The Unusual Suspects
by Blake on Aug 13, 2009 at 08:26 Political
Yesterday, I talked a bit about Peter Singer- an advisor to Cass Sunstein, the Resident’s Regulatory Czar, and John Holdren, the Science Czar, two of the people who have been advising the Resident during this Healthcare debacle. Just since yesterday, I have been attacked by left wing loons who say that what I have written was trash- but they cannot say that what I have written about was untrue, because those are their own words.
Today, we will speak somewhat of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who reminds me some of Dr. Josef Mengele, the “Angel of Death” in Auschwitz concentration camp. Dr, Emanuel, (that’s right- the brother of the SAME Emanuel that is the Resident’s Chief of Staff- nepotism is a wonderful thing if you can do it), has a theory that in a crisis, ( what constitutes a crisis here?), the lives of the very young and the very old are worth less than those in the 15- 40 year range. This is presumably because these people would be able to do more work for the state, and bring in more taxes.
Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.
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).
Yes, that’s what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.
Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they’ll tell you that a doctor’s job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.
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).Translation: Don’t give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson’s or a child with cerebral palsy.
He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: “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” (Lancet, Jan. 31). (Emphasis mine)
nypost.com
Yeah, but now that they are 65, having been 25 does not help them, in his mind. There seems to be too little compassion here for someone who is supposed to be formulating policy for Healthcare for all the people ( not just 25 year olds). Does that send a thrill up Chris Mathews’ leg, or is it a blood clot- we may never know if Zeke gets his way- Mathews is too old to save.
Now we get to Cass Sunstein, the Resident’s Regulatory Czar, who has some ideas of his own- many of these views are stifling and radical- for example, he wants to radically amend the boundaries of free speech:
He thinks that the current formulation, based on Justice Holmes’ conception of free speech as a marketplace “disserves the aspirations of those who wrote America’s founding document.”[9] The purpose of this reformulation would be to “reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.”[10] He is concerned by the present “situation in which like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another,”[11] and thinks that in “light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals.”[12] He proposes a “New Deal for speech [that] would draw on Justice Brandeis’ insistence on the role of free speech in promoting political deliberation and citizenship.”[10]
en.wikipedia.org
That is just one view that is out of the mainstream, and meant to silence, or at least mute critics of this administration, as well as promote the “Fairness Doctrine”, in the name of “diversity”. But there are other aspects of his views that, while out of the mainstream, would not be foreign to organizations such as PETA, but bothersome in that he is helping shape policy for this administration. His views on animal rights are right in line with those of John Holdren, and bring a troubling aspect to his task of “regulating” in this government.
Sunstein has also written often in favor of animal rights. “Every reasonable person believes in animal rights,” he says.[13] He also says that human “willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings,”[14] and that we might “conclude that certain practices cannot be defended and should not be allowed to continue, if, in practice, mere regulation will inevitably be insufficient—and if, in practice, mere regulation will ensure that the level of animal suffering will remain very high.”[13] Specifically he thinks that, “we ought to ban hunting.”[15] He also thinks that “we could even grant animals a right to bring suit”[16] and that it is possible that “that before long, Congress will grant standing to animals to protect their own rights and interests.”[17] This all stems from his claim that “animals, species as such, and perhaps even natural objects warrant respect for their own sake, and quite apart from their interactions with human beings.”[18]
en.wikipedia.org
What does this have to do with Healthcare? Simple,really- there would be less testing of drugs on animals, therefore fewer drugs able to help us in our time of sickness. I admit, there are some people I value less than some animals, but not in general, and not in policy, that is for sure.
When you combine these people with the other two people I wrote about yesterday, and add into the mix several others, like Van Jones, a convicted felon, and the “Green Jobs” Czar, and Carol Browner, an avowed socialist, and the Energy Czar, both of whom have radical agendas that will do nothing but impoverish us as we go forward, you have to be very concerned for our Republic and its future.
Our liberties are being stolen from us in the dark of the night, and they are grading Grandma to decide whether she is worth the care it will take to keep her alive. Meanwhile, as they decide that, they want to give animals more rights than they give Granny. The world is upside down, and we have truly gone down the rabbithole into Wonderland- although it is beginning to look a bit Satanic in its “answers” to the problems we face.
And I will reiterate the Resident’s own words yet again, because they bear repeating; ” If you want to see where I want to go, you need only look at who I surround myself with.”
Well, he didn’t lie about that, at least.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: eugenics, felons, radicals, rationing, socialists
“…I have been attacked by left wing loons who say that what I have written was trash- but they cannot say that what I have written about was untrue, because those are their own words.”
Left wing loons? Right. I wasn’t saying what you wrote was trash, just that you block quoted a bunch of utter rubbish by liars. You do the same about Emanuel.
You’re quoting more distortions and right wing lies, but what else is new.
Your rehashing of these liars who take scientific research work out of context is just the kind of anti-science bullcrap that we don’t need in the debate about healthcare.
If you want to be taken serious and not called a wing nut then don’t compare a man like Emanuel with a long history of opposition to things like assisted suicide and euthanasia to Mengele.
If you want to be taken serious and not called a wing nut then don’t agree with the lunatic rantings of Palin and her death panel garbage.
Again, what is your evidence to connect Peter Singer to Cass Sunstein?
And I also you quote Sunstein:
“…animals, species as such, and perhaps even natural objects warrant respect for their own sake, and quite apart from their interactions with human beings.”
So what’s wrong with that statement? You mock this as a tree being allowed to sue in court but in reality the argument is much broader and relates to good environmental stewardship and protection of wildlife, something conservatives always seem to be on the wrong side of for some reason.
That statement alone would not be egregious, but to think that “animals could bring suit…” is a bit out of the mainstream, but line up with both Holdren’s views and that of animal molester Singer.
Three peas in a pod.
Also I’m having a hard time tracking down exactly what Van Jones was arrested for and how he became a felon. What’s your source?
He was arrested in Oakland in the 70s for assault and felonious behavior, spent 6 months in prison, came out as a radicalized communist, and then went “green”.
I mean the 80s- wrong key.
I tell you what, wiki can certainly scrub info fast, can’t they.
Check Oakland PD- perhaps they haven’t scrubbed the info.
It’s amazing what you can do if you are in the govt.
On the Van Jones front I’m asking for a source because I cannot find your statement to be true based on anything I find in my search. As far as I can tell Van Jones has only been arrested a few times in protests and never convicted of anything. In fact Jones graduated from high school in 1986, went to Yale until 1993. It’s hard to finish high school or get into Yale or even finish Yale if you do time in the middle. You could just keep blaming Wikipedia for your mistakes or you could just admit you’re parroting right wing smears.
Speaking of which, here is another interesting article pointing out how ridiculous your comparison between Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and Dr. Josef Mengele is.
It’s hard to have rational discussion of issues like health care when the opposition argument is so filled with complete lies and distortions by right wingers like yourself.
I understand, and it is my fault- you have to look for the time of the Rodney King riots- my bad- but wiki did scrub it- for whatever reason, I do not know. however, as far as Zeke, anyone who compares the lives of five fifteen year olds to an eighty- four year old.
Aren’t real Doctors supposed to hold all life sacred, not putting a value on any life?
Or has that changed since I used to talk with Doctors?
And tell me- how much is someone worth? I mean, Zeke even has a graph that tells you , like a oujia board.
Is Steven Hawking worth something?
How would Zekie boy know a potential Steven Hawking, if he and his graph decided to kill him, because he “cost too much”?
Jones was indeed arrested in those riots but only as a protester and released several hours later. He has to my knowledge never been charged with a crime, much less a felony. But I’m beyond expecting you to seek the truth and issue a correction on this matter. Who wants to let the truth get in the way of a good hit job?
The Time article I linked to which you apparently ignored mentions the context of some of the things you are hammering Emanuel on:
In her Post article, McCaughey paints the worst possible image of Emanuel, quoting him, for instance, endorsing age discrimination for health-care distribution, without mentioning that he was only addressing extreme cases like organ donation, where there is an absolute scarcity of resources. She quotes him discussing the denial of care for people with dementia without revealing that Emanuel only mentioned dementia in a discussion of theoretical approaches, not an endorsement of a particular policy. She notes that he has criticized medical culture for trying to do everything for a patient, “regardless of the cost or effects on others,” without making clear that he was not speaking of lifesaving care but of treatments with little demonstrated value.
We’re talking about a man with 25 years of respected medical history, not some kooky death doctor. It’s like you believe researchers cannot discuss anything in their work that they don’t fully support and wish to implement in the Obama administration.
This is the kind of brainless regurgitation of lies that destroys your credibility weekly on this site…
I am sure that Josef Mengele had many years of “respected medical history” before he succumbed to the dark side also.
EVERY ONE of the people I have described are extreme proponents of RATIONED CARE. They are also advocates of eugenics and other extreme healthcare problems. Single payer govt. option? No problem. Why? It gives THESE PEOPLE more control over our lives- not a good thing.
Extreme proponents of rationing, advocating eugenics? You are a huge liar, man.
Peter Singer? Rationing, yes. Eugenics? Who knows? But you’ve been unable to prove the link to so-called “Obamacare.” I cannot find a source to link him as “an advisor to Cass Sunstein” so let’s have it since you said it.
John Holdren? I fail to see how he believes in rationing, much less eugenics. Your only point is a few quotes from a few pages from 1 chapter in a textbook which he was one of 3 authors 32 years ago. You’re basically saying that when scientists write textbooks they support 100% every theory inside and want it to be applied still decades later. There can be no discussion of theories and worst case scenarios without those scientists being extreme proponents of said scenarios, right?
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel? Sure, you have out of context quotes where he talks about rationing. So again, surely a Doctor would never publish theories and discuss forms of rationing without being an extreme proponent of rationing, right? Never mind his decades of work as an opponent of things like assisted suicide and euthanasia, you’d rather just make an asinine comparison of Emanuel to Mengele, one of the most evil doctors to ever live. Good work.
Cass Sunstein? I can find no opinion on rationing or eugenics. He’s a lawyer and an animal rights activist, neither of which you consider real work or a real cause, but that doesn’t make him an extreme proponent of rationed care.
Van Jones? You call him a felon and a communist, both of which are flat out lies which you refuse to admit you made a mistake about. But is Jones extreme proponent of health care rationing? No. You just wanted to tout a commie and a felon but you just came out looking like a fool.
Carol Browner? No, another one you just wanted to demonize.
So I could sum up your 2 part hit piece:
LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE COMPARE TO NAZIS LIE LIE LIE OBFUSCATE LIE LIE BLOVIATE LIE LIE LIE DENY DENY DENY IGNORE LIE LIE LIE
Calm down- take a ritalin, find your happy place.
Carol Browner is a committed Socialist and indeed headed a Socialist organization until she was tapped for Hussein’s Czarships.
I stand by my words about Singer, Sunstein,and Holdren, as well as those of Emanuel.
I will go so far as to retract my words about Van Jones, with the stipulation that when I find the evidence again, I will retract my retraction.
Oh- they ARE kinda like Nazis, aren’t they?
To you, everything I say is “out of context, half- truths, and old news”- well, they are the ones who said it, and perhaps they have changed their views, but IF NOT, their philosophies suck like a wind tunnel, and if you hold these people up as any kind of example for people to follow, you are just as nuts as they are.
You keep missing the point. Only one person you list actually believes what you quote them as believing and that person has no clear connection to the healthcare policy by the Obama administration. The others are simply accused of having a stance because they mention a certain stance in research or a textbook from decades ago. It would be like me writing a book about how water will need to be rationed in the future because of some series of events that may or may not happen and you turning around and saying “Adam supports water rationing.” Hardly, and you know it. This is a pack of lies, bottom line.
Look at the radicals he has picked. I think if they try any of the life rationing we should eliminate them first (and anyone who supported them).
When John Holdren believes in putting sterilants into our drinking water, as a way to ration the number of people, I say he qualifies.
Cass Sunstein believes in rationing, Carol Browner has stated on numerous occasions that what we must do is to learn to do with less- what does that sound like to you?
Singer also believes in rationing, and Emanuel has a chart whereby you can see that Granny will get less to no care, and has spoken about the NEED to ration.
If this bill passes, there will be rationing- that will be a fact, no matter how you spin it.
It is not a lie to say they all support rationing- even the Resident supports rationing, and if this is passed, then your granny might not get the meds she needs simply because the govt. has deemed that she is not worth it, plain and simple.
When Sarah Palin talked about death panel, she didn’t mean that the govt. would go around clubbing seniors like harp seals, but that while they might pay for meds to allow you to “slip away”, they wouldn’t pay to do much more.
The fact that this would be a government decision is a troubling one on several levels, and if it doesn’t trouble you, you must not have relatives older than you.
This possibility bothers me- it bothers me a lot.
It doesn’t trouble me because I’m not hyper-paranoid right now like you and your pals. Palin is an idiot and a liar, and anybody who support this statement of hers as you do is also an idiot and a liar.
I support the statement that just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean no one is after you.
But thanks for the kind words-
Palin is always a liar when she says what the left does not want to hear. She is an idiot because she is not as adept as Obama at speaking with a teleprompter. She is smarter than most liberals who comment here.
Adam was paranoid when he believed the rumors that Bush was going to bring back the draft. Charlie Rangel A DEMOCRAT, introduced that bill but people said Bush was doing it.
The pants wetters on the left were all scared they might have to serve. Paranoid…..
And a bit sad to think that a man would not want to step up to defend his country. That is a lib, live off the work of another…
It is truly hard to take you seriously when you just say “she is an idiot and a liar…” you might not like her message- indeed she might not be as eloquent as your messiah, but what she says resonates simply because at some level people know she speaks the truth.
Sure there might be some hyperbole- granny is not going to appear before a health tribunal, clubbed and bleeding- but there will be death by omission here.
Emanuel even had a chart where he could compare how many 15 year old lives were worth grannys- the number was 14.
Excuse me- I transposed- it would be 14 grannies to one 15 year old.