From: thegreatsatan@sprint.blackberry.net
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:54:02 +0000
Subject: Fw: palin
To: SKA--ska <scavengermeister@gmail.com>
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Clute <dbcman76@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:18:34
To: <thegreatsatan@sprint.blackberry.net>
Subject: palin
Sorry, Palin-haters, She is RIGHT About Obama's
Deathcare<http://michaelinmi.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/sorry-palin-haters-she-is-right-about-obamas-deathcare/>
Really sad that people on the Left and the Right *still* cannot get over
their deranged obsession with smearing anything and everything about Sarah
Palin. The latest is the ignorant, emotional ranting about*her recent
statement about
Obamacare<http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/08/governor-palins-statement-on-current.html>
*:
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the
cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out,
government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to
pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick,
the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not
one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in
front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a
subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether
they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
All anyone has to do to realize that Sarah Palin is spot-on correct about
Obama's ideology with regards to "healthcare" is read Dr Ezekiel Emanuel
(yes, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's brother), Obama's prime health care
advisor: *Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical
Interventions*<http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf>.
But yet, instead of doing that, we get…
Via William Jacobsen: *An Inconvenient Truth About the "Death
Panel"<http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/inconvenient-truth-about-death-panel.html>
*
The incoming fire has been withering, as usual. Palin is accused of becoming
the "*Zombie Queen,<http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/sarah-palin-says-obamas-health-care-wil>
*" *certifiably insane
<http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/8/8/11010/52780>*, "*clinically
wrong<http://www.bluehampshire.com/diary/7993/palin-achieves-impossible-lowers-bar-on-gop-discourse>
*," and espousing a "*gruesome mix of camp and high
farce<http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/obamas-baby-death-camp.html>
*."
*These critics, however, didn't take the time to find out to what Palin was
referring when she used the term "level of productivity in society" as being
the basis for determining access to medical care. If the critics, who hold
themselves in the highest of intellectual esteem, had bothered to do
something other than react, they would have realized that the approach to
health care to which Palin was referring was none other than that espoused
by **key*<http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/02/dr_ezekiel_emanuel_rahms_broth.html>
* Obama health care adviser Dr. **Ezekial
Emanuel*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezekiel_J._Emanuel>
* (brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel).*
The article in which Dr. Emanuel puts forth his approach is "Principles for
Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions," published on January 31, 2009.
A full copy is embedded below. Read it, particularly the section beginning
at page 6 of the embed (page 428 in the original) at which Dr. Emanuel sets
forth the principles of "The Complete Lives System."
While Emanuel does not use the term "death panel," Palin put that term in
quotation marks to signify the concept of medical decisions based on the
perceived societal worth of an individual, not literally a "death panel."
And in so doing, Palin was true to Dr. Emanuel's concept of a system which
considers prognosis, since its aim is to achieve complete lives. A young
person with a poor prognosis has had a few life-years but lacks the
potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the
concern the disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed
to young people with poor prognoses. When the worst-off can benefit only
slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the
better-off is often justifiable….
When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on
which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance,
whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.
Put together the concepts of prognosis and age, and Dr. Emanuel's proposal
reasonably could be construed as advocating the withholding of some level of
medical treatment (probably not basic care, but likely expensive advanced
care) to a baby born with Down Syndrome. You may not like this implication,
but it is Dr. Emanuel's implication not Palin's.
Not only are Obama-lovers unjustly attacking Sarah Palin — not that that is
anything new — but we also have *so-called
conservatives<http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/08/rick-moran-if-you-were-trying-to-sound.html>
* stating:
"I wholeheartedly agree that *this
statement<http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/08/governor-palins-statement-on-current.html>
* by Sarah Palin on her Facebook page is unconscionable, outrageous, and
either a deliberate lie, or proof that she really is an airhead"
Brilliant.
Thankfully, instead of ridiculous name-calling, most conservatives are doing
their best to get out the FACTS of the matter: *Death Panels? What Death
Panels? Oh, Those Death
Panels<http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/09/death-panels-what-death-panels-oh-those-death-panels/>
*
Meanwhile, the effects of socialized medicine in Britain — engineered by
government-run cost-cutting panels on which Obamacare would be modeled —
continue to wreak havoc on the elderly and infirm:
*Elderly left at risk by NHS bidding wars to find cheapest care with reverse
auctions<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6401002.ece>
*Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling
injections<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-live-in-agony-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html>
*Elderly suffer in care
shambles<http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/jul/17/longtermcare.money>
*Twisted priorities that let the elderly
suffer<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3634362/Twisted-priorities-that-let-the-elderly-suffer.html>
*NHS neglects elderly
depression.<http://ahuli.info/nhs-neglects-elderly-depression.html>
*NHS failure on Down's screening kills healthy
babies<http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/may/16/health-nhs>
*'I said to the nurse, please feed her:' Pauline Pringle's mother went into
hospital for a hip operation and came out close to starvation. And as Blake
Morrison reports, hers is not an isolated
case<http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jan/07/health.familyandrelationships>
Then there is this from *Ann
Althouse<http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/08/did-sarah-palin-say-obamas-death-panel.html>
* (via Michelle Malkin):
She doesn't say that the government will kill disabled (or elderly) persons
directly, but that death will occur as a result of the decisions of cost
controlling bureaucrats with the power to determine who can receive various
treatments. I don't know why "level of productivity in society" is in
quotes, nor do I know whether it is the plan to ration care on this basis.
Those are actually serious matters, and I'd like to know the answers. *What
Kleefeld is doing is trying to sweep Palin aside as a big crazy wacko.*
***Yes, she used a colorful expression "death panel," but it's a good and
fair polemical expression if in fact life-saving care will be rationed on
this basis. I have found myself saying, in conversation, "I'm afraid Obama
is going to kill me." Now, I'm not picturing him or one of his minions
coming over to murder me, but I am afraid that as I get older and need
expensive care to keep me alive that I will be told I cannot have it*,
because at my age, in the government's opinion, there's not enough life left
in me to be worth the money that I would take from the system that needs to
pay for everything.
Also see Deroy Murdock at Real Clear Politics: *Government Medicine Should
Horrify Americans<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/07/government_medicine_should_horrify_americans_97810.html>
*
And more about Obamacare's deathcare provisions: *Undue Influence — The
House Bill Skews End-of-Life
Counsel<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html>
*
Obama and his marxist minions in Congress are working to shove this
catastrophe down the throats of the American people, yet all Obama-lovers
and some so-called conservatives can do is smear Sarah Palin. Brilliant.
*Let's also not forget about Obama's "Science Czar"*, John Holdren (h/t to
GOPMOM <http://www.gopmom.com/2009/08/sarah-palin-on-obamas-death-panel/>):
*"John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass
sterilization needed to save the planet"<http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/>
*
Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of
life and death over American citizens.
The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person
now in control of science policy in the United States? *Or both?*
These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put
forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of
the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the
President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology — informally known as the
United States' Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man
now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to
or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs
intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them
against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can
be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" — in other
words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global
economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives —
using an armed international police force.
*Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in
their right mind would say such things.*
Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration.
[ ... ]
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even
including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the
existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to
endanger the society.
In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of
profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters.
For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why
should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two
children?
But, hey, let's ignore the totalitarians whom Obama has appointed all around
him and with whom Obama has been associating all his life and by whom Obama
has been mentored all his life. Yeah, let's ignore all that and just smear
Sarah Palin. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Brilliant. Idiots.
*More on the healthcare ideology of Obama's healthcare advisor,* and Chief
of Staff Rahm Emanuel's brother, Ezekiel Emanuel:
death panel, aka *"comparative effectiveness research"
panel<http://tinyurl.com/kp2z6m>
*:
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 AMA, 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"*
*Posted by: Anti-Harkonnen Freedom Fighter at August 09, 2009 08:31
PM<http://minx.cc/?blog=86&post=290719#c5576507>
*
*A trip down memory lane*. All the way to 2008 with Stanley Kurtz: *Barack
Obama's Lost Years — The senator's tenure as a state legislator reveals him
to be an old-fashioned, big government, race-conscious
liberal.<http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/0000015/386abhgm.asp?pg=1>
*
Obama's overarching political program can be described as "incremental
radicalism." On health care, for example, his long-term strategy in Illinois
was no secret. *He repeatedly proposed a state constitutional amendment
mandating universal health care. Prior to the 2002 budget crisis, Obama's
plan was to use the windfall tobacco settlement to finance the transition to
the new system. That would have effectively hidden the huge cost of
universal care from the taxpayer until it was too late. Yet Obama touted his
many tiny expansions of government-funded health care as baby steps along
the path to his goal.* The same strategy will likely be practiced-if more
subtly-on other issues. Obama takes baby-steps when he has to, but in a
favorable legislative environment, Obama's redistributionist impulses will
have free rein, and a budget-busting war on poverty (not to mention
entitlement spending) will surely rise again.
--
SWEET LUCY WAS A DANCER,BUT NONE OF US COULD CHANCE HER,BECAUSE SHE
WAS A SAMARAI-WHATS BEEN KNOCKING AT YOUR BACK DOOR-(FROM THE) PERFECT
STRANGER
No comments:
Post a Comment