33336 FAILS to comprehend again- Ezekiel Emanuel SHOCKED at Death Panel LIES!!!!

[Straw Man]

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?

[Soul Crusher]

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.   

[a_joker10]

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

[Soul Crusher]

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.   

[Straw Man]

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?

[Soul Crusher]

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.   

[Straw Man]

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

[Soul Crusher]

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."

[Soul Crusher]

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.