Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bring out your dead, bring out your dead...
#1
Quote:Democrats Want to Teach You to Die With Dignity

Let’s back up for a minute. I noted some time ago Jay Rockefeller went on record to say that at some point the government has to decide whether or not you are allowed to receive any more medical benefits if the cost outweighs the potential benefits.

As Mickey Kaus has noted, both Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias are on record agreeing. Kaus writes:

Democratic blogger Ezra Klein appears to be positioning Dem health care reforms as a way to cut costs, on the grounds that a reformed system will be able to make “hard choices” and “rational” coverage decisions, by which Klein seems to mean “not providing” treatments that are unproven or too expensive–when “a person’s life, or health, is not worth the price.” Matthew Yglesias’ recent post seems to be saying the same thing, though clarity isn’t its strong suit.

Weirdo cum intellectual Peter Singer, a man who favors post-birth abortions of disabled children, took to the New York Times to write

You have advanced kidney cancer. It will kill you, probably in the next year or two. A drug called Sutent slows the spread of the cancer and may give you an extra six months, but at a cost of $54,000. Is a few more months worth that much?

If you can afford it, you probably would pay that much, or more, to live longer, even if your quality of life wasn’t going to be good. But suppose it’s not you with the cancer but a stranger covered by your health-insurance fund. If the insurer provides this man - and everyone else like him - with Sutent, your premiums will increase. Do you still think the drug is a good value? Suppose the treatment cost a million dollars. Would it be worth it then? Ten million? Is there any limit to how much you would want your insurer to pay for a drug that adds six months to someone’s life? If there is any point at which you say, “No, an extra six months isn’t worth that much,” then you think that health care should be rationed.

In his article, he argues that, in effect, we should euthanize the elderly.

I think, given that the member of Congress who drafted H.R. 3200 read and take seriously people like Klien, Yglesias, and Singer, we should be very troubled by Section 1233 of H.R. 3200. The section, titled “Advanced Care Planning Consultation” requires senior citizens to meet at least every 5 years with a doctor or nurse practitioner to discuss dying with dignity.

The section requires that they talk to their doctor, not a lawyer, about living wills, durable healthcare powers of attorney, hospice, etc. Given the progressive intelligentsia already being on the record in favor of euthanizing the elderly, it is no small leap to see where the Democrats are headed with this.

Legally forcing senior citizens to have “death with dignity schedules every few years is just another way to say the government wants to make sure seniors know it is time to commit suicide to save the system money.

And saving any medical system through encouraged deaths of the elderly or unborn is not a medical system worth having. The Hippocratic Oath requires doctors to “do no harm.” That’s meant toward the patient, not the costs to the government.

Reminds me of the Wannsee Conference, the last time a nation's best and brightest got together to solve a population problem. Most of those attending had PhD's. When I was a kid people did not survive a heart attack and the prognosis for cancer was death. Had doctors taken the same approach we never would have achieved the successes in medicine we take for granted today. So what if it costs $50K to extent a life 6 months, eventually they'll figure out how to extent it another 2 years or find a cure. Killing the sick won't accomplish anything.
Reply
#2
What it reminds me of, is the Eugenics rage, fostered by the Progressive/Fascist/Marxist Left, of the late 19th, 20th century. While it is not portraited that way, it is still an attempt to rid society of unwanted people, who may be a drag on society. Abortion on damand, is yet another side of the same coin.

Most of these very same Leftists, are professed atheists, who believe that they are here to create a "heaven" on this earth. Yet the "heaven" really only pertains to them, and the rest of the masses are just 'fodder', here to support the elites, of which they are naturally a part.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#3
While I don't mind the idea of euthanasia, I don't agree with how those people want it to be carried out.

It should be up to the elderly themselves alone to choose if they want to go peacefully or not, without pressure from the government or from relatives.

likewise with families of brain-dead patients who has no hope of recovery....they shouldn't be pressured to make such an decision just because their brain-dead family member might be taking up the hospital's resources. If they don't want to go though with it, then why not give them alternatives where they could take care of the patient at their own home?

the same thing with diseased people who reqiure expensive medicare.

It should be all about the ability to have a choice in whenever you want to go though with such a thing or not. and well, when the government tries to force this sort of thing on us it isn't much of a choice at all.
Quote: “A society that puts equality… ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality or freedom…a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.” --Milton Friedman
relax. it's only the internet!
Reply
#4
Agree with AM. Dr. Kevorkian was the worst poster boy for death with dignity. and confounded the message. If a person feels he is called to end his own life and is sane, there should be no legal reason to intervene, unless that person doesn't have all the facts, or is laboring under some misunderstanding, which if known might change his mind.

It is easy to convince a person that euthanasia is the only option and even easier to legislate circumstances that force a person to feel unwanted and better off dead. Like abortion, a civil society should make such occurrences rare and undesirable, with sufficient options to allow a person means to not do so, but a hard and fast law against it violates a person's individual sovereignty and free will.
Reply
#5
I'm detecting a plan for the Democrats to

increase the number of dead people and then

increase the number of votes they get from this group.

:?
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#6
JohnWho Wrote:I'm detecting a plan for the Democrats to

increase the number of dead people and then

increase the number of votes they get from this group.

:?

Who, other than anyone from Chicago, would ever think of such a thing.

Oh, wait! Where did you say Obama was from?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#7
Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but having recently filed for early retirement, I keep wondering if the Obamanation universal Health Care policy and plan to resolve the problems with Social Security might wind up being cured with one bold stroke: Euthanasia instead of retirement for everyone.
Reply
#8
Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill which is Obama speak for your mother is a drain on society and needs to die. The Left is against the death penalty, but supports euthanasia.
Reply
#9
Quote:Obama's Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions

John Holdren, director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, considered compulsory abortions and other Draconian measures to shrink the human population in a 1977 science textbook.


President Obama's "science czar," Paul Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, "compulsory sterilization," and the creation of a "Planetary Regime" that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet -- controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings.

Holdren, who has degrees from MIT and Stanford and headed a science policy program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government for the past 13 years, won the unanimous approval of the Senate as the president's chief science adviser.

He was confirmed with little fanfare on March 19 as director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, a 50-person directorate that advises the president on scientific affairs, focusing on energy independence and global warming.

But many of Holdren's radical ideas on population control were not brought up at his confirmation hearings; it appears that the senators who scrutinized him had no knowledge of the contents of a textbook he co-authored in 1977, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," a copy of which was obtained by FOXNews.com.

The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe.

The three authors summarize their guiding principle in a single sentence: "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people."

As first reported by FrontPage Magazine, Holdren and his co-authors spend a portion of the book discussing possible government programs that could be used to lower birth rates.

Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile.

To help achieve those goals, they formulate a "world government scheme" they call the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world's resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an "armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force" to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty.

Holdren's office issued a statement to FOXNews.com denying that the ecologist has ever backed any of the measures discussed in his book, and suggested reading more recent works authored solely by Holdren for a view to his beliefs.

"Dr. Holdren has stated flatly that he does not now support and has never supported compulsory abortions, compulsory sterilization, or other coercive approaches to limiting population growth," the statement said.

"Straining to conclude otherwise from passages treating controversies of the day in a three-author, 30-year-old textbook is a mistake."

But the textbook itself appears to contradict that claim.

Holdren and the Ehrlichs offer ideas for "coercive," "involuntary fertility control," including "a program of sterilizing women after their second or third child," which doctors would be expected to do right after a woman gives birth.

"Unfortunately," they write, "such a program therefore is not practical for most less developed countries," where doctors are not often present when a woman is in labor.

While Holdren and his co-authors don't openly endorse such measures on other topics, in this case they announce their disappointment -- "unfortunately" -- that women in the third world cannot be sterilized against their will, a procedure the International Criminal Court considers a crime against humanity.

Click here to see the passage on sterilizing women | Click here for the full section on "Involuntary Fertility Control"

"It's very problematic that he said these things," said Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Lieberman faulted Holdren for using government as a solution to every problem and advocating heavy-handed and invasive laws.

But other members of the scientific community said accusations against Holdren are wholly misplaced.

"John Holdren has been one of the most well-respected and prominent scientific voices urging the federal government to address global warming," wrote Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement.

Holdren's co-authors, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, said in a statement that they were "shocked at the serious mischaracterization of our views and those of John Holdren," caused by what they called misreadings of the book.

"We were not then, never have been, and are not now 'advocates' of the Draconian measures for population limitation described -- but not recommended" in the book, they wrote.

Still, William Yeatman, an energy policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, faulted the Senate for not screening Holdren more strenuously during his hearings before confirming his nomination by unanimous consent both in committee and in the full Senate.

Despite "the litany of apocalyptic warnings that turned out to be incorrect, no one was willing to stick his neck out" and vote no, Yeatman said.

Some of Holdren's views on population came under fire during the otherwise quiet confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, where Sen. David Vitter, R-La., asked him to revisit his past statements about environmental catastrophes that have never come to pass.

"I was and continue to be very critical of Dr. Holdren's positions -- specifically his countless doomsday science publications and predictions that have been near universally wrong," Vitter told FOXNews.com.

"I wish that the Commerce Committee had taken more time to evaluate his record during his nomination hearing, but like with everything else in this new Washington environment, the Democratic majority and the White House were pushing to speed his nomination along," Vitter said.

Vitter grilled Holdren during the hearing, asking him to clear up his 1986 prediction that global warming was going to kill about 1 billion people by 2020.

"You would still say," Vitter asked, "that 1 billion people lost by 2020 is still a possibility?"

"It is a possibility, and one we should work energetically to avoid," Holdren replied.

Sen. John Kerry, a leading Democrat on the committee, said the renewed scrutiny was essentially a Republican smear on Holdren's good record. Kerry told FOXNews.com that senators already had "ample opportunity" to question Holdren, who "made clear that he does not and never has supported coercive approaches, end of story.

"The Commerce Committee and the Senate then unanimously concluded what I have long known -- that John Holdren is a leading voice in the scientific community and we are fortunate to have him lead the fight to restore the foundation of science to government and policymaking that has been lacking for almost a decade."

Holdren has confronted a number of challenges during his four-decade scientific career, including nuclear arms reduction, and was part of a group that shared the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear arms in international politics," as the Nobel Committee said.

Now his greatest focus is global warming, which he said in a recent interview poses a threat akin to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."

Holdren told the Associated Press in April that the U.S. will consider all options to veer away from that cliff, including an experimental scheme to shoot pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays and cool the earth, a last resort he hoped could be averted.

"Dr. Holdren is working day and night for the Obama Administration and the American people, helping to develop science and technology policies to make the country stronger, more secure, and more energy independent, and to make Americans healthier and better educated," his office told FOXNews.com.

Four months after Holdren's confirmation, his critics are keeping a wary eye on his work in the White House, where they assert that he has the president's ear on scientific issues.

"It is interesting that this 30-year-old book is finally coming to light," said Lieberman, of the Heritage Foundation.

"The people who are concerned about Holdren, quite frankly we didn't do enough homework."


All the more reason why Obama's czars should be subject to Confirmation Hearings.
Reply
#10
WarBicycle Wrote:All the more reason why Obama's czars should be subject to Confirmation Hearings.

Actually, all the more reason why they shouldn't even exist.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#11
Obama appears to actually be doing what Bush was alleged to be doing -

moving power to the Executive Branch.

Except, when Obama does it, it is the right thing to do because he is the "all powerful".

[Image: headwallxe1.gif]
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#12
Quote:Ezekiel Emanuel: Death to Those With Dementia, as Useless Eaters

July 21, 2009 (LPAC)-- Ezekiel Emanuel, the top healthcare adviser at Obama's Budget Office and brother of his chief of staff, believes it is "obvious" that people with Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia (estimated as one of three people who live beyond the age of 65) should be denied health-care, since they are "irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens." An essay published in the Hastings Center Report (Nov-Dec 1996) by Emanuel, Norman Daniels and Bruce Jennings, says in part:

"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 deliberation - 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."


Why was none of this exposed prior to the election?
Reply
#13
Would it have mattered if it was known pre-election? I think not. There was sufficient evidence, based on past behavior, to know fairly well what a BHO presidency would amount too. (I made some predictions about this on this board, as I recall.) All this made no difference. Such things would have had to be announced much earlier in the campaign in order for their import to sink in.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#14
It was known - but it was not publicized by the media, so the voting public was not aware. Obama was elected with zero knowledge of his past history or plans for the future.
Reply
#15
Germany erlier this passed a law which allows people to die with dignity, instead of a having a life filled with dementia, or pain, or without consciousness. All parties agreed to it, including the conservatives. I understand those tortured people are a valuable asset for some of your businesses, but do not go too far.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#16
quadrat Wrote:Germany erlier this passed a law which allows people to die with dignity, instead of a having a life filled with dementia, or pain, or without consciousness. All parties agreed to it, including the conservatives. I understand those tortured people are a valuable asset for some of your businesses, but do not go too far.

I don't think anybody here is against euthanasia. Just against the fact that some people want that sort of thing carried out against people's wills.

When somebody goes though something like that, it should be with their consent, don't you think?

That is the main point here. S6
Quote: “A society that puts equality… ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality or freedom…a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.” --Milton Friedman
relax. it's only the internet!
Reply
#17
Haven't you read what the oafs stated? Warbicycle compares to the Wannsee conference, John craps about "Progressive/Fascist/Marxist Left" who invented Eugenics, though racism is a feature of the right-wing, and none but fascists of his compilation are right wing, and WmLambert comes up with the term Euthanasia.
Those three don't want that other people can make decisions concerning their own lifes, that's the root of the issue. They want big government dominated by them watching your every step. What they want is to rip people off as long as possible, and this they can do best with defenceless people.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#18
Quote:Michelle Obama's Patient-Dumping Scheme

The First Lady helped create a notorious program that dumped poor patients on community hospitals, yet the national media ignore the story. Imagine if her husband were a Republican.

The University of Chicago Medical Center has received a good deal of justly opprobrious press over its policy of "redirecting" low-income patients to community hospitals while reserving its own beds for well-heeled patients requiring highly profitable procedures. Substantial coverage was given to a recent indictment of the program by the American College of Emergency Physicians. ACEP's president, Dr. Nick Jouriles, released a statement suggesting that the initiative comes "dangerously close to ‘patient dumping,' a practice made illegal by the Emergency Medical Labor and Treatment Act, and reflected an effort to ‘cherry pick' wealthy patients over poor."

So much for Black solidarity.
Reply
#19
I guess the ACORN mentality does not work when you are the Vice President for Community and External Affairs of a big hospital.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#20
WarBicycle Wrote:
Quote:Democrats Want to Teach You to Die With Dignity

Let’s back up for a minute. I noted some time ago Jay Rockefeller went on record to say that at some point the government has to decide whether or not you are allowed to receive any more medical benefits if the cost outweighs the potential benefits.

As Mickey Kaus has noted, both Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias are on record agreeing. Kaus writes:

Democratic blogger Ezra Klein appears to be positioning Dem health care reforms as a way to cut costs, on the grounds that a reformed system will be able to make “hard choices” and “rational” coverage decisions, by which Klein seems to mean “not providing” treatments that are unproven or too expensive–when “a person’s life, or health, is not worth the price.” Matthew Yglesias’ recent post seems to be saying the same thing, though clarity isn’t its strong suit.

Weirdo cum intellectual Peter Singer, a man who favors post-birth abortions of disabled children, took to the New York Times to write

You have advanced kidney cancer. It will kill you, probably in the next year or two. A drug called Sutent slows the spread of the cancer and may give you an extra six months, but at a cost of $54,000. Is a few more months worth that much?

If you can afford it, you probably would pay that much, or more, to live longer, even if your quality of life wasn’t going to be good. But suppose it’s not you with the cancer but a stranger covered by your health-insurance fund. If the insurer provides this man - and everyone else like him - with Sutent, your premiums will increase. Do you still think the drug is a good value? Suppose the treatment cost a million dollars. Would it be worth it then? Ten million? Is there any limit to how much you would want your insurer to pay for a drug that adds six months to someone’s life? If there is any point at which you say, “No, an extra six months isn’t worth that much,” then you think that health care should be rationed.

In his article, he argues that, in effect, we should euthanize the elderly.

I think, given that the member of Congress who drafted H.R. 3200 read and take seriously people like Klien, Yglesias, and Singer, we should be very troubled by Section 1233 of H.R. 3200. The section, titled “Advanced Care Planning Consultation” requires senior citizens to meet at least every 5 years with a doctor or nurse practitioner to discuss dying with dignity.

The section requires that they talk to their doctor, not a lawyer, about living wills, durable healthcare powers of attorney, hospice, etc. Given the progressive intelligentsia already being on the record in favor of euthanizing the elderly, it is no small leap to see where the Democrats are headed with this.

Legally forcing senior citizens to have “death with dignity schedules every few years is just another way to say the government wants to make sure seniors know it is time to commit suicide to save the system money.

And saving any medical system through encouraged deaths of the elderly or unborn is not a medical system worth having. The Hippocratic Oath requires doctors to “do no harm.” That’s meant toward the patient, not the costs to the government.

Reminds me of the Wannsee Conference, the last time a nation's best and brightest got together to solve a population problem. Most of those attending had PhD's. When I was a kid people did not survive a heart attack and the prognosis for cancer was death. Had doctors taken the same approach we never would have achieved the successes in medicine we take for granted today. So what if it costs $50K to extent a life 6 months, eventually they'll figure out how to extent it another 2 years or find a cure. Killing the sick won't accomplish anything.

I finally got a chance to look up these articles cited in this propaganda piece and read them. And as I suspected it is completely distorting what was said.

Here is the first one and the author clearly states the opposite of what this right wing hack is saying he said.

Here is the second that is being equally distorted.

And here is the last one that doesn't even mention euthanasia much less suggest that that is what should be done.

What a load of crap!! And I'm sure the rest of what WB has cut and paste is equally as bogus.
The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  New York: Is It Dead Yet? John L 57 1,499 11-26-2020, 01:56 PM
Last Post: Fredledingue
  Facebook: Is It A Dead Entity Still Walking? John L 14 3,480 05-12-2019, 01:14 PM
Last Post: John L
  Autopsy of a Dead Coup Canuknucklehead 11 2,394 02-27-2019, 11:48 AM
Last Post: John L
  Bring out your dead... Canuknucklehead 0 491 02-11-2019, 01:19 PM
Last Post: Canuknucklehead
  12 people shot, killed at Thousand Oaks bar; gunman dead Canuknucklehead 15 4,088 11-19-2018, 08:27 PM
Last Post: WmLambert
  Is the Democratic Party(Jackasses) Really Dead? John L 18 9,074 12-14-2016, 07:50 PM
Last Post: WmLambert
  5 Cops Dead, 11 Shot by 2 Snipers in Dallas Canuknucklehead 62 15,984 07-13-2016, 06:36 PM
Last Post: WmLambert
  Gun Rights, Dead Robbers and Justice. Gunnen4u 192 54,963 04-23-2013, 07:14 PM
Last Post: mr_yak
  GOP Establishment Dead? LOL! John L 3 993 09-18-2011, 11:54 PM
Last Post: mr_yak
  Bin Laden is dead... JohnWho 91 38,489 05-19-2011, 03:31 PM
Last Post: WmLambert

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)