Terry
Shut the $%$ Up!
- Jan 15, 2009
- 5,222
- 1,137
- 48
You have a stomach made of iron also. Heck when I hear obama I have to hit mute or change the channel.I feel like I'm watching an infomercial that I've seen before.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You have a stomach made of iron also. Heck when I hear obama I have to hit mute or change the channel.I feel like I'm watching an infomercial that I've seen before.
Yeah I love how she started with "I've read the Senate Bill" and then proceeded to tell everyone "There is no Senate Bill".McCaskill Townhall on Live Now
3 versions of the bill in the house, none voted on yet. now she speaks of a Senate bill, but I thought Specter said there was no Senate bill yet. Puzzled!
You have a stomach made of iron also. Heck when I hear obama I have to hit mute or change the channel.I feel like I'm watching an infomercial that I've seen before.
You're such a stupid partisan dickwad.It's nice to see that everyday american's out there are seeing things like most of us do. They are alive and awake as that 35 year old woman stated. To quote Howard Dean....YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAW
That just proves you are not the only pea brain in America...the 35 year old was an under the bed pea brain...
They should get all those old fart rednecks to sign a document saying they refuse government involvement in their health care...then send the pea brains a notice that their Medicare has been forfeited...
Let's THINK about it PEA brain...right wing morons are so over the top and so out of bounds that being called a pea brain is giving you TOO much credit, it's a compliment actually...
In reality what the right wing lunatic fringe, also known as today's remaining Republicans, are saying is President Obama and the Democrats are WORSE than al Qaeda and less honest...
The notion that the President of the United States and the Democrats would put grandma to death is absolute pea brainism...
If ANY political ideology would even consider placing more importance on saving money over human life it is the RIGHT...and I wouldn't accuse them of being THAT evil...
One minute they're tax and spend Democrats and now they would kill Grandma for a f_cking penny... hey, it's gotta be PROJECTION...you'd have to imagine doing it to accuse someone else of doing it...(takes one to know one)
It's pea brains gone WILD!!!
As has been noted here and elsewhere, a public option will almost certainly evolve into a single-payer system -- and, indeed, that is what it's designed to do. Rationed care? A necessary symptom of the single-payer system. When a single payer is responsible for the health needs of everybody, there are bound to be some conflicts.
Just ask Ezekiel Emanuel. Ezekiel -- Chief of Staff Rham Emanuel's brother -- also works with the Obama administraiton, as a presidential health care advisor. He published an article in January, in a British Medical Journal called 'Lancet,' in which he examines, not only the possibility of rationed care, but how to make beaurocratic decisions on who should get limited treatments. (via RightSoup)
E. Emanuel is also, as of March, a member of the Federal Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research -- tasked with determining a "Federal system for withdrawing care." He seems more than up to the task.
Writes Emanuel:
Quote:
Such an approach accepts a two-tiered health system-some citizens will receive only basic services while others will receive both basic and some discretionary health services 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 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.
Scary enough. It gets worse.
Quote:
When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated. This may be justified by public opinion, since broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over very elderly people.
Under the Ezekiel Emanuel plan, the infants and the elderly sit rather uncomfortably at the bottom of the food chain, while young adults take precedents over adolescents.
You have a stomach made of iron also. Heck when I hear obama I have to hit mute or change the channel.I feel like I'm watching an infomercial that I've seen before.
You have a stomach made of iron also. Heck when I hear obama I have to hit mute or change the channel.I feel like I'm watching an infomercial that I've seen before.
Let's THINK about it PEA brain...right wing morons are so over the top and so out of bounds that being called a pea brain is giving you TOO much credit, it's a compliment actually...
In reality what the right wing lunatic fringe, also known as today's remaining Republicans, are saying is President Obama and the Democrats are WORSE than al Qaeda and less honest...
The notion that the President of the United States and the Democrats would put grandma to death is absolute pea brainism...
If ANY political ideology would even consider placing more importance on saving money over human life it is the RIGHT...and I wouldn't accuse them of being THAT evil...
One minute they're tax and spend Democrats and now they would kill Grandma for a f_cking penny... hey, it's gotta be PROJECTION...you'd have to imagine doing it to accuse someone else of doing it...(takes one to know one)
It's pea brains gone WILD!!!
Really? I don't think so.
As has been noted here and elsewhere, a public option will almost certainly evolve into a single-payer system -- and, indeed, that is what it's designed to do. Rationed care? A necessary symptom of the single-payer system. When a single payer is responsible for the health needs of everybody, there are bound to be some conflicts.
Just ask Ezekiel Emanuel. Ezekiel -- Chief of Staff Rham Emanuel's brother -- also works with the Obama administraiton, as a presidential health care advisor. He published an article in January, in a British Medical Journal called 'Lancet,' in which he examines, not only the possibility of rationed care, but how to make beaurocratic decisions on who should get limited treatments. (via RightSoup)
E. Emanuel is also, as of March, a member of the Federal Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research -- tasked with determining a "Federal system for withdrawing care." He seems more than up to the task.
Writes Emanuel:
Quote:
Such an approach accepts a two-tiered health system-some citizens will receive only basic services while others will receive both basic and some discretionary health services 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 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.
Scary enough. It gets worse.
Quote:
When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated. This may be justified by public opinion, since broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over very elderly people.
Under the Ezekiel Emanuel plan, the infants and the elderly sit rather uncomfortably at the bottom of the food chain, while young adults take precedents over adolescents.
Rahm's brother and the Rationed Care Lifeboat | The Minority Report
You should do some reading up on the views the czars Emanuel, Holdren and Sunstein.
So, what you're claiming is Dr. Emanuel's article is about how to ration care?
So, what you're claiming is Dr. Emanuel's article is about how to ration care?
This is more detailed in what Emanuel's views are but to answer your question, there's no doubt in my mind that government-run health care will result in single-payer and rationing. And the beliefs of the people whispering in Obama's ear are a far cry from most peoples beliefs. Do some research on these guys.
Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions : The Lancet
(If this doesn't give you the full text, join (it's free) to see it).
So, what you're claiming is Dr. Emanuel's article is about how to ration care?
This is more detailed in what Emanuel's views are but to answer your question, there's no doubt in my mind that government-run health care will result in single-payer and rationing. And the beliefs of the people whispering in Obama's ear are a far cry from most peoples beliefs. Do some research on these guys.
Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions : The Lancet
(If this doesn't give you the full text, join (it's free) to see it).
I feel really bad, I called you a pea brain, and as as it turns out I WAS WRONG...that is WAY too big of a brain to give you credit for...
Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions : The Lancet
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf
The article you offer as proof of Obama's death panel bullshit appears in The Lancet; a very prestigious medical journal that's been in publication since 1823. It is a trade magazine (Doctors read this magazine). The article appears under the heading of the Department of Ethics. It is authored by Govind Persad BS, Alan Wertheimer PhD, Ezekiel J Emanuel MD.
It is NOT about rationing health care!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is a study done by the authors that examines methods currently being used to ALLOCATE TRANSPLANT ORGANS which are scarce (that means there are not enough organs to perform transplants on everyone that needs one)...and vaccines that can be scarce if a pandemic occurs...
Summary
Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favouring the worst-off, maximising total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.
--------------------------------------
So now we've established that you are a BB brain....care to prove we need to use a microscope to see your brain?
Dr. Emanuel’s Complete Lives methodology of applying his interpretation of both allocative and distributive justice to healthcare is put forth in the context of having scarce medical resources available. That’s an important consideration when reviewing his Complete Lives proposal; it is not meant to address the allocation and distribution of readily available and plentiful medical resources, only scarce ones. It is a two-tiered system divided between basic (guaranteed) and discretionary (not guaranteed) medical services. Some citizens will receive only basic services while others will receive both basic and some discretionary health services.
So we have to take Dr. Emanuel’s ideas in the context in which they were set, which makes them somewhat less monstrous and horrific than some of the commentary on the subject would have you believe.
That being said, one of the oft-stated goals of President Obama’s healthcare “reform” was to reduce costs and the amount of America’s GDP being spent on healthcare. That certainly implies that money – tax dollars or deficit dollars – will essentially be a medical resource. This could very easily create the sort scarcity that would call Dr. Emanuel’s bio-ethical philosophies into play. Dr Emanuel is, after all, a special advisor to the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget for health policy. He would definitely be consulted on streamlining expenditures.
This is more detailed in what Emanuel's views are but to answer your question, there's no doubt in my mind that government-run health care will result in single-payer and rationing. And the beliefs of the people whispering in Obama's ear are a far cry from most peoples beliefs. Do some research on these guys.
Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions : The Lancet
(If this doesn't give you the full text, join (it's free) to see it).
I feel really bad, I called you a pea brain, and as as it turns out I WAS WRONG...that is WAY too big of a brain to give you credit for...
Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions : The Lancet
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf
The article you offer as proof of Obama's death panel bullshit appears in The Lancet; a very prestigious medical journal that's been in publication since 1823. It is a trade magazine (Doctors read this magazine). The article appears under the heading of the Department of Ethics. It is authored by Govind Persad BS, Alan Wertheimer PhD, Ezekiel J Emanuel MD.
It is NOT about rationing health care!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is a study done by the authors that examines methods currently being used to ALLOCATE TRANSPLANT ORGANS which are scarce (that means there are not enough organs to perform transplants on everyone that needs one)...and vaccines that can be scarce if a pandemic occurs...
Summary
Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favouring the worst-off, maximising total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. We recommend an alternative systemthe complete lives systemwhich prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.
--------------------------------------
So now we've established that you are a BB brain....care to prove we need to use a microscope to see your brain?
Dr. Emanuels Complete Lives methodology of applying his interpretation of both allocative and distributive justice to healthcare is put forth in the context of having scarce medical resources available. Thats an important consideration when reviewing his Complete Lives proposal; it is not meant to address the allocation and distribution of readily available and plentiful medical resources, only scarce ones. It is a two-tiered system divided between basic (guaranteed) and discretionary (not guaranteed) medical services. Some citizens will receive only basic services while others will receive both basic and some discretionary health services.
So we have to take Dr. Emanuels ideas in the context in which they were set, which makes them somewhat less monstrous and horrific than some of the commentary on the subject would have you believe.
That being said, one of the oft-stated goals of President Obamas healthcare reform was to reduce costs and the amount of Americas GDP being spent on healthcare. That certainly implies that money tax dollars or deficit dollars will essentially be a medical resource. This could very easily create the sort scarcity that would call Dr. Emanuels bio-ethical philosophies into play. Dr Emanuel is, after all, a special advisor to the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget for health policy. He would definitely be consulted on streamlining expenditures.
Complete Lives System | Reflections From a Murky Pond
You really need to take a few steps back, look at the pieces of the puzzle and see the bigger picture.
btw, are you able to post anything without naming calling and insults?
btw, are you able to post anything without naming calling and insults?
you pea brained corporate koolaid guzzlers
You are an obtuse mouth piece for corporate interests...You really don't DESERVE citizenship... give it to someone with a brain...
In an April 28 New York Times interview, the president spoke of having government guide a "very difficult democratic conversation" about "those toward the end of their lives [who] are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here." Those statements sounded a little creepy to us. Deciding who gets denied care at the end of life should not be dependent on government cost controls.
Presidential health care adviser Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and chairman of the Department of Bioethics at the Clinical Center at the National Institutes of Health, has argued that independent government boards should decide policy on end-of-life care. He also has defended rationing care more strictly for older people because "allocation [of medical care] by age is not invidious discrimination."
If that fear sounds far-fetched, consider that similar things already are happening in several states. As Jeff Emanuel (no relation to the Obama officials) explains on the facing page, a panel of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals this spring ruled that Georgia can override a doctor's decision about how much care is warranted for a handicapped child because the state is "the final arbiter" of medical decisions.
The situation is even worse in Oregon, which has legalized "assisted suicide." As radio host and author Mark Levin has publicized in his best-seller "Liberty and Tyranny," the Oregon health plan last year refused to pay for a recognized drug to prolong the life of lung cancer patient Barbara Wagner even after her oncologist prescribed it. Yet the same bureaucrats told Ms. Wagner that the plan would indeed cover doctor-assisted suicide if she chose that option.
Saving her life was deemed too expensive, but paying her to die was just fine.