Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: The True Adonis on August 12, 2009, 08:17:15 PM
-
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1915835,00.html
Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's 'Deadly Doctor,' Strikes Back
By MICHAEL SCHERER / WASHINGTON Wednesday, Aug. 12, 2009
(http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2009/0908/ezekiel_emanuel_0811.jpg)
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the medical ethicist and oncologist who advises President Obama, does not own a television, and if you catch him in a typically energized moment, when his mind speeds even faster than his mouth, he is likely to blurt out something like, "I hate the Internet." So it took him several days in late July to discover he had been singled out by opponents of health-care reform as a "deadly doctor," who, according to an opinion column in the New York Post, wanted to limit medical care for "a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy."
"I couldn't believe this was happening to me," says Emanuel, who in addition to spending his career opposing euthanasia and working to increase the quality of care for dying patients is the brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. "It is incredible how much one's reputation can be besmirched and taken out of context."
It would only get worse. Within days, the Post article, with selective and misleading quotes from Emanuel's 200 or so published academic papers, went viral. Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann, a fierce opponent of Obama's reform plans, read large portions of it on the House floor. "Watch out if you are disabled!" she warned. Days later, in an online posting, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin attacked Emanuel's "Orwellian thinking," which she suggested would lead to a "downright evil" system that would employ a "death panel" to decide who gets lifesaving health care. By Aug. 10, hysteria had begun to take over in places. Mike Sola, whose son has cerebral palsy, turned up at a Michigan town-hall meeting to shout out concerns about what he regarded as Obama and Emanuel's plans to deny treatment to their family. Later, in an interview on Fox News, Sola held up the Post article. "Every American needs to read this," he declared.
(Read "What Health-Care Reform Really Means.")
By this point, Emanuel, who has a sister who suffers from cerebral palsy, had arrived in northern Italy, where he planned to spend a week on vacation, hiking in the Dolomites. Instead, he found himself calling the White House, offering to book a plane home to defend his name. "As an academic, what do you have? You have the quality of your work and the integrity with which you do it," he said by phone from the Italian Alps. "If it requires canceling a week's long vacation, what's the big deal?"
The attacks on Emanuel are a reminder that there is a narrow slice of Americans who not only don't trust government, but also have come to regard it as a dark conspirator in their lives. This peculiar brand of distrust helps create the conditions for fast-moving fear-mongering, especially on complex and emotionally charged topics like the life and death of the elderly and infirm. Prairie fires of that kind are hard to douse when the Administration's own plan for health care remains vague, weeks away from being ready for a public rollout. The health-care bill that recently passed the House does not contain, as some have suggested, any provisions that would deny treatment to the elderly, infirm or disabled like Sola's son. One provision allows doctors to be reimbursed for voluntary discussions of so-called living wills with patients, but does not in any way threaten to deny treatment to dying patients against their will. The legislation anticipates saving hundreds of billions of dollars by reforming the health-care system itself, a process that would try to increase the efficiency of medical care by better connecting payments to health outcomes and discouraging doctors from unnecessary tests and procedures. The Obama Administration hopes that many of these reforms will be made in the coming years by independent panels of scientists, who will be appointed by the President and overseen by Congress.
This is where the criticism of Emanuel enters the picture, since he is just the sort of scientist who might be appointed to one of those panels. For decades, Emanuel has studied the ethics of medical care, especially in situations where a scarcity of resources requires hard decisions to be made. His work sometimes deals with the hardest possible decisions, like how to choose who gets a single kidney if there are three patients in need, or the reasons that doctors order tests with little medical value. Emanuel's reputation ranks him among the top members of his field. He is published often in the best journals; he has been given multiple awards for work to improve end-of-life care. At the White House, he has taken a free-floating role at the Office of Management and Budget, advising on a wide range of health issues.
But in a country where trust is in short supply, Emanuel has become a proxy for all the worst fears of government efforts to rein in costs by denying care. "The fundamental danger is that the American people are being asked to delegate all these life-influencing decisions," explains Betsy McCaughey, the conservative scholar who wrote the New York Post attack on Emanuel. "There is a lack of transparency here."
In her Post article, McCaughey paints the worst possible image of Emanuel, quoting him, for instance, endorsing age discrimination for health-care distribution, without mentioning that he was only addressing extreme cases like organ donation, where there is an absolute scarcity of resources. She quotes him discussing the denial of care for people with dementia without revealing that Emanuel only mentioned dementia in a discussion of theoretical approaches, not an endorsement of a particular policy. She notes that he has criticized medical culture for trying to do everything for a patient, "regardless of the cost or effects on others," without making clear that he was not speaking of lifesaving care but of treatments with little demonstrated value. "No one who has read what I have done for 25 years would come to the conclusions that have been put out there," says Emanuel. "My quotes were just being taken out of context."
For Emanuel, the entire experience has been a painful education in the sometimes brutal ways of politics, something his brother has long endured and dolled out. "I guess I have a better appreciation for what Rahm had to go through for years and years," Emanuel says. But that appreciation does not solve the question raised by the controversy. There is universal understanding that the nation's fiscal course is doomed without major changes to health care, but whom will the American people trust to carry it out?
Emanuel, for his part, plans to continue his work, which is focused on finding the most equitable and ethical way for this reform to be carried out, even if he has opted against returning from the Italian Alps. "I am an Emanuel," he says. "We are pretty thick-skinned. I am not going to change my colors. I am not going to crawl under a rock."
-
333386,
your response?
-
333386,
your response?
He's busy.....He owns his own business you know.
-
He's busy.....He owns his own business you know.
He had an accident chick fighting.
-
333386,
your response?
1. Did Emanuel disclaim or disown and of the quotes attributed to him and his writings? - No.
2. Which quotes "are taken out context"????
-
He had an accident chick fighting.
Fool - I already told you I did BJJ, TMA, etc for many years.
By the - way - I inclined 315 for 7 last night no spot (I dont do sauce either).
-
333386,
your response?
His initial quotes still stand!!!!!No denial!!!!!The guy said what he said,sorry,HE WROTE IT!!!So he cant even say he was misquoted!!
This is typical lib revisionist history.Just like a senator can be a recruiter for the KLAN for years and then be lauded for his sensitivity to the plight of minorities.
-
His initial quotes still stand!!!!!No denial!!!!!The guy said what he said,sorry,HE WROTE IT!!!So he cant even say he was misquoted!!
This is typical lib revisionist history.Just like a senator can be a recruiter for the KLAN for years and then be lauded for his sensitivity to the plight of minorities.
Thats right Billy - Emanuel did not disclaim one quote attributed to him.
Of course he is upset having his radical views exposed so that all can see, who wouldnt?
However, is writing are what they are and no amount of spin can change that.
-
Fool - I already told you I did BJJ, TMA, etc for many years.
By the - way - I inclined 315 for 7 last night no spot (I dont do sauce either).
No you didn`t. How about we both post pics. :)
-
No you didn`t. How about we both post pics. :)
I'm 5'8" about 205 and have been lifting for 15 years. I will get you a pic later so you have new bathroom material.
I did the throwing events in college - Shot Put, Hammer Throw, etc and have always been involved in strength related activities.
-
Thats right Billy - Emanuel did not disclaim one quote attributed to him.
Of course he is upset having his radical views exposed so that all can see, who wouldnt?
However, is writing are what they are and no amount of spin can change that.
No he is upset because his life`s work has been spent on opposing Euthanasia and he is befuddled at how anyone can misinterpret this. Reading Comprehension and analysis and contextual skills really need to be taught and stressed in schools. This is just downright absurd.
I would say you know better 333366, but the problem is you never bother to do any fact-checking and you sometimes drop the ball when it comes to context and comprehension.
You can easily remedy this by reading and with about 5 minutes worth of research.
-
I'm 5'8" about 205 and have been lifting for 15 years. I will get you a pic later so you have new bathroom material.
I did the throwing events in college - Shot Put, Hammer Throw, etc and have always been involved in strength related activities.
Well there are a few pics of you on the web and in my opinion it does not even look like you could lift anywhere near 315 for even a half of a rep. A 315 incline for 7 Lifetime Natural would put you in line for a World Record Bench amongst Naturals.
Billy Mimnaugh is a Power lifter. Lets ask him what he thinks.
-
No he is upset because his life`s work has been spent on opposing Euthanasia and he is befuddled at how anyone can misinterpret this. Reading Comprehension and analysis and contextual skills really need to be taught and stressed in schools. This is just downright absurd.
I would say you know better 333366, but the problem is you never bother to do any fact-checking and you sometimes drop the ball when it comes to context and comprehension.
You can easily remedy this by reading and with about 5 minutes worth of research.
I simply quoted an article that posted MANY QUOTES directly attributed to him. Those were his writings, not mine. He can spin all he likes, but he wrote along the same theme line many times and he is not disclaiming any of the writings I listed.
-
Well there are a few pics of you on the web and in my opinion it does not even look like you could lift anywhere near 315 for even a half of a rep. A 315 incline for 7 Lifetime Natural would put you in line for a World Record Bench amongst Naturals.
Billy Mimnaugh is a Power lifter. Lets ask him what he thinks.
Here is one from a few years ago. Mind you, I am completely clean and never did the sauce ever.
-
Here is one from a few years ago. Mind you, I am completely clean and never did the sauce ever.
Good pic there!
I still don`t think you can do 315 for 7 on incline though.
-
Good pic there!
I still don`t think you can do 315 for 7 on incline though.
Im not bragging, but I have to have some benefit being 5 8' no???? ;D ;D
In all seriousness, its a lot of leverage, technigue, back strength and power. I have a compact build and the bar really does not have to move too far.
-
Here is one from a few years ago. Mind you, I am completely clean and never did the sauce ever.
Look great there. Especially good for a natural. Have you won any titles in drug-tested shows?
-
Look great there. Especially good for a natural. Have you won any titles in drug-tested shows?
I went to law school and all the days of rice cakes, chicken breasts came to an end.
-
I went to law school and all the days of rice cakes, chicken breasts came to an end.
You don`t have to eat any of that stuff to stay ripped, lean and keep the size. You can eat whatever you like.
-
For cripe sake who is Ezekiel Emanuel's bother? Oh thats right Rahm Emanuel the White House Chief of Staff.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall when the converstaion between those two took place.
-
You don`t have to eat any of that stuff to stay ripped, lean and keep the size. You can eat whatever you like.
I look at food and I gain weight.
-
This article by Betsy McCaughey (longtime shill for the health ins. industry) is an intentional distortion of Emanuels work for the express purpose of scaring people who are already dumb and scared to begin with. One of the biggest problems I have the the Repubs is the shameless intellectual dishonesty. They know exactly what they are doing, they know they are lying and distorting the facts and they don't care. It's simply a means to an end and all that matters is that it works. It's get's people like that nut with his son in a wheelchair to show up at a town hall meeting and start screaming like a lunatic that Obama wants to kill his kid. What we're witnessing here is a war between corporate interests (PROFITS) and the best inerests of the citizen/ taxpayer.
3333 - I know you continue to harp on the whether these quotes are accurate or not but being an attorney and I assume not a stupid person you have to admit, if only to yourself, that context does matter. If you pull a bunch of quotes taken from many different conversations/interview etc.. you can frame them in a way to present a point of view that is completely false. This is exactly what McCaughy has done and it clearly works on a certain segment of our society. I'm honestly suprised you're in that group (but then again I keep forgetting you think Palin is capable/qualified to be POTUS which always makes me wonder about you)
from the article that Adam posted earlier in this thread:
In her Post article, McCaughey paints the worst possible image of Emanuel, quoting him, for instance, endorsing age discrimination for health-care distribution, without mentioning that he was only addressing extreme cases like organ donation, where there is an absolute scarcity of resources. She quotes him discussing the denial of care for people with dementia without revealing that Emanuel only mentioned dementia in a discussion of theoretical approaches, not an endorsement of a particular policy. She notes that he has criticized medical culture for trying to do everything for a patient, "regardless of the cost or effects on others," without making clear that he was not speaking of lifesaving care but of treatments with little demonstrated value.
This is being dishonest and it's intent is to misinform and scare people. It clearly works and that's why they do it.
I'm kind of suprised it works on your too.
-
Straw - the article I posted had many quotes stretching over many articles that all had the same theme.
-
Straw - the article I posted had many quotes stretching over many articles that all had the same theme.
again, context matters.
If you don't agree with that basic fact then we have nothing more to talk about
I suspect we'll have nothing more to talk about
-
again, context matters.
If you don't agree with that basic fact then we have nothing more to talk about
I suspect we'll have nothing more to talk about
This is no different than Furman denying using the N word and than saying he played basketball with blacks. He should just admit it and defend his writings, not try to do a John Kerry with some nonsensical nuanced view that only he knows.
Emanuel's own words are understandably upsetting for him to see exposed, no different than Furman when that tape came out. Sure its embarassing, but those are his writings, not mine or yours.
Tell me the context he was talking about when he said Doctors take the "Hippocratic Oath too seriously"???
-
This is no different than Furman denying using the N word and than saying he played basketball with blacks. He should just admit it and defend his writings, not try to do a John Kerry with some nonsensical nuanced view that only he knows.
Emanuel's own words are understandably upsetting for him to see exposed, no different than Furman when that tape came out. Sure its embarassing, but those are his writings, not mine or yours.
Tell me the context he was talking about when he said Doctors take the "Hippocratic Oath too seriously"???
of course there is a difference and I'm suprised that you either don't get it or pretend not to get it.
Let me ask you, what do you think you know or have learned about Emanuel from that article? Just give me a few things you think you think he believes in?
-
of course there is a difference and I'm suprised that you either don't get it or pretend not to get it.
Let me ask you, what do you think you know or have learned about Emanuel from that article? Just give me a few things you think you think he believes in?
I believe that he believes what he wrote about before it became an issue in the public debate.
If it was one quote, thats one thing, but there are many quotes in many writing directly attributed to him that all have a similar theme.
If he believes it, fine, lets debate it. But to try to now spin away from his own words is just more nonsense.
-
From the article you posted
health-care reform as a "deadly doctor," who, according to an opinion column in the New York Post, wanted to limit medical care for "a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy."
He did not follow this up with any denial or explanation in your article.
Only that he was miss understood.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm
-
From the article you posted
He did not follow this up with any denial or explanation in your article.
Only that he was miss understood.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm
This whole debacle goes directly to the point about the lies being told that there will not be rationing. By defitiion under this plan there has to be rationing.
To sell his plan, Obama well not admit this, and they are of course in panic mode when these comments come to light, especially from the person who is one of the chief architects of the bill itself.
-
I believe that he believes what he wrote about before it became an issue in the public debate.
If it was one quote, thats one thing, but there are many quotes in many writing directly attributed to him that all have a similar theme.
If he believes it, fine, lets debate it. But to try to now spin away from his own words is just more nonsense.
believes WHAT?
tell me something you think he believes?
-
believes WHAT?
tell me something you think he believes?
The health care resources need to be allocated to the healthiest of people and that care needs to be rationied to sick eledery people, like he wrote about.
-
The health care resources need to be allocated to the healthiest of people and that care needs to be rationied to sick eledery people, like he wrote about.
great now show me the quote that you're basing this conclusion on and show the source of the original quote. If you dont' have it I'm sure you can go back to McCaughey's article where she lists all the sources where she pulled her quotes.
Let's see what Emanuel was talking about and see if we can actually tie it to the current discussion.
I'm off to a meeting @ 10:30 so you've got some time to go find that info.
I'm glad we're finally have an honest discussion. I look forward to what you find out. Perhap you might be right. Perhaps not
-
Vulnerable Senate Dems don't rule out voting against Obama cost-control board
By Julian Pecquet - 03/17/12 03:00 PM ET
Several Senate Democrats up for reelection tell The Hill they haven't ruled out bucking President Obama by voting to repeal the health law's cost-control board.
The House is expected to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board next week, putting pressure on the Senate to follow suit. While the bill has broad bipartisan support in the House, no Senate Democrats have so far signed onto repeal legislation despite coming under increasing pressure to do so.
"We're looking at it, let's put it that way," said Sen. Joe Machin (D-W.Va.). "We'll weigh the pros and cons" if the bill hits the floor.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), another conservative Democrat in a tight race, said via a spokesman that she would take a "hard look" at the proposal if it ever came before the Senate.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a liberal, also declined to rule out voting for repeal.
"I'm not going to answer a what-if question when it's not at all clear what would come up," he said.
McCaskill and Brown are reeling from a $3.5 million ad campaign by the conservative 60 Plus seniors' lobby that also targets Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.).
Senators are also hearing from a wide array of powerful stakeholder groups, including the American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association, that are lobbying hard to get the board nixed.
The intense lobbying is putting Obama's deficit-cutting efforts at risk. The IPAB is one of the few provisions of the healthcare reform law that has the potential to cut federal healthcare spending, by recommending cuts to Medicare provider payments if costs start to grow too fast.
Obama, as part of his $3 trillion deficit-reduction plan last year, called for strengthening the IPAB by allowing it to become operational sooner and lowering the growth target at which it kicks into gear. Republicans, however, have attacked the panel of 15 experts as a "rationing board," a charge that has made it harder for Democrats to support the measure.
In the House, 20 Democrats have co-sponsored legislation to repeal the board, and many more had been expected to vote for repeal. That expectation was squashed however after Republicans decided to pay for the $3 billion cost of repealing the board by tying it to medical malpractice legislation that's much more controversial.
The difficulty in finding an acceptable offset may also give Senate Democrats an easy out.
The Senate repeal bill, sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), is paid for by cutting the health law's insurance subsidies. That may not be acceptable to Democrats and does nothing to control Medicare costs.
"I think that people who are attacking IPAB need to come up with their own solutions on how we restrain costs," Brown said. "They keep talking about costs, but they never have offered anything."
-
Independent Payment Advisory Board (Obamacare's most anti-constitutional act ever)
CATO Institute ^ | June 14, 2012 | Diane Cohen and Michael F. Cannon
Posted on September 1, 2012 7:33:06 AM EDT by listenhillary
When a member of Congress introduces legislation, the Constitution requires that legislative proposal to secure the approval of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the president (unless Congress overrides a presidential veto) before it can become law. In all cases, either chamber of Congress may block it.
In 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) created the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB. When the unelected government officials on this board submit a legislative proposal to Congress, it automatically becomes law: PPACA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement it. Blocking an IPAB "proposal" requires at a minimum that the House and the Senate and the president agree on a substitute. The Board's edicts therefore can become law without congressional action, congressional approval, meaningful congressional oversight, or being subject to a presidential veto. Citizens will have no power to challenge IPAB's edicts in court.
Worse, PPACA forbids Congress from repealing IPAB outside of a seven-month window in the year 2017, and even then requires a three-fifths majority in both chambers. A heretofore unreported feature of PPACA dictates that if Congress misses that repeal window, PPACA prohibits Congress from ever altering an IPAB "proposal." By restricting lawmaking powers of future Congresses, PPACA thus attempts to amend the Constitution by statute.
More by Michael F. Cannon
IPAB's unelected members will have effectively unfettered power to impose taxes and ration care for all Americans, whether the government pays their medical bills or not. In some circumstances, just one political party or even one individual would have full command of IPAB's lawmaking powers. IPAB truly is independent, but in the worst sense of the word. It wields power independent of Congress, independent of the president, independent of the judiciary, and independent of the will of the people.
The creation of IPAB is an admission that the federal government's efforts to plan America's health care sector have failed. It is proof of the axiom that government control of the economy threatens democracy.
IPAB may be the most anti-constitutional measure ever to pass Congress, and it is therefore tempting to dismiss IPAB as an absurdity that the body politic will soon reject. Until that occurs, IPAB will potentially empower just one unelected government official to impose any tax or regulation, to appropriate funds, and to wield other lawmaking powers.