Are you an Untermenschen? Sure? Willing to bet your life on it?

[CrusaderFrank]

Does anyone have a link to this statement not from the wingnut echo chamber?

First, Fuck you.

Second, Post 18 has a link to the Lancet Interview where your boy outs himself as a Nazi

Third, Fuck you.

 

[Ravi]

If you were intelligent enough to research this you'd find the name of the person he quoted and the original quote in context.

I've no doubt at all you aren't intelligent enough to do that.

Ive been quoting from the Lancet article for weeks now you Kool Aid snorting lying motherfucker!

Maybe you've been quoting from the Lancet...I've no idea. But you've not checked their credibility. That quote is easy enough to find in context, and so is the guy who originally wrote it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you were intelligent enough to research this you'd find the name of the person he quoted and the original quote in context.

I've no doubt at all you aren't intelligent enough to do that.

Ive been quoting from the Lancet article for weeks now you Kool Aid snorting lying motherfucker!

Maybe you've been quoting from the Lancet...I've no idea. But you've not checked their credibility. That quote is easy enough to find in context, and so is the guy who originally wrote it.

"Maybe you've been quoting from the Lancet...I've no idea."

Truer words were never spoken

You have no fucking idea.

 

[Ravi]

Does anyone have a link to this statement not from the wingnut echo chamber?

It was in a paper titled
The rationing debate: Rationing health care by age: The case against

 

[Ravi]

Ive been quoting from the Lancet article for weeks now you Kool Aid snorting lying motherfucker!

Maybe you've been quoting from the Lancet...I've no idea. But you've not checked their credibility. That quote is easy enough to find in context, and so is the guy who originally wrote it.

"Maybe you've been quoting from the Lancet...I've no idea."

Truer words were never spoken

You have no fucking idea.

No wonder the Hannity forum banned you...you're even too stupid for Hannity.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

'Death Panels' in Oregon?
Ethel C. Fenig
Perhaps former Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) was referring to the tragic predicament of Barbara Wagner of Oregon when she wrote how she feared for the fate of her Down Syndrome son under "Obama's 'Death Panels.' "

Susan Donaldson James of ABC News reports on the letter Ms. Wagner received from the Oregon Health Plan in response to a $4000 a month drug her doctor prescribed after her lung cancer, long in remission, returned..

the insurance company refused to pay.

What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.

Hmmmm, let's do the math. Yep, a one time prescription of $50 sure is cheaper than $4000 a month for who knows how many months to keep a 64 year old woman alive. So the Oregon "Death Panel" graciously offered suicide pills. Or doctor assisted murder.

American Thinker Blog: 'Death Panels' in Oregon?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you were intelligent enough to research this you'd find the name of the person he quoted and the original quote in context.

I've no doubt at all you aren't intelligent enough to do that.

Wait a fucking second, you mean all this time you've been reflexively defending the Nazi rambling of Obama Health Care Adviser without knowing what he was discussing?

What a fucking Joke!

Take your face out of the KoolAid can, then we might be able to talk after you've gone through a detox program

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I quoted directly from E. Mehgele Emanuel. You're the only one lying here

Not only are you an asshole, you're stupid. You don't even bother to double check the talking points sent to you.

When Obama comes for the elderly in your family, you were warned!

They wont come for them , they will fall out like Esmin Green, but there wont be any big payday at the end of it, There will be dormitories for waiting rooms for the infirmed .

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, what have we learned?

The Obama Legions of Mindless Zombies and Kool Aid snorters will reflexively defend Obama.

We learned that will defend Obama, Emanuel and Eugenics without ever reading the articles in the first place because what's someone written opinion compare to "Hope" and "Change"

 

[Ravi]

You still haven't run down the source of that quote for us...I was correct in my assessment of your mental capabilities.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You still haven't run down the source of that quote for us...I was correct in my assessment of your mental capabilities.

It's been on post 18 for a few days now you Fucking Kool Aid Snorting Mindless Zombie.

DO you want me to read it to you too you fucking moron?

 

[Ravi]

Nope, that's not it...you've become a bore with your predictable stupidity. Return to your masters for reprogramming.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You still haven't run down the source of that quote for us...I was correct in my assessment of your mental capabilities.

Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions : The Lancet

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nope, that's not it...you've become a bore with your predictable stupidity. Return to your masters for reprogramming.

You're dumber than I thought and that's saying a lot.

Seriously are you that fucking stupid that you couldn't link to the Lancet article that had Ezekiel outing himself as a Nazi? You can admit it to me, I won't tell any of the other posters here that you're that fucking dumb. It's the Obama Kool Aid snorting that's friend your brain

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Nope, that's not it...you've become a bore with your predictable stupidity. Return to your masters for reprogramming.

It is there, you are wrong .So insults and slinking away are the next predicable move .

 

[Diuretic]

The original article in the British Journal of Medicine was as follows:

The rationing debate: Rationing health care by age: The case against
J Grimley Evans, professor of clinical geratology a Division of Clinical Geratology Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine Radcliffe Infirmary Oxford

I can't reproduce it all for copyright reasons but the Introduction gives some idea of the paper's thrust:

Introduction

Older people are discriminated against in the NHS. This is best documented in substandard treatment of acute myocardial infarction and other forms of heart disease, where it leads to premature deaths and unnecessary disability. The care for older people with cancer is also poorer than that provided for younger patients.

Age discrimination in the NHS occurs despite explicit statements from the government that withholding treatment on the basis of age is not acceptable. Ageism is mostly instigated by clinicians but condoned by managers. Fundholding general practitioners have a financial incentive to deprive older patients of expensive health care, but there is no ready way to find out whether they do so. Whatever its full extent, the documented instances of age discrimination, together with the occasional published apologia for ageism, show that the morality of age based rationing should be a matter of public concern.

Further on the writer states:

What I am objecting to is the exclusion from treatment on the basis of a patient's age without reference to his or her physiological condition

.

Finally:

Conclusion

Health care resources in Britain are limited, but only because the government limits them. If we continue with the healthcare budget restricted to some 7% of gross national product rationing is likely also to continue. In a democratic society rationing should be explicit and transparently the responsibility of government. For several reasons it would be timely for Britain to define what its national values and the rights and duties of its citizens are. I should be disturbed if these turned out to differ essentially from those deduced above. If these values are to be translated into the NHS primary rationing has to focus on equitable limits to the type and volume of services. We should not create, on the basis of age or any other characteristic over which individuals have no control, classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on.

The article being discussed:

Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions Govind Persad, Alan Wertheimer, Ezekiel J Emanuel

Abstract:

Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines 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.

In health care, as elsewhere, scarcity is the mother of allocation.1 Although the extent is debated,2,3 the scarcity of many specific interventions—including beds in
intensive care units,4 organs, and vaccines during pandemic influenza5—is widely acknowledged. For some interventions, demand exceeds supply. For others, an increased supply would necessitate redirection of important resources, and allocation decisions would still be necessary.

Allocation of scarce medical interventions is a perennial challenge. During the 1940s, an expert committee allocated—without public input—then-novel penicillin
to American soldiers before civilians, using expected efficacy and speed of return to duty as criteria. During the 1960s, committees in Seattle allocated scarce dialysis machines using prognosis, current health, social worth, and dependants as criteria. How can scarce medical interventions be allocated justly? This paper identifies and evaluates eight simple principles that have been suggested. Although some are better than others, no single principle allocates interventions justly. Rather, morally relevant simple principles must be combined
into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three existing systems and then recommend a new one: the complete lives system.

Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create “classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on”, but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.

It's not about Obama's health care, it's part of a continuing debate in medical circles which has an ethical basis.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The original article in the British Journal of Medicine was as follows:

The rationing debate: Rationing health care by age: The case against
J Grimley Evans, professor of clinical geratology a Division of Clinical Geratology Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine Radcliffe Infirmary Oxford

I can't reproduce it all for copyright reasons but the Introduction gives some idea of the paper's thrust:

Introduction

Older people are discriminated against in the NHS. This is best documented in substandard treatment of acute myocardial infarction and other forms of heart disease, where it leads to premature deaths and unnecessary disability. The care for older people with cancer is also poorer than that provided for younger patients.

Age discrimination in the NHS occurs despite explicit statements from the government that withholding treatment on the basis of age is not acceptable. Ageism is mostly instigated by clinicians but condoned by managers. Fundholding general practitioners have a financial incentive to deprive older patients of expensive health care, but there is no ready way to find out whether they do so. Whatever its full extent, the documented instances of age discrimination, together with the occasional published apologia for ageism, show that the morality of age based rationing should be a matter of public concern.

Further on the writer states:

What I am objecting to is the exclusion from treatment on the basis of a patient's age without reference to his or her physiological condition

.

Finally:


The article being discussed:

Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions Govind Persad, Alan Wertheimer, Ezekiel J Emanuel

Abstract:

In health care, as elsewhere, scarcity is the mother of allocation.1 Although the extent is debated,2,3 the scarcity of many specific interventions—including beds in
intensive care units,4 organs, and vaccines during pandemic influenza5—is widely acknowledged. For some interventions, demand exceeds supply. For others, an increased supply would necessitate redirection of important resources, and allocation decisions would still be necessary.

Allocation of scarce medical interventions is a perennial challenge. During the 1940s, an expert committee allocated—without public input—then-novel penicillin
to American soldiers before civilians, using expected efficacy and speed of return to duty as criteria. During the 1960s, committees in Seattle allocated scarce dialysis machines using prognosis, current health, social worth, and dependants as criteria. How can scarce medical interventions be allocated justly? This paper identifies and evaluates eight simple principles that have been suggested. Although some are better than others, no single principle allocates interventions justly. Rather, morally relevant simple principles must be combined
into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three existing systems and then recommend a new one: the complete lives system.

Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create “classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on”, but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.

It's not about Obama's health care, it's part of a continuing debate in medical circles which has an ethical basis.

Thank you! At least you read it!

You drew the wrong conclusions, left out the part where Ezekiel outs himself and a Nazi and gets to decide who lives and dies, but at least you read it!

 

[Diuretic]

I must have missed that part. I'll read it again.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

How could he read something that doesn't exists?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I must have missed that part. I'll read it again.

Near the bottom just above the big green
Legitimacy