Create a free forum in seconds.
InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Welcome to The Great Deception. We hope you enjoy your visit.
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


 

 Emanuel, Ezekiel (rahm's Brother), They keep it all in the family in DC!
jofortruth
Posted: Jul 18 2009, 10:23 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,523
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Rahm's Brother, Ezekiel Emanuel, Works for the Office of Management and Budget?
http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Ezekiel_Emanuel

QUOTE
Health policy expert “Zeke” Emanuel was drafted to the White House health-reform team in February 2009.  He advises Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Peter Orszag, himself something of a health-financing wonk, on overhauling America’s health-care system. In that position, he has the opportunity to work with his younger brother, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.


This guy is also involved in the Obamacare bill:
http://www.truthout.org/021509F
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...topic=6858&st=0

His Bio: (Ethics, you have to be kidding!)
http://ethics.harvard.edu/people/show-bio/...?layout=showbio
https://hcmg.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/1749/

Obama is proving once again that he's just going along with whoever the NWO elite tell him to put in certain positions.

Having Rahm Emanuel's brother in these positions is CRONYISM AT THE CORE and is IMO a major conflict of interest.
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Aug 1 2009, 09:28 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,523
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Obama Depopulation Policy Exposed! Red Alert!!!!!!
http://youtu.be/ho-0SHFEgGo



MY READING TELLS ME THAT WHAT THESE GUYS ARE SAYING IS INDEED WHAT'S HAPPENING! I DON'T CARE WHO IS PRESIDENT. NO MAN HAS A RIGHT TO DECIDE WHO LIVES AND WHO DIES, AND THIS IS WHAT IS BEING DONE IN THIS INSANE HEALTH BILL.

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS CRAP IS HAPPENING, THEN YOU ARE UNINFORMED. IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO GET INFORMED! START READING!
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Aug 1 2009, 09:29 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,523
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



QUOTE
In the medical journal The Lancet (January 2009 [PDF]) Obama's special health policy advisor Ezekiel Emanuel wrote that if healthcare has to be rationed, he prefers the "complete lives system," which "discriminates against older people." (See pg 428 or 6 of pdf above)


EXPLOSIVE- THE COMPLETE LIVES SYSTEM by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3H8BhODsgE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0xjcFj0nUI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcGHsJoPy08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UZ1qlZjFeU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP4i2-2buPk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtjhoEZOJqU



NOTE: Ezekiel Emanuel is Rahm Emanuel's brother, and he not only is having some influence on the healthcare bill, but he gives the OMB office director advice. This is cronyism at the core. Rahm Emanuel is THE CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OBAMA! THESE GUYS HIRE THEIR BROTHERS AND FRIENDS TO DO THESE JOBS BECAUSE THEY KEEP THEIR SECRETS. THIS IS WRONG!

Obama advisor would ration medical care to seniors, young children, the demented
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...d-51414342.html
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Aug 1 2009, 09:34 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,523
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Read some of this guy's papers:
http://philpapers.org/autosense.pl?searchS...%20J.%20Emanuel

What Is the Great Benefit of Legalizing Euthanasia or Physican]Assisted Suicide?
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/1...&journalCode=et


Top
jofortruth
Posted: Aug 1 2009, 09:55 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,523
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Whose Right to Die? by Emanuel
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/97m...uel/emanuel.htm


What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/339/3/167
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Aug 1 2009, 10:31 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,523
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Top
jofortruth
Posted: Aug 1 2009, 10:33 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,523
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Top
jofortruth
Posted: Aug 1 2009, 10:43 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,523
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, WH HC Appointee
http://a12iggymom.vox.com/library/post/doc...-appointee.html


QUOTE
Meet "Doctor Death", 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.
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Aug 23 2009, 09:34 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,523
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Many Videos on Ezekiel:
http://www.newsrunner.com/videos/ezekiel-e...%3D1%26sg%3Dall


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOwUiMtoJo4





Oh, and don't forget that the other brother, Ari Emanuel, is a Hollywood agent. I guess his job is to manipulate movie directors! Tools of the elite have to cover all bases, don't they?

It's a sad day when people will sell their soul to do evil or dishonest things!
rolleyes.gif
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Aug 23 2009, 10:14 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,523
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Michael Savage - The Machinations of the Brothers Mengele (Emanuel)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rGgQVkeXHg&feature=related




QUOTE
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. I can tell you that as a mom to a four year old girl with severe speech apraxia that prevents her from being able to speak intelligibly, this scares the living hell out of me. If you have a child with autism, cerebral palsy, Downs syndrome, or any other neurological disorder or chromosomal defect that prevents him or her from participating in society in the manner Dr. Emanuel or the government thinks they should, that neurological care would not be guaranteed as basic and would, therefore, not be covered in a government takeover of health care.



Top
jofortruth
Posted: Mar 6 2010, 10:02 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,523
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief - White House health-care adviser Ezekiel Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the 'overuse' of medical care.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3280098676.html


http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?to...65239#msg965239
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Nov 8 2012, 11:57 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,523
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



QUOTE
Ezekiel Emanuel has a system for determining how to allocate health services. (Allocating, in effect, is rationing.)

Emanuel promotes the "Complete Lives System" as a way to decide who gets treatment and who is denied.

From The Lancet, Volume 373, Issue 9661, Pages 423 - 431, 31 January 2009, Emanuel writes:

The complete lives 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. As such, it prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid. Many thinkers have accepted complete lives as the appropriate focus of distributive justice: “individual human lives, rather than individual experiences, [are] the units over which any distributive principle should operate.” Although there are important differences between these thinkers, they share a core commitment to consider entire lives rather than events or episodes, which is also the defining feature of the complete lives system.

Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritising adolescents and young adults over infants. Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfilment requires a complete life. As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, “It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies and worse still when an adolescent does”; this argument is supported by empirical surveys. Importantly, the prioritisation of adolescents and young adults considers the social and personal investment that people are morally entitled to have received at a particular age, rather than accepting the results of an unjust status quo. Consequently, poor adolescents should be treated the same as wealthy ones, even though they may have received less investment owing to social injustice.

The complete lives system also considers prognosis, since its aim is to achieve complete lives. A young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses. When the worst-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable. Some small benefits, such as a few weeks of life, might also be intrinsically insignificant when compared with large benefits.

Saving the most lives is also included in this system because enabling more people to live complete lives is better than enabling fewer. In a public health emergency, instrumental value could also be included to enable more people to live complete lives. Lotteries could be used when making choices between roughly equal recipients, and also potentially to ensure that no individual—irrespective of age or prognosis—is seen as beyond saving. Thus, the complete lives system is complete in another way: it incorporates each morally relevant simple principle.

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. It therefore superficially resembles the proposal made by DALY advocates; however, the complete lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value. Additionally, the complete lives system assumes that, although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them. Conversely, DALY allocation treats life-years given to elderly or disabled people as objectively less valuable.

Finally, 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.

Objections
We consider several important objections to the complete lives system.
The complete lives system discriminates against older people. Age-based allocation is ageism. 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. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.

Age, like income, is a “non-medical criterion” inappropriate for allocation of medical resources. In contrast to income, a complete life is a health outcome. Long-term survival and life expectancy at birth are key health-care outcome variables. Delaying the age at onset of a disease is desirable.

The complete lives system is insensitive to international differences in typical lifespan. Although broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over the very elderly people, implementation can reasonably differ between, even within, nation-states. Some people believe that a complete life is a universal limit founded in natural human capacities, which everyone should accept even without scarcity. By contrast, the complete lives system requires only that citizens see a complete life, however defined, as an important good, and accept that fairness gives those short of a complete life stronger claims to scarce life-saving resources.

Principles must be ordered lexically: less important principles should come into play only when more important ones are fulfilled. Rawls himself agreed that lexical priority was inappropriate when distributing specific resources in society, though appropriate for ordering the principles of basic social justice that shape the distribution of basic rights, opportunities, and income.1 As an alternative, balancing priority to the worst-off against maximising benefits has won wide support in discussions of allocative local justice. As Amartya Sen argues, justice “does not specify how much more is to be given to the deprived person, but merely that he should receive more”.

Accepting the complete lives system for health care as a whole would be premature. We must first reduce waste and increase spending. The complete lives system explicitly rejects waste and corruption, such as multiple listing for transplantation. Although it may be applicable more generally, the complete lives system has been developed to justly allocate persistently scarce life-saving interventions. Hearts for transplant and influenza vaccines, unlike money, cannot be replaced or diverted to non-health goals; denying a heart to one person makes it available to another. 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.

Legitimacy
As well as recognising morally relevant values, an allocation system must be legitimate. Legitimacy requires that people see the allocation system as just and accept actual allocations as fair. Consequently, allocation systems must be publicly understandable, accessible, and subject to public discussion and revision. They must also resist corruption, since easy corruptibility undermines the public trust on which legitimacy depends. Some systems, like the UNOS points systems or QALY systems, may fail this test, because they are difficult to understand, easily corrupted, or closed to public revision. Systems that intentionally conceal their allocative principles to avoid public complaints might also fail the test.

Although procedural fairness is necessary for legitimacy, it is unable to ensure the justice of allocation decisions on its own. Although fair procedures are important, substantive, morally relevant values and principles are indispensable for just allocation.

Conclusion
Ultimately, none of the eight simple principles recognise all morally relevant values, and some recognise irrelevant values. QALY and DALY multiprinciple systems neglect the importance of fair distribution. UNOS points systems attempt to address distributive justice, but recognise morally irrelevant values and are vulnerable to corruption. By contrast, the complete lives system combines four morally relevant principles: youngest-first, prognosis, lottery, and saving the most lives. In pandemic situations, it also allocates scarce interventions to people instrumental in realising these four principles. Importantly, it is not an algorithm, but a framework that expresses widely affirmed values: priority to the worst-off, maximising benefits, and treating people equally. To achieve a just allocation of scarce medical interventions, society must embrace the challenge of implementing a coherent multiprinciple framework rather than relying on simple principles or retreating to the status quo.
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Dec 9 2013, 09:49 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,523
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Obamacare architect: You can keep your doctor as long as you're willing to pay more"
http://www.infowars.com/obamacare-architec...ng-to-pay-more/


Did you know this punk will be associated with making the decisions about your healthcare - The Death Panels? Disgusting!

Just another Globalist minion sellout of the American people! These types only get power because they have no conscience and are willing to betray people for power and money. Very disgusting!


angry.gif

http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...?showtopic=9967
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Apr 3 2014, 01:59 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,523
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | Influential Individuals - Bios | Next Newest »
InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register Now

Topic Options



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.1491 seconds | Archive