonstarters at the White House — Dr. Emanuel says he is perplexed by depictions of him as a socialist euthanasia proponent.

“You can only call me someone who’s interested in euthanizing patients and denying care to patients by willful distortion of my record,” he said in an interview.

...

Concerned with the hard questions that arise without such directives, Dr. Emanuel included in his 1991 book, “The Ends of Human Life” (Harvard University Press), a critique of a court ruling upholding a family’s request to end treatment for a dying, mentally incapacitated daughter. He argued that the ruling, in the case of Karen Ann Quinlan, did not provide an adequate ethical framework for such a weighty decision in the absence of a patient’s stated wishes.