Can you identify who said the following?
| "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." "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated." "Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects.... Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments.... It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does." "Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create 'classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on,' but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible." "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. Savings 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." "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." "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort." |
If you guess infamous Nazi Dr. Mengele, you'd be wrong. The above was originally from Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the chief health-care policy adviser to President Obama, and the brother of Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. It appeared in a January 31, 2009 article of The Lancet.
Now, Nancy Pelosi leveled a false charge at the American people claiming that those who questioned Obamacare were carrying swastikas at the town hall meetings where they asked legitimate question of their Congressional delegations. No swastikas were present.
But Dr. Emanuel seems to be carrying a swastika where it counts the most: in his heart. He used the same exact arguments that Dr. Mengele used in justifying Germany's eugenics program. Clearly, Obama and his staff want to start a similar program here using HR3200 (socialized medicine) as the vehicle to implement it.
Also, did you notice the following: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated."
And:
"Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years."
Can you believe the AARP convinced its members to support Obama?
No, this is not a scare tactic. I don't see how I could be any scarier than Dr. Emanuel already is.
BTW, I accurately predicted something like this last January:
Nancy Pelosi Takes A Page From Nazi Propaganda: Wants To Reduce Costs Through Contraception
No comments:
Post a Comment