calfoxwc Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Then please explain why this isn't a legit issue, and why we Americans should not be very worried about the fatal direction our America is headed.. *********************************************************** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCYfWrg4WKY July 21, 2009 (LPAC)-- Ezekiel Emanuel, the top healthcare adviser at Obama's Budget Office and brother of his chief of staff, believes it is "obvious" that people with Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia (estimated as one of three people who live beyond the age of 65) should be denied health-care, since they are "irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens." An essay published in the Hastings Center Report (Nov-Dec 1996) by Emanuel, Norman Daniels and Bruce Jennings, says in part: "This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation 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 generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberation - 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." http://dyn.politico.com/members/foru...readid=2724097 Emanuel has written in medical journals of how health care should be rationed, with priority given to younger people over seniors and over those suffering from dementia, according to John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). Ezekiel also believes that very young children should be lower on the priority list than younger people who have received public educations. Goodman cites an article Ezekiel co-authored with two other men that appeared in the January 31, 2009, edition of the British medical journal, The Lancet. Goodman also cites a 1996 article by Ezekiel that appeared in The Hastings Report. In the latter, which was titled "Where civic republicanism and deliberative democracy meet," Ezekiel argued for limiting health care for “individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.” He cited "not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia” as an example. Goodman offers additional analysis on his blog of Ezekiel's presence among Obama's health care advisors. Goodman notes that the health care reform legislation now being crafted in Congress includes a provision designed to ration the availability of MRI, CT and other advanced technology scans that often are critical to identifying dangerous diseases at a sufficiently early stage to enable life-extending treatment: “An example of what can be done is actually in legislation being written on Capitol Hill. Buried somewhere in the 1,000 plus pages is a provision to severely limit what Medicare pays for CT and MRI scans performed in doctors' offices. This would force elderly patients, for example, to go to the hospital for their radiology — where there are often lengthy waits. Patients in rural areas who must travel long distances to get to hospital-based testing facilities may be discouraged from getting the tests done at all.” “individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.” Emanuel wrote, “An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” Goodman notes that the World Health Organization estimates that 25,000 cancer patients die in Britain annually as a result of such restrictions on medical scans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Actually, I am not saying it's valid, I'm saying why should not Americans be concerned ? Explain - I don't think it is "valid", I'm thinking that the cold bloodedness of the Obama admin toward human life decisions, may very well be similar. There are people, like seniors, who are terrified. Should they NOT be? and WHY? It isn't me testifyijng about it - Watch the video, read the material, and comment in detail why it is completely unwarranted. Hell, I hope I agree with you, dammit. But your knee jerk reaction to it in defense of Obama does absolutely nothing to convince me of anything. Is the cold bloodedness of the gov determination of who is "worthy" of living similar enough to cause millions of Americans to be sick at heart? Answer the question with substance, or let someone else answer the question with substance, and the entire board may very well agree. or not. Your repeated dismissal of the question itself is not an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Jesus, cal. Here you go. Once the Obama admin employs the systematic murder of millions of innocent people, you can start the comparison. And no, changing health care policy DOES NOT EQUAL GENOCIDE. So until then, and I believe I speak for most everyone here besides Steve and T and a few oter Palinites, please STFU already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Either address the CONTENT of the post, or just go knee jerk somewhere else. It isn't ME terrified all over the country. It isn't ME that is testified in the youtube video. Look mz the pussy, I almost deleted this post back off to avoid these knee jerk replies, it wasn't my intent. But Dan knee jerked too quickly. I had decided to delete it, and add it to the other thread in response to Dan's other knee jerk reaction. But too late now. If it is so absolutely uncalled for - for Americans to be terrified of the direction we are headed, and for them to start wondering about the connection, like the individual testifying... WHY? It isn't an answer to simply infer that "It's WRONG because we want to defend Obama." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Let me put it like this: A boat goes over a waterfall, and crashes into the rocks far below. Now, another boat is heading down the same river. Well, the people on the boat hear the waterfall roar, and they see what might be the end of the river way down the narrow valley. And they know what happened to the other boat. Is is valid for the staff of the boat to say: "STFU, until we are over the edge, and half-way down, we don't want to hear this totally uncalled for alarm - nobody is going to 'crash into the rocks', that's stupid" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 hear this totally uncalled for alarm - nobody is going to 'crash into the rocks', that's stupid" What does it matter to you, your scared and paranoid ass jumped off and started the doggie paddle upstream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Either address the CONTENT of the post, or just go knee jerk somewhere else. Let's end this problem now: You always claim I fail to address the CONTENT of your articles in my posts. For the final time, this assertion is false. I totally address it by filing it under "paranoid drivel." It seems nobody else is taking this crap seriously, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 You don't think the Germans were paranoid? For good reason? By the way, the conservatives on the second boat, spoke up, and were WSI trained, and they saved everybody on board, got them to shore, and taught them to find food for themselves. And the boat's rope was brought to shore, and we all pulled the boat in. Except for one leftist liberal - he spent the whole time screaming: "YOU RIGHT WING BASTIDGES, LOOK HOW YOU SCREWED EVERYTHING UP" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 You don't think the Germans were paranoid? For good reason? By the way, the conservatives on the second boat, spoke up, and were WSI trained, and they saved everybody on board, got them to shore, and taught them to find food for themselves. And the boat's rope was brought to shore, and we all pulled the boat in. Except for one leftist liberal - he spent the whole time screaming: "YOU RIGHT WING BASTIDGES, LOOK HOW YOU SCREWED EVERYTHING UP" One of the gayest analogies I have ever heard. It's like a 8 year old making up a story as they go along. "And then a lifeboat came out of the fog in the rough waters and saved everyone. Tiny Tim was aboard the lifeboat and at the end he said, God Bless Us Everyone...." Gay The Germans were Paranoid? You mean the Jews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 The Jews were Germans, K. But say, "Except for one leftist liberal - he spent the whole time screaming: "YOU RIGHT WING BASTIDGES, LOOK HOW YOU SCREWED EVERYTHING UP" " Come on, that was pretty good for instantly making up an analogy. And mz the pussy, you dismissed the question without saying why you are dismissing it. If it is so all-fired completely without merit, it should be very easy to detail why, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 The Jews were Germans, K. But say, "Except for one leftist liberal - he spent the whole time screaming: "YOU RIGHT WING BASTIDGES, LOOK HOW YOU SCREWED EVERYTHING UP" " Come on, that was pretty good for instantly making up an analogy. And mz the pussy, you dismissed the question without saying why you are dismissing it. If it is so all-fired completely without merit, it should be very easy to detail why, don't you think? Your missing the point, as usual. What about the other 30 million that bought into Hitler's game plan? I don't think David Goldberg was a member of the Nazi party. Most Jews lived in eastern Europe, primarily in the Soviet Union and Poland, Zing... No, your analogy blew donkey balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Cal, more to back up that your "facts" are just opinions. Jews killed by country during WW II. Germany was NOT on the list. Keeeeerchunk...... # 1 Poland: 3,000,000 # 2 Hungary: 450,000 # 3 Romania: 300,000 # 4 Russia: 107,000 # 5 Netherlands: 105,000 # 6 France: 90,000 # 7 Slovakia: 75,000 # 8 Greece: 54,000 # 9 Belgium: 40,000 # 10 Serbia and Montenegro: 26,000 # 11 Bulgaria: 14,000 # 12 Italy: 8,000 # 13 Luxembourg: 1,000 # 14 Norway: 900 So answer me this again, why were the Germans paranoid of Hitler? Your analogy sucks yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps Prisoners were often transported in inhumane conditions by rail freight cars, in which many died before reaching their destination. The prisoners were confined to the rail cars, often for days or weeks, without food or water. Many died of dehydration in the intense heat of summer or froze to death in winter. Concentration camps also existed in Germany itself, and while they were not specifically designed for systematic extermination, many of their prisoners perished because of harsh conditions or were executed. ************************** Of course there were extermination camps in other countries. But there were concentration camps in Germany. Read your history and stop trying to play "gotcha". you just got yerself but good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps Prisoners were often transported in inhumane conditions by rail freight cars, in which many died before reaching their destination. The prisoners were confined to the rail cars, often for days or weeks, without food or water. Many died of dehydration in the intense heat of summer or froze to death in winter. Concentration camps also existed in Germany itself, and while they were not specifically designed for systematic extermination, many of their prisoners perished because of harsh conditions or were executed. ************************** Of course there were extermination camps in other countries. But there were concentration camps in Germany. Read your history and stop trying to play "gotcha". you just got yerself but good. You're a dumb ass. Dude, very few camps were in Germany and had ZERO extermination camps. There were Camps everywhere, that is not the point. The point is were what country were the Jews citizens of? NOT GERMANY. lol. So again, why were the Germans who were NOT JEWISH, paranoid of Hitler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AdaM Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 I don't speak for everyone... but I don't think I should have to pay for health care services for dementia / alzheimers patients. Responsible people save money for when they retire to pay for these things, if you aren't responsible enough to prepare for your future its your own fault. These bills need to be paid by the persons estate or family, it is not a public responsibility in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 And just to make you look like you don't know shit again. Most accounts of the Holocaust recognize six German Nazi extermination camps, all located in occupied Poland[7]: * Auschwitz II (Auschwitz-Birkenau) * Chełmno * Bełżec * Majdanek * Sobibór * Treblinka I am playing "gotcha" to show how invalid your "facts" are. Just proving that your opinions are deep rooted psychological issues with made up stories to fit your agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Yeah, the major death camps were located outside of Germany. Some of the camps in Germany were used mainly for political prisoners until late in the war, when Jews from the east were moved to Germany because the Soviets were advancing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Yeah, the major death camps were located outside of Germany. Some of the camps in Germany were used mainly for political prisoners until late in the war, when Jews from the east were moved to Germany because the Soviets were advancing. So now I will ask this again, Cal, why would the Germans be paranoid of Hitler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 To be clear, many German Jews were killed. But the vast majority of Jews killed in the Shoah were not from Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 To be clear, many German Jews were killed. But the vast majority of Jews killed in the Shoah were not from Germany. Sorry bud, here are the totals per country. This was their country of residence upon extermination. # 1 Poland: 3,000,000 # 2 Hungary: 450,000 # 3 Romania: 300,000 # 4 Russia: 107,000 # 5 Netherlands: 105,000 # 6 France: 90,000 # 7 Slovakia: 75,000 # 8 Greece: 54,000 # 9 Belgium: 40,000 # 10 Serbia and Montenegro: 26,000 # 11 Bulgaria: 14,000 # 12 Italy: 8,000 # 13 Luxembourg: 1,000 # 14 Norway: 900 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Not sure why Germany's not on that list. Over 200,000 German & Austrian Jews were killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 You wanna fear somebody? Fear the conglomerated insurance companies whose profits depend on not paying for your medical problems. As hard as I try to wrap my head around the reason why guys like T and cal are so enamored with private insurance companies, I simply cannot. These companies are without a doubt more interested in profits than their health, yet for some reason they lap their shit up like a thirsty dog at a water bowl. It's absolutely fascinating. Is it because they're stupid or are they merely masochistic? Both?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Of course. I'm even talking on just a personal level. What are these individuals possibly thinking? Do they think big business has their best interests at heart? Do they think higher profits for these big businesses mean BETTER care, products, etc., for them? It makes zero sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalls1129 Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Of course. I'm even talking on just a personal level. What are these individuals possibly thinking? Do they think big business has their best interests at heart? Do they think higher profits for these big businesses mean BETTER care, products, etc., for them? It makes zero sense. Actually to a large degree yes: I do not, personally, believe that the government would give two flips more about me than some CEO. Neither one of them really give a rats ass, they just don't. And in all reality higher profits do lead to better products (probably not care, but I don't think health care is a right either). That is what leads to innovation: an idea and the money to produce it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 but I don't think health care is a right either. So being healthy is a privilege? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalls1129 Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 So being healthy is a privilege? To a large degree it is; if the genetics do not compute then there's a good chance that you will not be healthy. It may not necessarily be a privilege, pure luck, but being healthy is not a right. Here is my opinion on health care, it requires Doctors. A right cannot depend on the existence of another human being. Rights, at least as I understand them, are derived from a nature state (IE, without society no one has the AUTHORITY to tell you to shut up, detain you or cause you to give up your mode of self defense). A state where there is no government...rights are lent to governments for the protection of such. Health care, IMO, does not qualify at all and should go no farther than that of a states issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 As hard as I try to wrap my head around the reason why guys like T and cal are so enamored with private insurance companies, I simply cannot. These companies are without a doubt more interested in profits than their health, yet for some reason they lap their shit up like a thirsty dog at a water bowl. It's absolutely fascinating. Is it because they're stupid or are they merely masochistic? Both?? These companies are publicly traded, mz the pussy. They have a duty to increase shareholder value. They are not not-for-profit companies. Any insurance company has to pay its claims, pay for its operations, and pay the shareholders who actually own the company. People who abuse their bodies and are chronic abusers are a drain on the current system and they would be a drain on proposed systems. The fallacy is that one will be able to keep their current insurance carrier and program if one chooses. When the government starts providing care at low premiums (and lower patient costs), watch companies - not insurance companies - stop offering health care to its employees. The only option - the government plan. Obama is either naive or 'dumb' is he doesn't see (and, maybe, relish) the demise of the private insurance industry. Another government controlled entity, perhaps. mz the pussy, have you ever worked for a company that didn't care about profits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Big Auto and Big Oil spend BILLIONS denying Global Warming... and the Republicans agree with a passion. Big Insurance and Big Medicine spend BILLIONS trying to stop healthcare reform... and the Republicans agree with a passion. I think the day Big Something spends BILLIONS to stop change that will cost them money... and the Republicans DON'T agree? I'll be a little less sure of my convictions. How about Big Government, Shep? Big media? The notion that Republicans are rich and Democrats are poor was never valid. It just might be the opposite - in general - right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 These companies are publicly traded, mz the pussy. They have a duty to increase shareholder value. They are not not-for-profit companies. mz the pussy, have you ever worked for a company that didn't care about profits? That's my point, John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 So being healthy is a privilege? Clearly we are born with certain propensities for illnesses. Genetics cannot be denied. We also cannot deny that being healthy involves more than a little 'loss control' - exercise, weight control, diet, etc. Health is not a privilege but it does have certain elements of duty in many cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.