"Deadly Doctors" - Chicago-Style

Mr. Bill

Guru
1000 Post Club
2,043
Okay, I admit it - I didn't know Rahm Emanuel's brother is a doctor. Very interesting:

DEADLY DOCTORS - New York Post

THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

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 American Medical Association, 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" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "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" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

The bills being rushed through Congress will be paid for largely by a $500 billion-plus cut in Medicare over 10 years. Knowing how unpopular the cuts will be, the president's budget director, Peter Orszag, urged Congress this week to delegate its own authority over Medicare to a new, presidentially-appointed bureaucracy that wouldn't be accountable to the public.

Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors' lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.
Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, agrees. He recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending.

Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're "associated with longer waits" and "reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices" (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it "debatable" whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you'll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)

Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of health-information technology, a job that involves making sure doctors obey electronically deivered guidelines about what care the government deems appropriate and cost effective.

In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted that many doctors would resist "embedded clinical decision support" -- a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.

Americans need to know what the president's health advisers have in mind for them. Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms" (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

No one has leveled with the public about these dangerous views. Nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: "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."

Do we want a "reform" that empowers people like this to decide for us?

Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infec tion Deaths and a former New York lieutenant governor.
 
Yeh. Indeed.

I can only take Glen Beck in small doses but a couple days ago I used one of my small doses to listen to the thing about Rahm's doctor death brother. You just sit there thinking, wow, this is not something the right is wiping on him, this is something these guys say in public of their own free will.

You can click at the 6 minute mark to skip the foreplay comments.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am all for balanced opinions, but really now, Betsy McGaughey?

Betsy is well known as author of an article in The New Republic that was highly critical of the Clinton Health Care initiatives. In fact, Bob Dole quoted directly from her article in the Senate while opposing the plan.

Only problem was, the article was so bad, The New Republic had to recant and retract her work.

Her other claim to fame is being named to run as Lt Governor in NY without even knowing Pataki. She eventually got fired when she was not asked to be on the ticket for re-election.

And, the things that Emanuel's talking about are the exact right things that need to be addressed if costs are ever going to begin to be controlled.

People are waaaay too gullible if they believe this "Death Doctor" crap.

There's lots of things wrong with what came out of the House. But this ain't on of them.
 
I am all for balanced opinions, but really now, Betsy McGaughey?

Betsy is well known as author of an article in The New Republic that was highly critical of the Clinton Health Care initiatives. In fact, Bob Dole quoted directly from her article in the Senate while opposing the plan.

Only problem was, the article was so bad, The New Republic had to recant and retract her work.

Her other claim to fame is being named to run as Lt Governor in NY without even knowing Pataki. She eventually got fired when she was not asked to be on the ticket for re-election.

And, the things that Emanuel's talking about are the exact right things that need to be addressed if costs are ever going to begin to be controlled.

People are waaaay too gullible if they believe this "Death Doctor" crap.

There's lots of things wrong with what came out of the House. But this ain't on of them.

Okay but things are coming at the voters pretty fast and they are still trying to figure out what Obama and his plan are all about. This is true whether your are a dem or republican or other. And the things that you and Emanual say are the "exact right things that need to be addressed" might need to be publicly discussed a bit more as we go along. I am all for discussing them more. Hopefully Obama is not trying to implement this plan as though it is an emergency is he? It is more or less a fact isnt it that Rahm's brother is a key advisor so it is fair to want to find out what he is all about. If people take a wrong turn in understanding what his views are then I think Obama shares that responsibility. There are a rather large number of czars running around in DC now that were never vetted, confirmed, or subjected to congressional or public scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
Oh hey, there's always "fact" vs. "opinion" and believe me, it wasn't to infer that Miss Betsy was one way or the other - the NY Post identified it as an opinion piece, and therefore, it has just as much mettle as the NY Times' Op-Ed recommending Obama for President - in other words, you can pretty much wipe your a** with it afterward.

What is important, however, are quotes and references. Neither Emanuel can refute their own history, just as Obama can't refute his, either.

Not that no one's trying though....

And the mention that "people are way too gullible"? Please. Many of the "guests" on Jerry Springer's show are invited and had absolutely NO IDEA WHY!!!
 
Oh hey, there's always "fact" vs. "opinion" and believe me, it wasn't to infer that Miss Betsy was one way or the other - the NY Post identified it as an opinion piece, and therefore, it has just as much mettle as the NY Times' Op-Ed recommending Obama for President - in other words, you can pretty much wipe your a** with it afterward.

What is important, however, are quotes and references. Neither Emanuel can refute their own history, just as Obama can't refute his, either.

Not that no one's trying though....

And the mention that "people are way too gullible"? Please. Many of the "guests" on Jerry Springer's show are invited and had absolutely NO IDEA WHY!!!

I suppose your Jerry Springer reference is probably indicative of your actual knowledge of the subject. Which, I suppose, is ok if you consider the relative importance of health care reform not too terribly dissimilar from the personal relationship travails of Springer guests.

Ezekiel Emanuel's work that has been published by Hastings and Lancet has been criticized and, to a great extent, correctly so. His preference for a "Complete Lives" approach to allocating resources is reached after condsiderable discussion of all prevailing thought regarding allocation.

Does it really matter what his preference is, or was? Not really. He is one man. What's important is the discussion of how best to allocate resources.

The U.S. currently spends:
*97% of Health Care dollars on 50% of our population
*50% of Health Care dollars 1% of our population
*Roughly 2x - 3x more, per capita, than the next ten highest GDP nations.
(sources: Kaiser, WHO)

Now, perhaps you (and Springer?) would say that's because our system is the best and we are very healthy.

This, I suppose, could be true, but it is not. The U.S. HC system is ranked no higher than 37th best among developed nations. Every single European nation as well as Canada is ranked higher than the U.S..

But, we do edge out nations like Slovenia and Brunei and we absolutely kick ass vs Congo and Cambodia. So, there!

I also suppose you could say the WHO "can't refute it's history" either as you put it so well in your not-very-clever pivoting into your anti-Obama agenda.

If you choose not to understand the issues and simply base your opinions on narrowly held rhetoric as well as subscribe to talking points memos of any extreme opinion, be it right or left, that's fine. Nothing wrong with that.

Just don't expect everybody to consider your opinions and rantings, clearly based on politics, to be very credible.
 
Not quite certain of your point. I stated the article was very interesting. I also find it interesting that Emanuel is part of the administration.

As far as the Jerry Springer reference, people ARE gullible! :)
 
If you choose not to understand the issues and simply base your opinions on narrowly held rhetoric as well as subscribe to talking points memos of any extreme opinion, be it right or left, that's fine. Nothing wrong with that.

Just don't expect everybody to consider your opinions and rantings, clearly based on politics, to be very credible.

Hmm...well population statistics for the general population versus care for an individual are two different things. You mention that there are 37 other countries that are ahead of the US in health care. Funny how they never come to mind when individuals from around the world need to go to another country to seek advanced care. In addition, there are plenty of countries that have no medical care system to speak of but have lower rates of diabetes, high blood pressure etc. So from that we could conclude that having no health care system is the way to go.

If Dr. Emanual is floating around in the background influencing policy, I am just saying, let's see what his positions are and examine them in the light of day. That's all. Maybe elderly folks will say "yeh, I like that." Or maybe not. Let it hang out. Transparency etc. There is a lot of skirting around major issues in Obama's Plan, whatever that might be. No one knows what the hell he is saying the position will be on the funding of abortion through his plan because that is considered to be a mob or conservative issue and therefore is not valid inquiry in the eyes of the brie-and-chablis crowd. Same way with all of these end of life cryptic messages embedded in policies being floated. What does it mean in the area where the rubber meets the road? Instead of the castigating the public for misinterpretting, why the hell doesnt Mr. Communicator do a better job of explaining what he does mean because the public sure as heck does not know, nor do key members of his own party.

And in regard to Emanual's thoughts and positions being just the thoughts of one man, that is not so. They are the thoughts of someone who has the ear of the president of the United States and has been chosen to help shape health policy and whose brother is one of the top two or three influential people in Washington. People are entitled to know more than they do about Obama's plan before they buy the pig in the poke, or do not buy it as the case may be.
 
Last edited:
Did ya see Specter's town hall? Pretty entertaining. I'm loving the idea of a mandated every 5 years end-of-life/dying with dignity program for our senior citizens. Especially if it can be combined with a final expense sale.

Seriously. You would think these clowns would have the common sense to have life insurance agents do a large part of the job since this is what we all deal with every day of the week. But no.......denial is not just the proverbial river.
 
The U.S. currently spends:
*97% of Health Care dollars on 50% of our population
*50% of Health Care dollars 1% of our population
*Roughly 2x - 3x more, per capita, than the next ten highest GDP nations.
(sources: Kaiser, WHO)

I'm not sure what this quote is supposed to reference. Are you inferring that if we eliminate 1% of our population, we have solved the healthcare problem?

There is no doubt that America spends a LOT of money in the last stages of life. I try not to judge this either way. I know some procedures are done that are not effective in anything but making the family and doctor feel like they did everything they could. I know some people are beyond returning to any sort of quality of life and they really shouldn't be put through the pain and suffering of additional treatments to make the family feel better.

On the other hand, a lot of this spending is on things like cancer patients, who may have a slim chance, but have a real chance of recovery. Heart patients, who are undergoing a heart transplant account for a portion of this. Should we not do these transplants because they are to expensive?

This is really what a good portion of the health care debate is about. The right thing to do for society at large is frequently the wrong thing to do for the society of one. What is right for the individual is frequently not right for society at large.

Where do you draw the line? Should we take overweight people who are strung out on Big Macs and meth out back and shoot them? Probably not. Should we give them a heart transplant? Hmmm, they COULD have a decent life if they get their act together.

Insurance companies would love to be able to decline procedures based on how they value the future life of the individual. When they have tried, they get sued.

Dan
 
Back
Top