Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The right wing appears to be basing their "death to old people" fears on words of Zeke Emanuel.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:53 PM
Original message
The right wing appears to be basing their "death to old people" fears on words of Zeke Emanuel.
I did not realize where they were getting this stuff, then I did a search on Ezekiel Emanuel to see how much influence he is having on the health care. He is an advisor to Peter Orszag with access to the president's Chief of Staff, his brother, Rahm.

Then I realized some writings of his were being used by the right wing to make it sound as though old people would be deprived of care. I have not read the works of Ezekiel Emanuel, but the quotes they are using can be read several ways out of context. It is all over right wing blogs that he believes in health care rationing by age and by a person's quality of life. On the surface that sounds scary, but it is already being done by health insurance companies.

Jake Tapper covered part of this recently on how Zeke's words are being interpreted.

When Academic Words Become Political Ammunition

As head of the Department of Bioethics at The Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health, and someone who has devoted his life to bioethics issues, Ezekiel J. Emanuel has spent much of his career discussing and writing about some of the most ethically complicated issues about health care reform. In 1996, for example, Emanuel contributed an article to the Hastings Center Report, in which he discussed the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed.

Emanuel said that under the civic republican or deliberative democratic construct, 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. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason."

In the hands of academics and those with the time and inclination to see such writings as exercises in philosophy, Emanuels writings might be par for the course.

But Emanuel is the older brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and he now serves as health-policy adviser at the White Houses Office of Management and Budget and as a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.


Another site goes into his words more thoroughly. I don't know if they are misinterpreting Emanuel's intent, most likely they are. But this is what is being spread around right wing blogs and site, and no one from our side is effectively countering it.

Head NIH bioethicist supports health care rationing by age and quality of life

Here are Emanuels own words:

"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. 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."


More of his words which they are using apparently to spread such fear.

Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. 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.


This blog appears to be referring to many right wing sites, but it is indicative of what they are looking at and how they are interpreting it.

The "Complete Lives System

They refer to a book co-written by Ezekiel Emanuel. Again I have not read the book, I am aware that health care is already being rationed and thwarted and denied by private companies. But the right is using this, and we are not countering it.

The basic premise seems to be that since someone or some entity must allocate scare medical resources there should be a "morally" acceptable method for such allocation. The authors, which include Dr. Ezekiel J Emanuel, brother of President Obama's Chief of Staff, and "Special Advisor for Health Policy" to the president presents a detailed proposal of how this allocation should be done. (Using the passive voice here serves the purpose or not having to say that the government will do the allocation.)

The authors begin with a critical review of the currently in existence allocation systems and finding flaws in each proceed to devise their own "hybrid" supposedly salvaging the good and casting out the less desirable elements of the various systems.

...."The authors describe their system:

This system incorporates five principles ... youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value. As such, it prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid. Many thinkers have accepted complete lives as the appropriate focus of distributive justice: individual human lives, rather than individual experiences, are the units over which any distributive principle should operate.Although there are important differences between these thinkers, they share a core commitment to consider entire lives rather than events or episodes, which is also the defining feature of the complete lives system.


A little more on Zeke from Howard Fineman from Febuary. He mentions the goals of cutting Medicare and Medicaid to help with national health care...which of course puzzles the hell out of me because they ARE a national health care.

The Real Emanuel Brother to Watch

In the view of the health-care industry, Zeke is a fundamentalist. He favors guaranteed care for everyone through a system of government vouchers; national boards, he says, should help decide which treatments work most effectively. Costs should be funded by a dedicated national value-added tax. It's the rational way to do it, he said at the Aspen Institute last summer.

..."In the federal budget he'll unveil this week, Orszag plans to offer a fiscal "path to sustainability." But the only way to get there is to cut the growth of spending on health care for 83 million Americans via Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and veterans' programs. "This is the ballgame for our long-term fiscal future," he says.


Zeke would prefer to phase out Medicare by adding no new people to it. I don't like the idea at all, I think Medicare should be opened up to more and more people and fixed to add dental and eye care. It could be done if we were not trying to change the Middle East.

Our Democrats should be out there talking about all this. If it is true that it is Zeke's words causing so much of the turmoil, let them explain what he really meant. I don't know what Zeke meant, but I can see from searching the web that the right wing is panicking over some things he has said. Those words are taken by hate radio and twisted and turned around to fit their purpose.

Educate the right about what we mean instead of lecturing "the left" who run ads to advocate for a real reform of health care.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. On a search of "complete lives system"....more alarming stuff.
A google news search brings up Glenn Beck and Lyndon LaRouche.

http://www.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22compl...

They are able to sway many minds. Our side needs to counter because I doubt seriously Zeke means what they are saying.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
masuki bance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I saw that thread but did not read all of it.
Did not make the connection to Emanuel.

It appears they are taking stuff and hyping it behind common sense.

I am at a disadvantage because I have not read his work, but it is pretty much for sure Zeke's statements are key in their nutty opposition and fears right now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. This was being cited at posts at wral.com yesterday -- 1996 quotes
The discussion thread was closed before I could respond to the 1996 quotes from EE. This is now a widely spread set of talking points to bolster the "kill grandma" theme.

Here are a couple of bits:

"Medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those who are irreversably prevented from being or becoming participating citizens". That quote is from Ezekiel Emmanuel, Pres. Obama's appointed Health Policy Advisor for the OMB. However, it could very well be from Hitler's T4 euthanasia program, which that "patients considered incurable...can be granted mercy death". These are VERY serious issues, and the American public has a right to speak out. Obama does not like opposition, and will silence us if he can. I'm in the process of reading the actual bill now, and I think it is worth the time for every one of us to do so. Also, we don't know if it wasn't a liberal who called and threatened Brad Miller's life for a great PR stunt. I hope they find who did it, however, and bring them to justice. This must be a civil debate. I just hope Americans are capable of it.

and later from the same poster:

cowens, I'm sure you've never spelled anything wrong in your life. The quote is from the Hastings Center Report, Nov-Dec 1996. It is also interesting to note that in the Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008, Emanuel states that doctors take the Hippocratic oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of costs or effects on others...". I have access to these sources because I teach at a university and can research through their databases. No, they are NOT from Rush or Beck.

Here is a link to the thread:
http://www.wral.com/golo/page/1896337/?id=5749696

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Checking the link now. I never realized where it was coming from
Because though I regularly research the Emanuels because of their huge role in our goverment now....I had not checked it out in a while. I honestly did not realize the right wing talkers were ballooning this out of all proportion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. The posts at WRAL.COM are a moderated version of the RW undercurrent
WRAL, once led by part-owner and news director Jesse Helms, still seems a haven for RW posts. I find it a good place to keep watch on how the RW is being manipulated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #5
15. WRAL is also one of the gateways for "news", mostly through AP
WRAL and the Raleigh newspaper "The News & Observer" are two examples of the places that define what becomes MSM news. This is primarily because their stories then go out on the AP wire service and are then automatically part of thousands of other sites and quickly rise to the frontpage at Google News and similar sites.

The worst examples of this were back during the campaign where WRAL or N&O "reporting" on some rumor (e.g. Elizabeth Edwards was rude to her neighbors and is thus not like regular people) would be enough to kick it to the top of the national news cycle.

BTW for the Sibel Edmonds story to receive any national coverage, it somehow needs to appear somewhere that it will then go out on AP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeckind Donating Member (406 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
6. I've seen the same thing
From my local paper's comment thread
<http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2009/aug/07/letter-to-the... /):

-snip- The insurance company only decides what they cover and pay for, not what the doctor performs. As for government bureaucrat would be making life and death decisions in the emergency rooms is fantasy I suggest taking a look at the chart from the link provided below. Ezekial Emmanuel is the brother of Rahm Emmanuel and is Obama's primary advisor for health care related matters.

http://moderateinthemiddle.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/hea... /

-end snip-

I think the commenter got the above link from ncpa. As usual the gossipers are grabbing little bits of info, pulling them out of context and then using them to enflame the feeble. In this case they took an ethics discussion and turned it into an Obama advisor deciding on that final solution.

I've seen a lot of these tidbits of misinformation popping up. I guess there's a lot of right wing emails flying around, almost like a conspiracy. Wait a minute, let me adjust my foil...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. A ltte in our paper quoted the words, just did not use the name.
I was caught off guard that they were using Zeke's words against us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
7. In this video Zeke covers several areas....
Edited on Sat Aug-08-09 04:33 PM by madfloridian
It's about 12 minutes. This appears to be from January when he spoke to the Commonweath Club. He speaks as though he has a whole lot of authority in forming health care even back then. I find him uncomfortably casual about care that is affordable, and people who can afford it.

The topics start near the end of his speech..insisting on more care in futile situations (he thinks families should pay for top line cancer care)

Farther along he discusses phasing out Medicare...and yes he does want that.

Then he speaks of patient responsibility, and I am not sure but what he seems to be advocating is that we demand people eat right, etc.

http://www.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22compl...

This part starts about 44 minutes in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
9. Many more blog posts now referring to the "complete lives system"
which I had never heard of before. They are hopping all over this stuff and turning it into something he never meant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
11. There's really no way to counter this....
Any good academic paper on ethics is going to present all sides of an issue. Even if a viewpoint is presented in a devil's advocate manner and is not the author's conclusion, the RW will still use it and distort it.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. You may be right.
When fools decide to have one source of info, and that source is Beck or Limbaugh....there really is not much we can do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
38. Sadly what you say is true. I heard Dr. Emmanuel speaking in a Forum on C-Span
awhile back (posted about it on DU, btw) and he's very full of himself as many academics can be and what he said could only be understood by folks who are very involved with health care...wonks..that is.

I could see where his comments would be used by the RW and agree it's very hard to counter them. And, there is something about his delivery and that leads to uneasiness even for this viewer who knows much about what he's talking about from having worked in the health care industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #38
51. I have now watched that too. We do not want Zeke as the face of HC reform
Even in context, some of his quotes are a problem.

He also seems (to me, at least) too willing to state as facts things about the American people that are little more than his personal opinion. For example, he writes of the love of new techonology for solutions; IMHO it is probably more generally a love of the latest fad/trend, but when stated that way it would not support his "perfect storm".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cartach Donating Member (361 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
13. Nature abhors a vacuum
Meanwhile right wing garbage is being spewed out to fill it. Obama needs to forget the political rhetoric he's constantly coming out with and get down to a point by point explanation of his health care reform plan while at the same time refuting the erroneous claims of the right. All he seems to be doing so far is insisting there's going to be reform but that's not good enough. Each day that goes by the elderly and those who can't afford health care now are being fed propaganda based on fear and he's losing more and more support. If he can't summarize the details of his proposed plan then he should delegate someone who can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wetzelbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
14. nicely done
You are always well-researched and impressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
16. .......quite a stretch!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soryang Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
17. I hate to say this but Zeke is a problem
Edited on Sun Aug-09-09 10:24 AM by soryang
The lack of treatment for those with dementia and other organic mental diseases is a matter of law in Florida especially in the criminal courts. Acquired mental illness and mental retardation get treatment, organic mental disease does not. This is a huge embarassing political problem for that state when someone dares to point it out.

Zeke is a Malthusian. No one life is more important than another, regardless of age. The issues aren't age, they are prognosis, quality of life, activities of daily living, value system and ethics. By the way the elderly are a protected class, although this is usually only observed in the breach in corporate America.

Frankly, an advisor to the president, whose brother is the chief of staff, has a terrible conflict of interest. I think he should recuse himself from his position.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Yes, he has to go. He may be taken out of context but even I read
his writing and speech as threatening. Rahm is going to be hurt by this also because even if his brother is recused we all know they talk together. One thing though - I cannot imagine a person of Jewish heritage being in favor of killing any group of people. So I give him the benefit of a doubt.

This puts the people at those town hall meetings in a whole different light - at least the ones who are not racist. I also want some answers. My daughter is mentally retarded (developmentally disabled for those who want political correctness) and she is so severe that she cannot contribute to our society. It is costing a fortune to keep her healthy in what life she does have. Government run programs pay for her care. (Thank you taxpayers.)

I am her guardian and there are things I do not do to prolong her life - paps, mammograms, flu shots because she is allergic and experimental medications. I do that as a family member who has consulted other family members. If we should have a pandemic break out and there is not enough vaccine she will not get that either. But I never want the government to be in control of rationing her or my care. This has got to be left to the individual and their family. Yes, I know that many will not think of others when it comes to sharing the care but so be it.

If President Obama wants to get a good health care programs set up then I suggest that Medicare/Medicaid be combined to create the public option and go with that. No denials of care because of preexisting illnesses and protect those who move from one job to the next. Quit playing around with Zeke's fancy ideas. We need a Medicare/Medicaid like program NOW.

Enough is enough.

I thank the OP for bringing this to our attention and I cannot believe that President Obama does not see the conflict of interest issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
31. i agree with you.

also, his idea of decimating Medicare/Medicaid/etc is absolutely atrocious and obscene.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #17
50. Rahm is a huge "problem", himself, as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
18. check out his JAMA article in ?Oct 08
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Does anyone have a link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. try this--
http://www.ipalc.org/Healthcare_Policy/The%20Perfect%20... (JAMA%202008).pdf



Looks like it's too long to fit on one line. Copy and paste?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Do you have the name of the article?
The link doesn't work, and I can't find it on a search.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. yes, "The Perfect Storm of Overutilization".
perhaps google the title. It comes up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. I got it by manually pasting the "text" part into the end of the URI
I will see if the moderators can fix this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #21
41. It's the parentheses - they often cause problems in URLs
You need to replace them with '%28' and '%29' (you'll often see Wikipedia links using this, for instance). It's the same idea as the '%20' that turns up in that URL too - that's a space.

Thus:
ipalc.org/Healthcare_Policy/The%20Perfect%20Storm%20of%20Overutilization%20%28JAMA%202008%29.pdf

comes out as:

http://www.ipalc.org/Healthcare_Policy/The%20Perfect%20...

when you put the http and the www. in front of it, course)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. thank you for fixing it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
24. You just got to find a way to blame the Emmanuels
NO matter what contortions you have to accomplish. This one is up there with a real freak show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. but didn't the teabaggers get the message?
* had already established a "panel of death" in Texas. I'm sure all of the teabaggers know about this. But this panel has to do with the bottom line of health corp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. no. you're projecting. I'm interesting in informing myself and others.
It's painful at times to become conscious.

I'm not your enemy, try to contain your anger/fear/hurt/whatever instead of dumping it on posters who may have a different viewpoint than you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #24
34. You've got it.....
.....the OPer will go to lengths to blame White House insiders and Democrats even for things that they never did. This one is a perfect example, and you're clever to have caught the M.O. too.

The tipoff is in the first sentence of the post - in order to find out "where they're getting this stuff" she "did a search on Ezekiel Emanuel" - the conclusion was already presumed in advance, now the task was to go to great lengths to find these vague, strained, and contrived links between the rightwing and the White House.

It happens over and over and over again.

(oops, now I'll be accused of being insulting and offensive! So be it) I prefer supporting Democrats and not finding imaginary links between the evil rightwing and their presumed Democratic enablers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. Follow the link to the RW postings at WRAL.COM
That site has always attracted the RW talking points here in NC and many from elsewhere. It gives me a quick way to assess the latest RW talking points, including those that would normally be under the radar to me. It is a moderated site so the worst claims and worst language have been deleted, leaving a "main-stream" version of RW world. There are a few liberals like me who jump in at times.

In that wral.com thread, they cite both Zeke's 2008 JAMA article about "overutilization" of healthcare (playing into the rationing TPs) and The Hasting Center Report from 1996 (I have not read it yet, but will later today.).

This is not some attempt to blame Rahm for this, just that his brother is a major player in healthcare reform/ethics in his own right. I think it very important that we all get up to speed on this immediately if we hope to retain our own credibility on this issue. I really hate being blindsided when debating an issue and I admit that until Friday I had been too complacent on this topic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #37
45. Yes, we need to realize what they are doing in order to fight it.
Thanks for understanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #34
53. You'll be accused of being insulting and offensive? She's got me on ignore
Edited on Sun Aug-09-09 11:34 PM by Gman
so I can pretty much say what I want.

You've got it too. This one is one of the more flagrant. The bad thing is that this crap goes on the DU home page. One of her fans will probably alert on this post and it will get shit canned. We as a party and as liberals are under hostile attack by right wing terrorists and all this poster can do is whine and complain about who Obama has appointed. The RW has said many, many times in the last week that if we try to stop their 1st amendment rights they will answer with their so-called 2nd amendment rights. I think it's terribly likely that there will be gunfire and probably bloodshed at one of these townhall meetings this week or no later than next. Yet some people like this poster would rather bitch and moan about who Obama appoints. It's absolutely incredible that this stuff ends up on the DU home page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. Congratulations!!
I'm on ignore too because the poster can't accept open discussion and differences in opinion. Even in this discussion, check below........there's one post where she states "you are not free to call me wrong", even though the poster she was replying to demonstrated how she was wrong.

I've been accused of being insulting because I don't buy into her convoluted and vague connections between some obscure article that she googled to "prove" her criticism of Obama or the Democratic Party. This is a perfect example - she wanted to connect Emanuel.

I'd guess that more than half the posts we see from that OP are negative posts critical of Obama, his cabinet, and the Democrats in Congress.

It's truly sad that some posters here continually post anti-Democratic stuff in the name of being "progressive", and if you don't agree you're not "progressive"!

So, once again, congratulations to you, you "made the list" - I wear that distinction as a badge of victory. To me, if someone can't take my comments, then I must be on the correct side of the discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
26. Wrong. Try Betsy McCaughey...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. No, what I posted is not "wrong." I just did not mention McCaughey
Follow the links in my posts in this thread.

I linked to right wing posts containing Zeke Emanuel's works.

You are free to disagree with me....but you are NOT free to call me "wrong" when I presented facts and links.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Why didn't you mention her? She started this lying mess, not
Emanuel. I think you have it in for him myself, but have at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. You have got to be kidding me. She herself started the stuff about Zeke
Here's a good example.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedco...

I don't like to link to the Post. But you are really just making my point for me. They ARE using stuff based on Zeke's work. I disagree with them, but that is where so much of it is coming from.

This is just ridiculous for you to deny that is what they are doing and blame me for speaking out on what I am seeing.

I did not post stuff by many others who are doing the same thing. That does NOT make me wrong, it means you don't like the ones I picked.

The above article is terrible, but there....I linked to it to show that the right wing is using Zeke's words.

I think they are misinterpreting his work, but they don't care what I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Careful.......soon you'll be accused of being "offensive" and "insulting"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Diadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. Actually, the earliest reference that I've found was in June by the LaRouche pac.
I participated in a live chat health care forum a week or so ago and many people opposing health care reform not only sounded like programmed robots, they also repeatedly mentioned Zeke. I had no idea who he was or what he had written. One put up a link to a video made by LPAC tv that had been circulating on the web. That video was of the Federal Cooridinating Council for comparative effectiveness research and Dr. Emanuel is on it. Chaitkin confronted the council calling for it to disband and he made claims, referencing Dr. Emanuel's quotes, comparing them to Hitler's era and support for euthenasia.

http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/index.html

Look for June 10th listening session, transcript. Page 151 according to my word program, in case the following links don't copy or work right.

June 10, 2009 Listening Session

Summary of the 6/10/2009 Listening Session

Transcript of 6/10/2009 listening session (DOC - 249 KB)

At the end of the transcript, there is an appended note from the Hastings center.

Appended Note:
The Hastings Center thanks the Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness for providing it with an opportunity to clarify its mission in response to remarks made at this listening session. The Center is a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization dedicated to bioethics and public policy since 1969. The Center does not advocate for legislation, and contrary to remarks made at this hearing, has not been, and is not now an advocate for euthanasia.

--------------------
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-11-09 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #35
59. Thanks for the link. I will check it out.
I have a feeling it basically took off with the LaRouche group.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
36. I think Karl Rove is at the bottom of it. There is just something so
familiar about this and the Terri Schiavo fiasco. Rove may have borrowed from Zeke, but I think it's him working the puppet strings behind the scenes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
39. These are Desperate GOP Bullies looking for ANYTHING to throw at DEMs
Even moot bs crap...which is mostly what they got...

ForeGoing Truth, Reason, and Sanity...the GOP delve into Tantrums and Name calling...the Label Card....etc....This mode stopped working in 06....hasn't come close since...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbie88 Donating Member (242 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
40. I just finished reading "Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet" , the piece
Edited on Sun Aug-09-09 03:51 PM by Robbie88
from which the quote in the ABC article was taken, and noticed a couple of things. Link: http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_...

First of all, Emanuel's piece essentially addresses this subject:

Underlying the repeated failure of attempts to provide universal health care coverage in the United States is the failure to develop a principled mechanism for characterizing basic health services. Americans fear that if society guarantees certain services as "basic," the range of services guaranteed will expand to include all-or almost all-available services (except for cosmetic surgery and therapies not yet proven effective or proven ineffective). So rather than risk the bankruptcy of having nearly every medical service socially guaranteed to all citizens, Americans have been willing to tolerate a system in which the well insured receive a wide range of medical services with some apparently basic services uncovered; Medicare beneficiaries receive fewer services with some discretionary services covered and some services that intuitively seem basic uncovered; Medicaid beneficiaries and uninsured persons receive far fewer services.


So, basically, Emanuel's belief is that health care reform has previously failed in America because of ethical discrepancies regarding which services should be considered basic needs, and thus be guaranteed to all members of society, and those which should be considered "non-basic", and left to the individual to cover him or herself. To my understanding, this piece is not advocating that certain groups of people be denied care, but rather addresses the issue of where the line should be drawn regarding what things should be considered social responsibilities and those which should be considered personal responsibilities. His analysis is not necessarily one with which I agree, but that is his main point nonetheless.

He then goes on to say that he believes that we most "invoke a conception of the good" in order to determine where such a line is to be drawn. He believes that by invoking such a conception, a general consensus may be reached regarding services which should be considered basic and guaranteed to all, which is where the controversial passage as quoted by ABC comes into play:


This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. 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. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.


Again, when put into the context of the entire piece, it becomes clear that Emanuel is not advocating for certain groups of people to be denied care, but rather is describing the debate that he feels must take place in order to come to a consensus as to what services should be considered basic and thus guaranteed for all. He ends by saying that much more must be done to determine which services are basic, making clear that the above paragraph is not representative of his own personal beliefs.

Personally, I think once the more controversial parts of this analysis are put into their full context, they become a non-argument for the right. After all, since under the current system, a large segment of the population has no services guaranteed to them whatsoever, how could a suggestion for a discussion regarding which services should be guaranteed to them, as well as the rest of society, possibly be used as an argument against reform?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #40
47. I agree with most of that. It SHOULD be a non-argument for the right.
But first we need to recognize what they are doing and whose quotes they are using.

Nice post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbie88 Donating Member (242 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Thank you.
I definitely agree that we need to make sure that we more effectively look into the sources of the right's paranoia so that we are better able to counter their arguments. Otherwise, I worry about what kind of damage some of these quotes could do if they start creeping into the MSM's coverage of the debate over health care reform without being put into their proper context.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
concernedinill Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
43. Complete Lives Systems
You say you don't know what Zeke meant.  I think what he's
saying is very clear.  If he says decisions about who
receives health care resources are based on a complete lives
system, then that's what he means!  He's spent more than a
decade on this.  Why would you think he'd mean anything else?
 Welcome, 1984!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbie88 Donating Member (242 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. Not necessarily.
Edited on Sun Aug-09-09 05:59 PM by Robbie88
As has been pointed out, the quote that appears in the ABC blog is much less frightening when you put it into the context of the entire piece and realize that Emanuel is by no means advocating "denying care" to dementia patients, and I suspect that if one were to actually read his book on the Complete Lives System, much of the fear factor behind his ideas regarding that topic would be removed also.

Also, we must remember that basing the allocation of scarce medical resources on the Complete Lives System isn't the same as "killing off senior citizens." To my understanding, the Complete Lives System seems to be some form of an ethical code reserved for extreme situations involving scarcity. Let's say that, god forbid, a terrible disease is sweeping through America and the medical resources needed to cure such a condition are extremely limited. How would we decide how these resources should be distributed amongst the public? Questions like this are uncomfortable inquiries, and, unfortunately, they require rather uncomfortable discussions and answers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
44. if interested, here's a link to Zeke E's Lancet article Jan 2009
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorkulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
46. But... DEATH PANEL!!11!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
52. Obama is coming off as a nice guy
who can't hire decent help. He trusts the wrong people and seems to be cut off from other opinions. Having Rahm as the gatekeeper was a huge mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #52
54. The White House bubble...so to speak.
I have been amazed at those he has picked to surround him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. More shroud than surround. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaPera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
57. Slimy lying republicans will make up what bullshit they want to use for fear & scare tactics Nazis
like republican corporate fascist know lies and intimidation works as they deny doing it right to your face, as they are plainly doing it right in your face...slimy republican rats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
58. Right Wingers prove they're Dumb as Joe The Plumber
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
florida08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
60. hello madfloridian
I wandered onto your website after viewing the Glenn Beck video where he quotes the statement made by Ezekiel. Here is that report.

Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_...

The discussion he is having is about how things are skewed now..where the most wealthy can get get coverage for almost anything where those on Medicare do not. The RW is using this because they hear it from their puppet masters and spit it back out.

I want you to know he is not advocating we not cover things like dementia but is merely stating that while having this discussion that it's some of the other views and points going on. He is pointing out that not every medical service out there can be provided for everyone. That in this case neutrality does not serve us and that we must decide what is the common good as opposed to what is elective. It's the reason why real healthcare reform keeps get shoved under the carpet and why we tolerate tiers of coverage.


Like you I want to see the entire evidence for myself because they're tricky out there..lol From his paper after the line used so much to discredit him he states:

Clearly, more needs to be done to elucidate what specific health care services are basic; however, the overlap between liberalism and communitarianism points to a way of introducing the good back into medical ethics and devising a principled way of distinguishing basic from discretionary health care services. Perhaps using this progress in political philosophy we can begin to address Dan's challenge, begin to discuss the goods and goals of medicine.


Am going to post the link on the Glenn Beck video so others may read it as well.
(If you already have this then ignore..just didn't see it on this thread)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. Please read my post again. I am stating a fact...
and I was right. The right wing is basing a lot of their hysteria on words of Zeke. I think they are crazy for doing it, and the point of my post was to point it out.

However, we can not fight back effectively unless we get to the source of the lies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
florida08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. well of course you are
after reading some of the posts on this thread who are skeptical of Zeke my post was more for them. I'm glad you pointed it out..was kind of backing you up sort of thing. Ok?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. Thanks
I appreciate it. I am afraid that we do not as a party realize that getting to the source right away is vital. I have a fear that in the fields of health care and education...Obama has naively surrounded himself with those who crave bipartisanship too much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
florida08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. I see now
I missed Robbie's link that provides the full article that I posted. That was what I was concentrating on because of it being used so much in RW talking points. (sigh) I would agree about the bipartisanship issue. Republicans have made it clear the current legislation will not be supported. Not a fan of Rahm's or Geithner but Obama promised real health insurance reform so they're his problem. The House bill is a good one..what we'll get in the Senate Lord only knows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
65. Aha, NOW I see why "Zeke" is so objectionable here.........
...........Ann Coulter doesn't like Ezekial Emanuel!!!

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908120055
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC