Tag Archives: Ezekiel Emanuel

Nina May “Obama Targets Boomers for Extermination”

In the 1948 Hitchcock movie, “Rope”, the very avant-garde theme of elitism and superior moral authority mirrors the current debate on Obama and the Democrat’s health care plan. In the film, two friends are taught that members of the world’s elite have a right to eliminate whomever they deem inferior. Testing this theory, the men decide to strangle a friend from the same boarding school. They hide his body in plain sight while throwing a party to honor him, ostensibly mocking those who love him. This of course was produced on the heels of the greatest holocaust the world has ever known with characters representing the polemic positions of both the victims and those who deemed them as less than worthy to live.

The health care bill that Obama proposes has this theme at its core and has in its crosshairs, the Baby Boomer engine that is pulling the derailed economy as it takes its final lap toward retirement. In less than two years, Baby Boomers will begin retiring in multitudes, expecting to reclaim the hard earned money they have been paying into Social Security. But this Health Care Bill, HR3200, has other plans for them.

Those 65 and older will be required to undergo mandatory “end of life” counseling to determine if they are worthy to continue to not only live, but take much needed resources from those who are younger and more worthy to receive them. Counselors will be trained to discuss how to end life sooner, how to decline nutrition and hydration, how to go into hospice, etc.

This will not be done without coercion. For those who have amassed assets enough to take care of themselves in their old age will have these assets confiscated in the name of fiscal responsibility, because by this time, every citizen will be entered into a national database under the guise of improved efficiency. This database will be run by a type of “star chamber,” appointed by the president, that will determine whether or not you deserve the much needed operation your personal doctor thinks you need. It is daunting to think that a panel of about 20 people will daily regulate, through a computer terminal, millions of people’s medical treatment.

But perhaps it will not be as difficult a task as the numbers would suggest. When the mother of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, had issues with the large numbers of blacks, she advocated for increased access to abortion and forced sterilization of young black women. Her further plans to exterminate those who were infirmed, handicapped or a drain on society, precipitated Hitler’s idea and methods for his “final solution.”

The Margaret Sangers and Joseph Menglas of today are positioned to sit on this “star chamber.” One is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Obama’s top advisor, Rham Emanuel. He is an advocate of “end of life” options and is on Obama’s Council of Comparative Effectiveness Research, a program developed to determine who is worthy to live and who isn’t.

Dr. Ezekiel believes 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”. In the June 18, 2008 Journal of the AMA, he writes, “Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others.”

In 2006 the Comparative Effectiveness Research denied the elderly a drug to cure macular degeneration until they had gone blind in one eye. These decisions will be made from Washington, in an impersonal, statistical fashion and seniors will be the victims. But remember, these draconian measures exempt our elected, most worthy officials, and their families, from the devastation of this proposed health care bill.

The reason it is imperative for the Democrats and Obama to make sure it passes, on the heels of their outrageous “stimulus” package, bank bailout and GM buyout, is that they are running out of money. Boomers today represent 28% of the U.S. population and soon, upon retirement, they will end their tax producing years and put a huge strain on the Social Security System. With 40 million fewer children today, there are fewer paying into the Social Security system to reimburse those eligible to receive their portion. This is one of the reasons behind the hidden provisions in this very dangerous health care bill.

We have seen this type of dictatorial behavior in the past, when one segment of society has determined itself to be more worthy of life than the rest. We have a choice to go the way of failed, deadly, socialist nations, or to let our voices be heard.

Nina May is the founder of Renaissance Women and host of the TV show, Renaissance Discoveries. She is a producer/director with Renaissance Women Productions, an artist, writer, and commentator producing daily radio commentaries for over 1200 stations.

Advertisements

Ralph R. Reiland “Very Scary Redistribution via Obamacare”

You’d think the central planners at the White House would go outside their small group of relatives for some top-notch expertise when they’re trying to revamp something as big and complex as one-sixth of the American economy.

When Bill Clinton sought to radically overhaul American health care, he made the mistake of putting Hillary in charge.

This time around, Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, is on the Obama team as a special advisor on health policy to the director of the White House Office of Management and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

What Hillary’s months of closed-door meetings produced was a top-down, command-and-control plan that put federal bureaucrats in charge of the decision-making and conduct of doctors, patients, employers, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and state governments. To fund her Rube Goldberg scheme, Mrs. Clinton, with no experience in business or medicine, advocated a federal mandate that required employers to pick up the health insurance tab for all their employees.

Asked about the jobs and small businesses that the mandate would destroy, she said, “I can’t go out and save every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America.” She didn’t acknowledge that it was precisely her mandate that would cause the undercapitalization.

Her verdict for the small businesses that couldn’t afford to give full health care coverage to 100 percent of their employees? “Where I come from, free loaders and free riders get no respect.” The message was loud and clear: Go out of business if you can’t pay for my vision.

The result was a defeat for HillaryCare and Republicans picking up 52 House seats and eight Senate seats in the 1994 election, plus five more seats in the House and two in the Senate due to party-switching, giving Republicans control of both the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years.

The promise from today’s White House is that ObamaCare will somehow provide universal coverage while simultaneously increasing quality, decreasing costs and reducing federal deficits.

The writings of Obama health advisor Ezekiel Emanuel provide some insight into how our current crop of central planners might well be intending to accomplish these seemingly conflicting goals.

Last year in Health Affairs: The Policy Journal of the Health Sphere, Emanuel wrote that “Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely ‘lipsick’ cost controls, more for show and public relations than for true change.”

In other words, the billions in the House and Senate health reform bills for “infrastructure” pork, i.e., “wellness” by way of jungle gyms and walking paths, are just so much “lipstick.”



In her recent “Deadly Doctors: Obama Advisors Want to Ration Care” article, former New York lieutenant governor Betsy McCaughey, founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, reports on where Emanuel sees the real savings, citing an article he wrote last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “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.’”

The “effects on others” is the key. He’s saying we’ve got to think more collectively and less about ourselves. “Emanuel,” writes McCaughey, “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.”



If “social justice” demands more spending on the young and less on the old, Emanuel explains why this isn’t a case of discrimination: “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.”



Granny, in short, should move on because she’s had her chance. “Social justice” requires that a costly individual be sacrificed for the collective.



An essay co-authored by Emanuel on the “just allocation of health care resources” in the Hasting Center Report, November-December 1996, provides some detail regarding who should be rationed out of the system, i.e., “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.” 



We should die, in short, if we’re deemed by the authorities to be insufficiently participating.

Another view about Obama’s health reform theories