Are you an Untermenschen? Sure? Willing to bet your life on it?

[Mr.Fitnah]

just how they should be made.

And how is that?

From what I understand after reading the article, the so-called complete lives system.

Which concludes if you have had a a "complete life " you are out of luck if their are others who have yet to live a "complete life" when scarcity is an issue, is that how you read it?

 

[Diuretic]

And how is that?

From what I understand after reading the article, the so-called complete lives system.

Which concludes if you have had a a "complete life " you are out of luck if their are others who have yet to live a "complete life" when scarcity is an issue, is that how you read it?

I have to say I'm reading and re-reading the article to try to understand it (watching Alien Resurrection isn't helping my concentration either ) - I think it's suggesting a decision-making process that would be applied when a decision has to be made. It looks like the argument is based on simple fairness. But that might be me misunderstanding it.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

From what I understand after reading the article, the so-called complete lives system.

Which concludes if you have had a a "complete life " you are out of luck if their are others who have yet to live a "complete life" when scarcity is an issue, is that how you read it?

I have to say I'm reading and re-reading the article to try to understand it (watching Alien Resurrection isn't helping my concentration either ) - I think it's suggesting a decision-making process that would be applied when a decision has to be made. It looks like the argument is based on simple fairness. But that might be me misunderstanding it.

Swith to Benjamin Button or confessions of a Shopaholic.

 

[Diuretic]

Which concludes if you have had a a "complete life " you are out of luck if their are others who have yet to live a "complete life" when scarcity is an issue, is that how you read it?

I have to say I'm reading and re-reading the article to try to understand it (watching Alien Resurrection isn't helping my concentration either ) - I think it's suggesting a decision-making process that would be applied when a decision has to be made. It looks like the argument is based on simple fairness. But that might be me misunderstanding it.

Swith to Benjamin Button or confessions of a Shopaholic.

I assume that means I can't understand the article so I should start reading something a little more easy for me to follow, is that right?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I have to say I'm reading and re-reading the article to try to understand it (watching Alien Resurrection isn't helping my concentration either ) - I think it's suggesting a decision-making process that would be applied when a decision has to be made. It looks like the argument is based on simple fairness. But that might be me misunderstanding it.

Swith to Benjamin Button or confessions of a Shopaholic.

I assume that means I can't understand the article so I should start reading something a little more easy for me to follow, is that right?

No, they are according to Mrs.Fitnah unwatchable movies.

 

[Diuretic]

Swith to Benjamin Button or confessions of a Shopaholic.

I assume that means I can't understand the article so I should start reading something a little more easy for me to follow, is that right?

No, they are according to Mrs.Fitnah unwatchable movies.

I appreciate the tip, tell Mrs Fitnah I'm grateful to her and I shall avoid them. Having said that I may be subjected to superior orders (from Mrs D) and have to sit through them gritting my teeth.

 

[Ravi]

The article is difficult to understand. What I get out of it is that WHEN medical services are scarce, which they are almost always, and IF medical services must be awarded by some ethical reckoning, then they should be given to those with the best chance of surviving and going on to live a long life. So if you MUST decide between two patients needing a kidney transplant and there is only one kidney, the person that should receive the kidney should be the one with the longest and healthiest survival outcome.

This is probably a decision doctors wrestle with constantly.

The article makes the point that more should be spent on health care overall to reduce these ethical dilemmas.

How things are decided now I have no idea but I'm almost positive the insurance company makes the decision.

But the OP was trying to make the doctor in question into some kind of nazi because of a word he quoted. What a skank.

 

[Diuretic]

I might have to find that Benjamin Button movie, Alien Resurrection is full of blood and guts and here we are discussing "scarce medical interventions"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, again, we're spending way too much on Health Care because people are having too many surgeries (instead of taking aspirins as proscribed by Dr Obama) but Health care is "Scarce"?

 

[Diuretic]

So, again, we're spending way too much on Health Care because people are having too many surgeries (instead of taking aspirins as proscribed by Dr Obama) but Health care is "Scarce"?

No, not health care generally, it was a reference to such things as organs available for transplant, vaccines and the like, not health care generally.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

So where do we get more organs from, the rich or legalize selling them ?

 

[Gudrid]

The Librul Bible, Wikipedia defines Untermensch as follows: "(German for under man, sub-man, sub-human; plural: Untermenschen) is a term from Nazi racial ideology used to describe "inferior people", especially "the masses from the East," that is Jews, Gypsies, Poles along with other Slavic people like the Russians, Ukrainians and anyone else who was not an "Aryan" according to the contemporary Nazi race terminology. The German word Mensch literally means human."

Untermensch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, you may find it interesting that Obama's Final Solution Health Care adviser Ezekiel Emanuel is using the same phraseology when he says, "Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create 'classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on,' but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible."

But how will you know what class you're in when it comes times for Obama to ration the health care they've now made "Scarce"?

Are you willing to bet your life on it?

Emanuel didn't use that phraseology. The paper is an exploration of ethics in medicine in the case of limited resources, as with organ transplants, and Emanuel is one of the co-writers. The phrase that includes the word "untermenschen" that you're indicating are his words are not his words at all. He is addressing the points of another paper by someone named Evans, and those are Evans words. You can read the Emanuel paper here:

Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions

Ironically, the paragraph that contains that quote begins with the sentence, "Accepting the complete lives system for health care as a whole would be premature."

 

[Diuretic]

So where do we get more organs from, the rich or legalize selling them ?

That's a good question, worthy of its own thread I think.

 

[Gudrid]

Well, if you need a kidney, there's these guys in New Jersey...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Librul Bible, Wikipedia defines Untermensch as follows: "(German for under man, sub-man, sub-human; plural: Untermenschen) is a term from Nazi racial ideology used to describe "inferior people", especially "the masses from the East," that is Jews, Gypsies, Poles along with other Slavic people like the Russians, Ukrainians and anyone else who was not an "Aryan" according to the contemporary Nazi race terminology. The German word Mensch literally means human."

Untermensch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, you may find it interesting that Obama's Final Solution Health Care adviser Ezekiel Emanuel is using the same phraseology when he says, "Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create 'classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on,' but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible."

But how will you know what class you're in when it comes times for Obama to ration the health care they've now made "Scarce"?

Are you willing to bet your life on it?

Emanuel didn't use that phraseology. The paper is an exploration of ethics in medicine in the case of limited resources, as with organ transplants, and Emanuel is one of the co-writers. The phrase that includes the word "untermenschen" that you're indicating are his words are not his words at all. He is addressing the points of another paper by someone named Evans, and those are Evans words. You can read the Emanuel paper here:

Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions

Ironically, the paragraph that contains that quote begins with the sentence, "Accepting the complete lives system for health care as a whole would be premature."

Wait a second there Sparky, I used the phrase in quotes so I'm not saying that Emanuel himself said it!

Emanuel ends the thought with "but empowers us to decide fairly whom to save" so Emanuel does indeed have classes of Untermenschen on his mind but it up to Emanuel owns sense of "Ethics" as to who he will save.

And that's the core of it! We do not want Obama or Emanuel or anyone else in government making these life and death decisions based on their ethics.

So by ending his thought by putting "US" in power of these life and death decisions Emanuel is validating Evan's assessment that ObamaCare or anything like it, will indeed create classes of undesirables (Elderly, right wing extremeists aka: Veterans, etc)

 

[Gudrid]

Wait a second there Sparky, I used the phrase in quotes so I'm not saying that Emanuel himself said it!

You cited Untermenschen, then said Emanuel used the same phrasology. He didn't. Evans did. It's all there in writing, dude.

And that's the core of it! We do not want Obama or Emanuel or anyone else in government making these life and death decisions based on their ethics.

From what I'm reading, this paper was written by doctors for doctors. There's nothing political about it. Right now, like it or not, doctors and hospitals are forced to decide who gets a limited resource. This paper is an exploration of the commonly used methods doctors use to make that decision (I believe it said there were 4 common ones). Essentially, it goes into each currently employed ethical system and lists strengths and weaknesses (straight lottery program was one mentioned that I remember offhand, age, level of illness, etc.) The paper then presents this "complete lives system" as an ethical system that incorporates elements of each of the other 4 systems.

But it's about doctors or anyone who has to making such decisions, not government specifically. And unfortunately, sometimes there's 1 kidney and 10 people needing it. These kinds of decisions have to be made. Now you're going to attack doctors for actually attempting to think about most ethical way to make such decisions? That's baffling. And to compare rather heartbreaking decisions that many doctors agonize over to the horror of Nazis murdering millions is just a horrible and insensitive way to treat doctors in general. Along with simply being inaccurate.

Speaking of inaccurate portrayals, have you looked up Emanuel himself? He came up with a voucher system for health insurance and opposes euthanasia. He also apparently is one of the world's top bioethicists, which means that his words influence a whole lot of doctors.

In articles written over the last four years and in a book last May, Dr. Emanuel proposed giving every household a voucher to buy insurance. He would gradually phase out Medicare and Medicaid and “sever the link between employment and health insurance.” Employers would no longer pay for health care. The whole scheme would be financed with a value-added tax, similar to a sales tax.

snip

A decade ago, when many doctors wanted to legalize euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, Dr. Emanuel opposed it. He challenged a common stereotype of patients expressing interest in euthanasia. In most cases, he found, the patients were not in excruciating pain. They were depressed and did not want to be a burden to their loved ones.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wait a second there Sparky, I used the phrase in quotes so I'm not saying that Emanuel himself said it!

You cited Untermenschen, then said Emanuel used the same phrasology. He didn't. Evans did. It's all there in writing, dude.

And that's the core of it! We do not want Obama or Emanuel or anyone else in government making these life and death decisions based on their ethics.

From what I'm reading, this paper was written by doctors for doctors. There's nothing political about it. Right now, like it or not, doctors and hospitals are forced to decide who gets a limited resource. This paper is an exploration of the commonly used methods doctors use to make that decision (I believe it said there were 4 common ones). Essentially, it goes into each currently employed ethical system and lists strengths and weaknesses (straight lottery program was one mentioned that I remember offhand, age, level of illness, etc.) The paper then presents this "complete lives system" as an ethical system that incorporates elements of each of the other 4 systems.

But it's about doctors or anyone who has to making such decisions, not government specifically. And unfortunately, sometimes there's 1 kidney and 10 people needing it. These kinds of decisions have to be made. Now you're going to attack doctors for actually attempting to think about most ethical way to make such decisions? That's baffling. And to compare rather heartbreaking decisions that many doctors agonize over to the horror of Nazis murdering millions is just a horrible and insensitive way to treat doctors in general. Along with simply being inaccurate.

Speaking of inaccurate portrayals, have you looked up Emanuel himself? He came up with a voucher system for health insurance and opposes euthanasia. He also apparently is one of the world's top bioethicists, which means that his words influence a whole lot of doctors.

In articles written over the last four years and in a book last May, Dr. Emanuel proposed giving every household a voucher to buy insurance. He would gradually phase out Medicare and Medicaid and “sever the link between employment and health insurance.” Employers would no longer pay for health care. The whole scheme would be financed with a value-added tax, similar to a sales tax.

snip

A decade ago, when many doctors wanted to legalize euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, Dr. Emanuel opposed it. He challenged a common stereotype of patients expressing interest in euthanasia. In most cases, he found, the patients were not in excruciating pain. They were depressed and did not want to be a burden to their loved ones.

Nothing political about it? Do you know where Emanuel is these days? He sits at the right hand of King Obama and whispers his thoughts on health care into Obama's oversized ears! That's as political as you get!

I'm glad EE hasn't been a disciple of Josef Mengele 100% of the time, but Emanuel's remarks on letting "us" decide how to allocate scares resources merited investigation. Obama shielded him from scrutiny by making him a Death Czar which leads me to believe there's something to hide.

It's like Mohamed Atta signing up for flying lessons all over again. I'd rather be safe than have to go look for my parents and elderly relatives in some HHS FEMA camp especially since my father has been labeled a Right Wing Extremist

 

[Gudrid]

[

Nothing political about it? Do you know where Emanuel is these days? He sits at the right hand of King Obama and whispers his thoughts on health care into Obama's oversized ears! That's as political as you get!

There's nothing political about the paper. Zero. Nada. Skim through the damn thing. Did you bother to do that?

I'm glad EE hasn't been a disciple of Josef Mengele 100% of the time, but Emanuel's remarks on letting "us" decide how to allocate scares resources merited investigation.

Of course they did. And now it's been investigated, and you can clearly see that the "us" is the readers of the medical journals that this world-famous bioethicist was writing for. In other words, doctors. You didn't eve read that last post in its entirety, much less the paper, and yet you're making nasty comparisons. Ignorance is not your friend.

It's like Mohamed Atta signing up for flying lessons all over again.

You're comparing doctors to terrorists now? Twisted and unethical.

I will pray for you, that if you ever are in a situation where you need an organ transplant, I pray that your doctor is less willing to compromise ethical behavior for political goals than you clearly are willing to do. And as far as I'm concerned, the willingness to equate doctors with nazis and terrorists is sick, and I no longer wish to converse with you.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I believe that the public option will lead to single payer with uncle calling all the shots. How are they going to control costs? Taxes, rationing or both. When rationing - either money or procedures - how are they going to decide who gets what? Complete Lives Systems. It's all connected.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

[

Nothing political about it? Do you know where Emanuel is these days? He sits at the right hand of King Obama and whispers his thoughts on health care into Obama's oversized ears! That's as political as you get!

There's nothing political about the paper. Zero. Nada. Skim through the damn thing. Did you bother to do that?

I'm glad EE hasn't been a disciple of Josef Mengele 100% of the time, but Emanuel's remarks on letting "us" decide how to allocate scares resources merited investigation.

Of course they did. And now it's been investigated, and you can clearly see that the "us" is the readers of the medical journals that this world-famous bioethicist was writing for. In other words, doctors. You didn't eve read that last post in its entirety, much less the paper, and yet you're making nasty comparisons. Ignorance is not your friend.

It's like Mohamed Atta signing up for flying lessons all over again.

You're comparing doctors to terrorists now? Twisted and unethical.

I will pray for you, that if you ever are in a situation where you need an organ transplant, I pray that your doctor is less willing to compromise ethical behavior for political goals than you clearly are willing to do. And as far as I'm concerned, the willingness to equate doctors with nazis and terrorists is sick, and I no longer wish to converse with you.

Sweetheart, I found the Lancet article, read the whole thing and was the first to post it here which is why EE's remarks should terrify people even those with their face buried ears deep in the Obama Kool Aid can.

Obama has EE, John Holdren and Cass Sunstein advising him on how to save money not by switching to GEICO but by implementing some still hidden plan to make health care scarce.

I see it like Mohamed Atta back at flight school