Yesterday, I talked a bit about Peter Singer- an advisor to Cass Sunstein, the Resident’s Regulatory Czar, and John Holdren, the Science Czar, two of the people who have been advising the Resident during this Healthcare debacle. Just since yesterday, I have been attacked by left wing loons who say that what I have written was trash- but they cannot say that what I have written about was untrue, because those are their own words.
Today, we will speak somewhat of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who reminds me some of Dr. Josef Mengele, the “Angel of Death” in Auschwitz concentration camp. Dr, Emanuel, (that’s right- the brother of the SAME Emanuel that is the Resident’s Chief of Staff- nepotism is a wonderful thing if you can do it), has a theory that in a crisis, ( what constitutes a crisis here?), the lives of the very young and the very old are worth less than those in the 15- 40 year range. This is presumably because these people would be able to do more work for the state, and bring in more taxes.
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). (Emphasis mine)
nypost.com
Yeah, but now that they are 65, having been 25 does not help them, in his mind. There seems to be too little compassion here for someone who is supposed to be formulating policy for Healthcare for all the people ( not just 25 year olds). Does that send a thrill up Chris Mathews’ leg, or is it a blood clot- we may never know if Zeke gets his way- Mathews is too old to save.
Now we get to Cass Sunstein, the Resident’s Regulatory Czar, who has some ideas of his own- many of these views are stifling and radical- for example, he wants to radically amend the boundaries of free speech:
He thinks that the current formulation, based on Justice Holmes’ conception of free speech as a marketplace “disserves the aspirations of those who wrote America’s founding document.”[9] The purpose of this reformulation would be to “reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.”[10] He is concerned by the present “situation in which like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another,”[11] and thinks that in “light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals.”[12] He proposes a “New Deal for speech [that] would draw on Justice Brandeis’ insistence on the role of free speech in promoting political deliberation and citizenship.”[10]
en.wikipedia.org
That is just one view that is out of the mainstream, and meant to silence, or at least mute critics of this administration, as well as promote the “Fairness Doctrine”, in the name of “diversity”. But there are other aspects of his views that, while out of the mainstream, would not be foreign to organizations such as PETA, but bothersome in that he is helping shape policy for this administration. His views on animal rights are right in line with those of John Holdren, and bring a troubling aspect to his task of “regulating” in this government.
Sunstein has also written often in favor of animal rights. “Every reasonable person believes in animal rights,” he says.[13] He also says that human “willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings,”[14] and that we might “conclude that certain practices cannot be defended and should not be allowed to continue, if, in practice, mere regulation will inevitably be insufficient—and if, in practice, mere regulation will ensure that the level of animal suffering will remain very high.”[13] Specifically he thinks that, “we ought to ban hunting.”[15] He also thinks that “we could even grant animals a right to bring suit”[16] and that it is possible that “that before long, Congress will grant standing to animals to protect their own rights and interests.”[17] This all stems from his claim that “animals, species as such, and perhaps even natural objects warrant respect for their own sake, and quite apart from their interactions with human beings.”[18]
en.wikipedia.org
What does this have to do with Healthcare? Simple,really- there would be less testing of drugs on animals, therefore fewer drugs able to help us in our time of sickness. I admit, there are some people I value less than some animals, but not in general, and not in policy, that is for sure.
When you combine these people with the other two people I wrote about yesterday, and add into the mix several others, like Van Jones, a convicted felon, and the “Green Jobs” Czar, and Carol Browner, an avowed socialist, and the Energy Czar, both of whom have radical agendas that will do nothing but impoverish us as we go forward, you have to be very concerned for our Republic and its future.
Our liberties are being stolen from us in the dark of the night, and they are grading Grandma to decide whether she is worth the care it will take to keep her alive. Meanwhile, as they decide that, they want to give animals more rights than they give Granny. The world is upside down, and we have truly gone down the rabbithole into Wonderland- although it is beginning to look a bit Satanic in its “answers” to the problems we face.
And I will reiterate the Resident’s own words yet again, because they bear repeating; ” If you want to see where I want to go, you need only look at who I surround myself with.”
Well, he didn’t lie about that, at least.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]