"Comparative Effectiveness Center" in Reconciliation bill - oh you mean rationing

[VaYank5150]

Strange, I think the same about you
Funny how that works

You DO realize how stupid you look when you read the actual language of the bill and STILL try to deny and make up shit that fits your agenda, right?

Truth is the worst enemy of the left

Still looking for ANY truth in your original post. Let me know when someone finds any.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Strange, I think the same about you
Funny how that works

You DO realize how stupid you look when you read the actual language of the bill and STILL try to deny and make up shit that fits your agenda, right?

Truth is the worst enemy of the left

Still looking for ANY truth in your original post. Let me know when someone finds any.

Still looking for ANY argument that proves the original post is wrong. Let me know when someone finds any, as well

 

[VaYank5150]

Strange, I think the same about you
Funny how that works

You DO realize how stupid you look when you read the actual language of the bill and STILL try to deny and make up shit that fits your agenda, right?

Truth is the worst enemy of the left

Still looking for ANY truth in your original post. Let me know when someone finds any.

Still looking for ANY argument that proves the original post is wrong. Let me know when someone finds any, as well

That's too easy. Please show me in the language of the bill, any reference to rationing.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Still looking for ANY truth in your original post. Let me know when someone finds any.

Still looking for ANY argument that proves the original post is wrong. Let me know when someone finds any, as well

That's too easy. Please show me in the language of the bill, any reference to rationing.

I have already presented it
It is your job to show why it will not or I am wrong that the gov't will not make rationing decisions about healthcare. Who knows, maybe this is not a world of limited resources and the gov't will be able to give everything and anything to the people and not have to make any decisions on the allocation of scarce resources

I know the left "intelligentsia" is traditionally use to others doing the hard work; but I do believe that you would benefit a lot if you actually tried to form an argument

Here let me help....

We could call them "Life Enhancement Centers" instead
and then give out a picture of our Most Great Leader Papa Obama for people to look
at to "calm" them down

We could also tell people don't call it or think of it as rationing call it "Better choices for Better people"


Hope that helps

 

[VaYank5150]

Still looking for ANY argument that proves the original post is wrong. Let me know when someone finds any, as well

That's too easy. Please show me in the language of the bill, any reference to rationing.

I have already presented it
It is your job to show why it will not or I am wrong that the gov't will not make rationing decisions about healthcare. Who knows, maybe this is not a world of limited resources and the gov't will be able to give everything and anything to the people and not have to make any decisions on the allocation of scarce resources

I know the left "intelligentsia" is traditionally use to others doing the hard work; but I do believe that you would benefit a lot if you actually tried to form an argument

Here let me help....

We could call them "Life Enhancement Centers" instead
and then give out a picture of our Most Great Leader Papa Obama for people to look
at to "calm" them down

We could also tell people don't call it or think of it as rationing call it "Better choices for Better people"


Hope that helps

Again, too easy. If it DOES NOT state that any rationing will take place, then no rationing can take place. Think of this like Sarah Palin's bullshit about "death panels". Just because you want to use scare tactics like the good GOPer you are, without facts, you have nothing, strawman.

 

[Neotrotsky]

That's too easy. Please show me in the language of the bill, any reference to rationing.

I have already presented it
It is your job to show why it will not or I am wrong that the gov't will not make rationing decisions about healthcare. Who knows, maybe this is not a world of limited resources and the gov't will be able to give everything and anything to the people and not have to make any decisions on the allocation of scarce resources

I know the left "intelligentsia" is traditionally use to others doing the hard work; but I do believe that you would benefit a lot if you actually tried to form an argument

Here let me help....

We could call them "Life Enhancement Centers" instead
and then give out a picture of our Most Great Leader Papa Obama for people to look
at to "calm" them down

We could also tell people don't call it or think of it as rationing call it "Better choices for Better people"


Hope that helps

Again, too easy. If it DOES NOT state that any rationing will take place, then no rationing can take place. Think of this like Sarah Palin's bullshit about "death panels". Just because you want to use scare tactics like the good GOPer you are, without facts, you have nothing, strawman.

Yes they use euphemisms
You know "Better Choices for Better People"

So where is you argument

 

[Murf76]

"Comparative Effectiveness Research" is just another step along the path to socialist Single-Payer. Everything these assholes are doing is about sneaking their ******* Trojan Horse through the back door.
I'm disgusted. Sickened by these sad excuses for Americans.

There is nothing that makes me angrier than the ugly depredation upon our Liberty this so-called "research" represents.
Even a CHILD could see that this is the framework they need to build their nasty socialist medical system upon.

My own medical record is so bland that I could post it on a billboard, but still... this is the central government imposing itself upon the very workings of our bodies. It's all about RATIONING care, because the whole plan is to have the government as payer and they want a say in what they pay for. They don't want to have to waste resources on the babies, and the old and infirm. These people aren't valuable to them because they can't be used as revenue sources. For these bastards... life isn't innately precious.

Rahm Emanuel's brother, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel was already a member of this "research" board as of last August. His Complete Lives System is a cold-blooded method of placing a value judgment upon human lives. He excuses it, claiming that he's only talking about "scarce" supplies. But hey... what isn't "scarce" when there's no money?
His other comments give lie to his denials anyway. Read every scrap of this article:

In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.

"However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel's chart nearby).

Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."

The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).

<snip>

Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going: "Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity&#8212;those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations&#8212;are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering 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." (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)

(more....)
Betsy McCaughey: Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel Wants Health-Care Rationing - WSJ.com

This "Comparative Effectiveness Research" is a complete bill of goods. People have been told that "Electronic Records" will save them money in administrative costs and lower the chance of mistakes being made. But frankly, they're asking us to believe that an army of data entry clerks and electronic security technicians is cheaper than paper and pen. They're asking us to believe that a mistake is easier to correct once it's broadcast across a government-wide system than it is to scribble out on our charts.

What's worse, they're asking us to believe that they aren't SEIZING our private medical records for their own convenience and purpose; that this is not PRIVATE PROPERTY, protected under the U.S. Constitution. Which is kind of hard to explain considering that today, if the federal government want to look inside your medical record, they need a subpoena to do it. By 2014, any flunkie they decide to put in charge will have access to your most private information.

Whether one argues that a medical record is the property of the the patient or the doctor, one thing it most certainly is NOT... is the property of the U.S. government.

We have to recall this legislation, people. It may seem like small potatoes to some... but their whole socialist Single-Payer plan is hinged upon getting this network in place. It's the linchpin of the plan.
And every member of Congress who voted for this travesty needs to receive their walking papers. They do NOT have our best interests at heart.

 

[VaYank5150]

I have already presented it
It is your job to show why it will not or I am wrong that the gov't will not make rationing decisions about healthcare. Who knows, maybe this is not a world of limited resources and the gov't will be able to give everything and anything to the people and not have to make any decisions on the allocation of scarce resources

I know the left "intelligentsia" is traditionally use to others doing the hard work; but I do believe that you would benefit a lot if you actually tried to form an argument

Here let me help....

We could call them "Life Enhancement Centers" instead
and then give out a picture of our Most Great Leader Papa Obama for people to look
at to "calm" them down

We could also tell people don't call it or think of it as rationing call it "Better choices for Better people"


Hope that helps

Again, too easy. If it DOES NOT state that any rationing will take place, then no rationing can take place. Think of this like Sarah Palin's bullshit about "death panels". Just because you want to use scare tactics like the good GOPer you are, without facts, you have nothing, strawman.

Yes they use euphemisms
You know "Better Choices for Better People"

So where is you argument

Are you really this stupid, or really this partisan? You have an OPINION on what MIGHT happen. You are allowed. However, you should state it is your opinion and stop trying to claim it as fact when you have ZILCH to back it up.

 

[VaYank5150]

"Comparative Effectiveness Research" is just another step along the path to socialist Single-Payer. Everything these assholes are doing is about sneaking their ******* Trojan Horse through the back door.
I'm disgusted. Sickened by these sad excuses for Americans.

There is nothing that makes me angrier than the ugly depredation upon our Liberty this so-called "research" represents.
Even a CHILD could see that this is the framework they need to build their nasty socialist medical system upon.

My own medical record is so bland that I could post it on a billboard, but still... this is the central government imposing itself upon the very workings of our bodies. It's all about RATIONING care, because the whole plan is to have the government as payer and they want a say in what they pay for. They don't want to have to waste resources on the babies, and the old and infirm. These people aren't valuable to them because they can't be used as revenue sources. For these bastards... life isn't innately precious.

Rahm Emanuel's brother, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel was already a member of this "research" board as of last August. His Complete Lives System is a cold-blooded method of placing a value judgment upon human lives. He excuses it, claiming that he's only talking about "scarce" supplies. But hey... what isn't "scarce" when there's no money?
His other comments give lie to his denials anyway. Read every scrap of this article:

In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.

"However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel's chart nearby).

Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."

The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).

<snip>

Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going: "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. Covering 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." (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)

(more....)
Betsy McCaughey: Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel Wants Health-Care Rationing - WSJ.com

This "Comparative Effectiveness Research" is a complete bill of goods. People have been told that "Electronic Records" will save them money in administrative costs and lower the chance of mistakes being made. But frankly, they're asking us to believe that an army of data entry clerks and electronic security technicians is cheaper than paper and pen. They're asking us to believe that a mistake is easier to correct once it's broadcast across a government-wide system than it is to scribble out on our charts.

What's worse, they're asking us to believe that they aren't SEIZING our private medical records for their own convenience and purpose; that this is not PRIVATE PROPERTY, protected under the U.S. Constitution. Which is kind of hard to explain considering that today, if the federal government want to look inside your medical record, they need a subpoena to do it. By 2014, any flunkie they decide to put in charge will have access to your most private information.

Whether one argues that a medical record is the property of the the patient or the doctor, one thing it most certainly is NOT... is the property of the U.S. government.

We have to recall this legislation, people. It may seem like small potatoes to some... but their whole socialist Single-Payer plan is hinged upon getting this network in place. It's the linchpin of the plan.
And every member of Congress who voted for this travesty needs to receive their walking papers. They do NOT have our best interests at heart.

No wonder you people like guns so much. You are scared of EVERYTHING!

 

[Murf76]

No wonder you people like guns so much. You are scared of EVERYTHING!

I have lost my patience and my sympathy for the limited intellect of liberals this week.
It is YOU, who has offered NOTHING to this discussion, nothing but denials without substance.

Ezekial Emanual has been at this proposed angel of death "reform" of our healthcare system for nearly two decades, and was immediately placed on that "research" board. The bulk of the crappy plan is based on Tom Daschle's outline in his book, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis. With that in mind, are we expected to believe that Obama's choice of him as Health and Human Services Secretary was a coincidence? He'd be in that job right now if he wasn't a tax cheat.

NONE of what has been done so far is innocent. And it would be sheer idiocy to wait on tenterhooks for these fascist pigs to come to the mic and admit to their subterfuge in front of the American people.

This entire plan has been a bypass of the Amendment Process by increment. And it should NOT be allowed to stand.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Again, too easy. If it DOES NOT state that any rationing will take place, then no rationing can take place. Think of this like Sarah Palin's bullshit about "death panels". Just because you want to use scare tactics like the good GOPer you are, without facts, you have nothing, strawman.

Yes they use euphemisms
You know "Better Choices for Better People"

So where is you argument

Are you really this stupid, or really this partisan? You have an OPINION on what MIGHT happen. You are allowed. However, you should state it is your opinion and stop trying to claim it as fact when you have ZILCH to back it up.

Comrade

Stupid is claiming that the gov't will not have to make any rationing decisions like the free market has to when it allocates scarce resources


But, hey it is your story and you can tell it any way you want
Don't change

 

[Harry Dresden]

Again, too easy. If it DOES NOT state that any rationing will take place, then no rationing can take place. Think of this like Sarah Palin's bullshit about "death panels". Just because you want to use scare tactics like the good GOPer you are, without facts, you have nothing, strawman.

so Va.....you are saying the Govt plan will cover you no matter what is wrong with you,and will cover everything you may need no matter how costly?.....is this what you are saying?