Just a thought. Many of these agencies and offices will be staffed by political appointees. What if ACORN, radicals, SEIU, and Chicago politicos (read that “thugs”) are appointed to run these powerful agencies? What if these positions are held by members of Jeremiah Wright’s America-hating, white-hating church? What if these positions are held by radical professors like Bill Ayers or Henry Louis Gates, both close friends of Obama?
Would you be comfortable if a powerful health care office was held by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emmanuel – Obama’s Chief of Staff, who has used strong tactics to force others to fall in line with Obama’s objectives? Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel has written the following: 
“Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years” Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel (Lancet, Jan. 31).
Think it could never happen? Think it’s not likely? Think again!
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel has already been appointed by this administration to two KEY POSITIONS: Health Policy advisor at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.
The “comparative effectiveness research” position has me worried. Is he researching how the government would decide whose treatment is cost effective and whose is not? Is he researching which treatments get the best bang for the buck? Will his research determine whether or not a citizen can have new cutting-edge treatments or drugs before they are backed up with years of success, but hold promise for those with few options?
“Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. “Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change,” he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).
Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, “as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others” (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).
Emanuel, however, believes that “communitarianism” should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia” (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. ‘96).”
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm Read the full article above for more details about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel.
What if these kind of people have the power to decide who gets what kind of health care and who doesn’t? IT IS HIGHLY LIKELY, IF NOT CERTAIN, THAT THEY WILL!
Do some internet research on the radical, dangerous doctor of death, Ezekiel Emanuel. He and Dr. Kovorkian could be BFF’s.
To learn more about the possible effects of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s influence on the proposed health care reform laws read his won writings in his book, The End of Human Life: Medical Ethics in a Liberal Polity, Printed in the United States of America Second printing, 1994 First Harvard University Press. I found his book on Amazon.com and Google Books, where I took some excerpts that we all should be aware of. They follow.
Page 8
In Chapter 6 I will sketch a model showing how the liberal communitarian vision might be practically implemented in the area of medical care. This model proposes thousands of community health programs (CHPs). Each individual would be given a voucher and permitted to join a CHP. Through democratic deliberations of its members, the CHP would have to define its own conception of the good life and the resultant particular health care policies. For example, a CHP would have to delineate which medical services it would pay for and which services would be left to individual payment. By considering historical precedents and accepted traditions, I will show that this model is both politically practical and justifiable.
Page 212
In Chapters 3 and 4 I suggested that by appealing to specific conceptions of the good life, it would be possible to create a framework for addressing these medical ethical issues. And within the liberal communitarian vision, CHPs are granted the financial resources and political authority to deliberate on and formulate policies over the whole range of medical ethical issues by appeal to particular conceptions of the good life. For instance, we might imagine a CHP with members committed to the relational conception of the good life. This CHP would then consider what type of specific policies to have for terminating medical care and allocating resources by appeal to this conception. The members might agree to have a strict age limit, say 72, for the provision of medical services. Those under this age would receive all medically necessary treatments, but those 72 or over would not receive hospital admissions and the provision of all acute medical services, except inexpensive ones such as antibiotics. Conversely, there would be extensive home nursing and social services and devices to assist in daily living for those over 72. All patients in a persistent vegetative state would be denied all forms of medical treatments; primitive and receptive patients (see Table 3.1) might receive nursing care, while interactive patients would be eligible for acute medical services. The CHP might also contribute to a fund for research into new devices to assist the handicapped and might offer to test such devices for companies.
Page 102
While many people have no insurance and are not receiving needed medical care, many others are receiving extremely “high technology” interventions which, in the opinion of many, have questionable benefits. Consider some interventions: Recently attempts to save very small infants, those weighing less than 750 grams (less than 1 pound 10 oz.), with neonatal intensive care interventions have resulted in the fact that “60 to 80 percent of infants died during the initial hospitalization, and the developmental outcome reflects a handicap rate approaching one third of all survivors.” Yet for infants between 500 and 999 grams, the cost per surviving child was in excess of $100,000 in 1978 dollars.” A similar phenomenon is occurring with AIDS patients for whom there is no cure, or prospects for a cure, only palliative treatments of secondary infections and tumors. On average, AIDS patients will consume approximately $50,000 in medical care services from the time of diagnosis to death. The Public Health Service estimates that in 1991 medical care for AIDS patients will cost between $10 billion and $25 billion, accounting for 1.2 to 2.4 percent of the total U.S. health care budget, for fewer than 0.1 percent of the population.”
And the future appears worse. Costs continue to rise, nearly 10 percent per year. Many complain that health care costs are an important factor in compromising American industrial competitiveness….
His writings discuss policy making and he’s been appointed “Health Policy Advisor” at the OMB. His writings deal with cost effectiveness of treatment to the elderly, newborn infants of different birth weights, AIDS patients, etc. and he’s been appointed to the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. Obama chose this doctor whose opinions seem to be putting a price tag on people and deciding if they are worth saving.
Help spread the word before Obama and the Democrats ram this through in September. Do your own research so that you can speak intelligently on this subject.
Posts
