Open Thread

DitmasSnark,

I’m afraid you are quite mistaken. Dementia is a common condition of old age, doctors call this Organic Brain Syndrome. Thus, the sentence in which he states;

“An obvious example would be not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

Is understood by healthcare professionals, like myself, to apply to anyone with dementia, including the many old folks in old age homes or nursing homes or assisted living centers, who suffer with senile dementia (organic brain syndrome).

In either case, you are limiting your defense of Emanuel’s policies to the inaccurate conclusion that he is not talking about old people, but only the middle aged demented, or the young and mentally challenged, or those with birth defects who cannot necessarily contribute to the greater good.Does this make the policy any better? If you are religious, this is an affront to our maker. If you are not religious, this is hypocrisy because at the same time you are screaming for “healthcare for all” you are also supporting a policy of exclusion.

Face the facts, you are trying to win an argument without regard for logic. Your attempts to dismiss me as a right wing zealot are childish at best. First off I am not religious although I was raised Catholic, secondly, I hold many views that agree with the left wing.

This individual finds you guilty of “bad faith”, as Sartre would put it.

1996 Hastings Center article:

as per Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel,
This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion 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.

I rest my case.

ok so let’s summarize,

If you have the audacity to have conservative views and back them up with actual facts as in my points about;

1. The actual number of uninsured in the United States.
2. The actual philosophy that Obama’s healthcare architect,Ezekiel Emmanuael, ascribes to. That is, his opinion that older citizens have outlived their healthcare quota in our society.
3. The actual move of the Census Bureau from the Commerce department, with it’s relative autonomy, to the White House office under which it will basically be an extension of White House policy (hummmm, could this influence the “uninsured” numbers total or immigration policy?).

you are quickly dismissed as being a disciple of some right wing blogger or talking head. Ignoring the possibility that you may have a mind and the ability to reason. You get pelted with silly comments that do nothing to advance the understanding about what’s really happening.

It’s basically a head in the sand response and intellectually dishonest.

Palin’s husband was a member of a political party that advocated Alaska seceding from the United States. Her church holds extreme beliefs- certainly on a par with Rev. Wright. Do we want to get into a pissing contest over who knew more radicals and extremists? I also want to point out that the “radical fringe” person you are referring to was long ago welcomed into Chicago society – before Obama became a candidate.

My comment to you about yours being racist was because the first thing you did was claim I said questioning his policies was “verboten” because he was African-American. Sarah Palin did indeed intimate he associated with terrorists, she did indeed use his middle name, knowing the association with both Muslims and Saddam, and hoping to frighten people with that association. That was extremely racist- of her.

The Republicans did indeed make a huge issue out of the reverend and cried foul when people pointed out how radical Palin’s church is.Or pointed out Todd Palin’s association with a radical political party- which Palin personally taped a support message to for their convention. I don’t know how closely you followed the election but all you have to do is look it up – it got so bad there was a backlash against how they were running their campaign- from other Republicans as well.