Theology Yes, its like a religion a belief system they have, Its what motivates them, However you want to put it
And listen I have given you facts if you ignore them then you are going on theology as well
Your Job Is At Risk Of Elimination (Medicare-For-All)......
- Thread starter InsuranceGuy29
- Start date
Theology Yes, its like a religion a belief system they have, Its what motivates them, However you want to put it
And listen I have given you facts if you ignore them then you are going on theology as well
- 4,202
A few issues that you're video points out:
1) Dr. Emanuel is being highly mischaracterized. What the academic papers were noting is the narrow scope of organ transplant availability.
2) President Obama is talking about people making choices about their wishes on end of life care, not the government choices on end of life care.
3) Dr. Emanuel was the only Democrat that the Republicans brought to the table to try to figure out how to fix the ACA at behest of Trump.
Your video is partisan hackery at it's finest and you bought into it.
1) Dr. Emanuel is being highly mischaracterized. What the academic papers were noting is the narrow scope of organ transplant availability.
2) President Obama is talking about people making choices about their wishes on end of life care, not the government choices on end of life care.
3) Dr. Emanuel was the only Democrat that the Republicans brought to the table to try to figure out how to fix the ACA at behest of Trump.
Your video is partisan hackery at it's finest and you bought into it.
Look the video was the first I pulled when trying to do a quick search, Honestly, I glanced at it and saw there were actual quotes from Ezekial in there so you would have something to look up that is all
I have seen Eziekials seminar on this The only purpose was for you to have something to begin your journey on the Way their health care is designed to give better healthcare to those between 15-40 and the older will suffer
That is a FACT
There are some real quotes on a document in there take those and do some research and you will find the truth apart from Bipartisan, I have done that I have spent countless hours on this in the past And I have done it for many like you but I find you guys really don't care about the truth
If you do there is enough in that video for you to search out origins and context if you really want the truth But I doubt you do speak to too many like you to know it's not worth more of my time
Do some research and disprove me
- 4,202
I already did. Your video and the way your argument is formed is based on mischaracterized information, as already outlined.
Here's the deal, YOU have to be open to being wrong to accept that you are. It's clear that you're not going to accept that.
I'm absolutely okay with being wrong, but your "evidence" needs to be sound. It isn't.
Treating young vs old is based when resources are scarce, not in developing a national healthcare system. Equating the two is a little ridiculous.
Our problem isn't a lack of funds, it's a misformed law that was never adjusted.
Which leads us back to the original argument:
Republicans did not have a repeal and replace plan that could get the votes despite having 6 years to develop a consistent vision on healthcare.
Last edited:
What are you talking about He was very clear (Ezekiel )He specificity has said That health care should be for those between 15-40 Obama Spacifcly said Grandma should not be allowed to get Knee replacements because she has less value than a younger person
This is specific and not misquoted this is a FACT
How do you get around that????????????
Obama spacifcly said he wanted to create a healthcare law that would be a trojan horse designed to destroy the system to make way for one payer and specifically designed to not be able to be repealed as it would crush the system if done so in order to make the people want what they don't want
This is a Fact
I think its YOU who is not able to accept you are wrong
- 4,202
That's not factual. Please, show you're supporting evidence besides a clear BS video that's mischaracterized.
Young v old healthcare is when resources are scarce. Not building a healthcare system.
I believe in physician assisted suicide when there is a terminal disease. Does that mean that I believe that all old people should be killed by doctors?
Obama said he supports a single payer system. Also, the President doesn't make laws, Congress does.
I mean, if you're not going to say anything new, then I'm not sure this conversation is productive. As someone that's spent hours and hours on the topic, I'd think your argument wouldn't be so easy to dispute with reality.
Young v old healthcare is when resources are scarce. Not building a healthcare system.
I believe in physician assisted suicide when there is a terminal disease. Does that mean that I believe that all old people should be killed by doctors?
Obama said he supports a single payer system. Also, the President doesn't make laws, Congress does.
I mean, if you're not going to say anything new, then I'm not sure this conversation is productive. As someone that's spent hours and hours on the topic, I'd think your argument wouldn't be so easy to dispute with reality.
She uses extensive quotes from Emanuel's writings to unravel a rather clear picture of the future of heath care under the likes of him.
McCaughey writes: "In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a 'complete lives system' for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. 'One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.
"'However, other things are rarely equal — whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each — is unclear. When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated.'"
She also describes Emanuel's Chicago-style effort to achieve this health care "reform," again in his own words, this time from a blog posting: "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."
The Reaper Curve: Ezekiel Emanuel used the above chart in a Lancet article to illustrate the ages on which health spending should be focused.
In his own words: Obama's rationer-in-chief
now that I stopped working to do research for you This is enough to get you started, Now you can take this further
- 4,202
I'm sorry, I can't continue to encourage you giving the same information over and over again.
You win. I look forward to my meeting with the death panels.
You win. I look forward to my meeting with the death panels.
Man I went and got you exact quotes and His Chart Def, not the same thing Quotes and Facts and this is what you say
This is why I get bitter providing info to your type, You guys never have evidence to provide ever
thickest most irrational
Last edited:
- 4,202
Okay, fair enough.. Evidence
1) Context- The writing you are "quoting" is titled, "Principles of Allocation of Scarce Medical Intervention."
Every single academic article has a short blurb at the beginning to summarize exactly what the premise is... So lets look at that.
"Allocation of very scarce medical interventions, such as organs or vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge."
Usually "reasonable" reading comprehension, the topic of this academic paper is allocating resources that are scarce, not creating a healthcare plan. Any quotes pulled from this article are not all falls conclusions for everything a person believes. It means that on this topic, this is and idea on how you allocate scarce resources.
Equating the two is mischaracterizing and pulling any information from this article that isn't associated with scarce resources is at best sketchy.
Emanual even states that the Complete Lives system is not associated with healthcare, just scarcity of resources.
2) Trojan Horse- Obama comments:
Taken out of context: The Annual conference of the AMA in June 15th 2013:
"…let me also address a illegitimate concern that's being put forward by those who are claiming that a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. I'll be honest; there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well. But I believe — and I've taken some flak from members of my own party for this belief — that it's important for our reform efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States. So when you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They're not telling the truth."
That was literally 5 minutes of research. You're pulling mischaracterized information and misquoting. For your hours and hours of research, you're assessment is based on an error in understanding.
I get it. You're used to people that are talking about "truthiness".
It's the concept where it "sounds right" but isn't.
Last edited:
Similar threads
