Howard Dean Says Sarah Palin's "Death Panels" Remark Could be "An Incitement to Violence" - Video

Freedom's Lighthouse ^ | August 9, 2009 | BrianinMO

[Federalist Patriot]

Here is video of Gov. Howard Dean today blasting Gov. Sarah Palin for her written statement on Facebook that the Democrats' Health Care Plan would create essentially, "death panels," who would decide "end of life" issues as to what procedures people would be allowed to have. Dean flatly said, "She made that up." He also said that statements like Palin made could have the effect being an "incitement to violence," and added "that's just a shame."

Palin is not making up the fact that a Government Health Care System would have bureaucrats ultimately deciding whether to approve procedures for people extremely ill or very old. In a system that would undoubtedly be too expensive, it is not much of a stretch to think they would begin rationing care from the very old and the very ill in order to save money. That would essentially make the bureaucrats deciding the fate of people a "death panel." . . . . Gov. Sarah Palin for her written statement on Facebook that the Democrats' Health Care Plan would create essentially, "death panels," who would decide "end of life" issues as to what procedures people would be allowed to have. Dean flatly said, "She made that up." He also said that statements like Palin made could have the effect being an "incitement to violence," and added "that's just a shame."

Palin is not making up the fact that a Government Health Care System would have bureaucrats ultimately deciding whether to approve procedures for people extremely ill or very old. . . . (Watch Video)

[Clock King]

So effing what Dean? Truth is truth and if the SEIU can’t handle getting their feelings hurt, too damn bad.

[TigersEye]

How many Vermont babies have been violently killed under Dean’s Dinosaur state health care plan?

[green pastures]

I also fail to see how what you said would be viewed as inciting violence.

Now things that have been said along the lines of punching back twice as hard or getting in people’s faces— that I would view as speech directed to incite violence.

[4rcane]

so having death panel is not what incite violence but someone saying theres a death panel

[GOPJ]

Union thugs are much more likely to cause violence. Hey Dean - isn’t that why they’re there?

[Vincent Jappi]

Socialism is by nature violent aggression.
Those thugs just don’t want to leave others alone. Just try and ask for an exemption.

[Brilliant]

Palin’s remark would not incite violence, but I would not be surprised if Dean’s re-interpretation of Palin’s remark would incite violence.

[the invisib1e hand]

what rock did this cretin crawl out from under?

[combat_boots]

Dean’s comment is perversely true, in that the Death Panels will determine certain people’s deaths, one way or another:

a) seniors
b) seriously ill people
c) disabled or
d) special needs
e) ________________ (fill in the blank)

If that’s not violence, what is?

0bamaDeathcare would enact judgment without justice, in a time when ‘empathy’ and caprice pass for mercy and the regulation of one’s health and life measured by political viability. Thus would worth become contribution.

[kcvl]

Howard Dean, you A HOLE, prove her wrong then!

Obama needs to GIVE SPECIFICS of the bill. Since there aren’t any HE CAN’T! It will be left up to TEAM OBAMA being headed by THUG Rahm Emanuel’s brother! He has said this:

Emanuel’s comments in a 2008 article in which he says cutting costs won’t be easy:

“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.”

Dr. Emanuel believes doctors try too hard to apply the Hippocratic Oath to everyone as equally as possible, which is what drives up costs. Instead Emanuel thinks we need to ration basic, guaranteed care to only those who can fully participate in society.

a 1996 Hastings Center article in which Emanuel wrote this:

“This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, 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. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.”

So, according to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health care advisor to President Obama, the elderly with dementia and the young who have neurological disorders should be sacrificed for the common good.

http://tinyurl.com/mgcp4e

******

http://www.slu.edu/Images/bander_center/Zeke.JPG

Do you want this guy running your health care?!

He is a NON PRACTICING doctor.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is head bioethicist at NIH, one of Obama’s comparative effectiveness mavens and brother of the White House chief of staff.

******

DEADLY DOCTORS
O ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE

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.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm

[kcvl]

PRINCIPLES USED FOR ALLOCATING/RATIONING SCARCE MEDICAL INTERVENTION”

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, “Dr. Death”
Coauthored by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel

Allocation of medical interventions is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favouring the worst-off, maximising total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.

snip

Youngest first:

Although not always recognised as such, youngest-first allocation directs resources to those who have had less of something supremely valuable—life-years. Dialysis machines and scarce organs have been allocated to younger recipients first, and proposals for allocation in pandemic influenza prioritise infants and children. Daniel Callahan has suggested strict age cut-offs for scarce life-saving interventions, whereas Alan Williams has suggested a system that allocates interventions based on individuals’ distance from a normal life-span if left unaided.

snip

Prognosis or life-years:

Rather than saving the most lives, prognosis allocation aims to save the most life-years.

This strategy has been used in disaster triage and penicillin allocation, and motivates the exclusion of people with poor prognoses from organ transplantation waiting lists. Maximising life-years has intuitive appeal. Living more years is valuable, so saving more years also seems valuable.

http://tinyurl.com/noxjfc

[silverleaf]

More violent than Mr Dean’s favorite, the Gospel of Job?

[silverleaf]

and Ben Stein bowed out of that gig because his views on Intelligent Design drew “too much protest”

[roses of sharon]

Listen, and understand.

Hussein of Mombasa is out there. He can’t be bargained with. He can’t be reasoned with. He doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And he absolutely will not stop, ever, until we are dead.

[kcvl]

Dr. Emanuel has been challenging conventional wisdom, first as a medical student, then as a doctor and an expert on medical ethics.

He is at it again as a White House official trying to remake the health care system.

Dr. Emanuel is a special adviser to the budget director, Peter R. Orszag. He is also the older brother of Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.

By all accounts, Dr. Emanuel is a powerful force in his own right. In an interview in his cubbyhole of an office, he said he got his job on his own, with no help from his brother. Rahm was “very conscious of the nepotism thing,” he said. Still, he is widely perceived as having extra clout because of his brother.

For two decades, Dr. Emanuel has been writing about how to guarantee health care for all. In White House discussions on health policy

Mr. Orszag, himself keenly committed to health care as an economic issue, “has given me the opportunity to stick my nose into anything that’s health-related,” Dr. Emanuel said.

The divorced father of three daughters age 18, 22 and 25, Dr. Emanuel has an unusual lifestyle.

“I don’t have a car, don’t have a TV, don’t have a house,” he said. “I do, however, have four cellphones, so go figure.”

A breast cancer specialist, Dr. Emanuel has built one of the world’s leading centers for bioethics, at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md. Since 1997, he has been chairman of the bioethics department at the Clinical Center, or research hospital, of the N.I.H.

In articles written over the last four years and in a book last May, Dr. Emanuel proposed giving every household a voucher to buy insurance. He would gradually phase out Medicare and Medicaid and “sever the link between employment and health insurance.” Employers would no longer pay for health care. The whole scheme would be financed with a value-added tax, similar to a sales tax.

Dr. Emanuel wrote that mandates “would do little or nothing to reduce high health care costs,” and he said the subsidies would be “an administrative monstrosity.”

A wiry man (5-foot-10, 142 pounds), he has expressed interest in the idea of taxing junk food or banning it from schools to combat obesity.

Dr. Emanuel does not apologize for his unorthodox views. “I’ve had various episodes where people have not liked what I said and tried to put the thumb screws to me to shut me up,” he said.

His mother, Marsha, a nurse and a social worker, was active in civil rights and took her children to marches and demonstrations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/us/politics/18zeke.html

[silverleaf]

"Electing God" http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/07/06/electing-god/

"Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all ethical requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative: the complete lives system. This system incorporates five principles: youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value. … 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 … the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption. Age can be established quickly and accurately from identity documents. Prognosis allocation encourages physicians to improve patients’ health, unlike the perverse incentives to sicken patients or misrepresent health that the sickest-first allocation creates"

[kcvl]

There are those who are critical of his ability to improve the system. In a controversial editorial printed in Bloomberg, former Lieutenant Governor, Betsy McCaughey blasted Emanuel, warning Americans that provisions of the stimulus bill “are bad for your health” and discriminates against older patients.

And although he is well-respected in medical and academic circles, health care reform advocates question his experience.

But Emanuel feels he has had unique preparation.

“I can say things that other people may not be able to. It’s the perspective of having been in the trenches, having had to negotiate with insurance companies and doctors and patients and trying to get services. I think I understand the mechanics out there better than an economist or a health policy expert who has studied it from afar.”

Dr. Ezekial Emanuel in January 2009.

“Complete Lives System“

Quotes,
“The death of a 20-year-old young 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. Youngest-first allocation also ignores prognosis, and categorically excludes older people. Thus, youngest-first allocation seems insufficient on its own, but it could be combined with prognosis and lottery principles in a multiprinciple allocation system.”

Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all ethical requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative: the complete lives system. This system incorporates five principles: youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value. …

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 … the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption. Age can be established quickly and accurately from identity documents. Prognosis allocation encourages physicians to improve patients’ health, unlike the perverse incentives to sicken patients or misrepresent health that the sickest-first allocation creates.”

For more by Ezekial Emanuel,

“Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions”
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf

In Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet” (Hastings Report) 1996 Ezekial said;.

Conversely, 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. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.“

http://tinyurl.com/lzy2h2

[mkcc30]

People are FINALLY on to you morons, the “incitement” to ACT has been brought on by your immoral, oppressive and reprobate leader.
Sarah is telling it like it is and that is absolutely refreshing.

[trisham]

Howard Dean is a demented kook.

[trisham]

The face of insanity.