Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel doesn't advocate medical experimentation, just a level of benign neglect for elders and those with advanced illness.
"Without God, all things are possible."
–Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Obama advisor Ezekiel Emanuel likewise suggested that the Hippocratic Oath ought to be junked to cut costs, in an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008. "Medical school education . . . emphasize[s] thoroughness," he wrote.
[Doctors] are trained to identify and praised for . . . enumerating all possible diagnoses and tests that would confirm or exclude them . . . Peer recognition goes to the most thorough and aggressive physicians . . . This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically, the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others.
The $2 trillion health-care cuts, now demanded by Obama and the financiers, were previously promoted in a speech by Dr. Gerhard Wagner, head of the Nazi organization for physicians, at the September 8-14, 1936 Nazi Party rally at Nuremberg: "The millions and billions that we have spent . . . for care of the genetically ill, is a squandering of our national resources that we National Socialists cannot justify when we consider the needs of the healthy population. Healthy working class families with numerous children today earn only enough for the necessities of life, which means that it is irresponsible that the state must provide the money for some genetically ill families who may have several family members in institutions costing thousands of marks annually . . .."
The previous year, Hitler had told this same Dr. Wagner, that the doctors, primed for murder through the eugenics/euthanasia movement, would have to wait for the crisis of the war to convince the public to give up their moral principles, the identical point made by Ezekiel Emanuel in October 2008. (See, "Obama-Care, Euthanasia, and The Boiled Frog Syndrome."
But eugenics was not a movement unique to Nazi Germany. It had its supporters in England and the US in the early Twentieth Century. Books such as "From Darwin to Hitler" by Richard Weikart and "War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race" by Edwin Black document this. The basis of Margaret Sanger's abortion movement wasn't so much "women's freedom" but the elimination of undesirables (read: poor minority children).
Writing in FrontPage Magazine in 2003, John Ray states:
In the USA, the great eugenicists of the first half of the 20th century were the "Progressives." As it says here:
A significant number of Progressives — including David Starr Jordan, Robert Latham Owen, William Allen Wilson, Harry Emerson Fosdick, Robert Latou Dickinson, Katherine Bement Davis, and Virginia Gildersleeve — were deeply involved with the eugenics movement.
And as we read further here:
The second stage in the development of the eugenics movement extended from 1905 to 1930, when eugenics entered its period of greatest influence. More and more progressive reformers became convinced that a good proportion of the social ills in the United States lay in hereditary factors . . .
An educator, biologist, and leader of the American peace movement, Jordan's main contribution as a major architect of American eugenics was to bridge the gap between eugenics and other reform groups. Like other progressives, Jordan subscribed to the Populist-Progressive criticism of laissez-faire capitalism. Jordan had faith in progress and in a new generation. Yet, this optimistic environmentalism of Jordan's contradicted his Darwinian-hereditarian outlook of the world. Ironically, a similar ambivalence — a "love-hate" attitude toward environmentalism — ran through most progressive ideology.
. . .
Whereas Social Darwinists desired to let nature take its course in eliminating the "unfit," eugenicists, on the other hand, felt Social Darwinism had not accomplished the task of guaranteeing the "survival of the fittest" quickly enough. For eugenicists, the "vigorous classes" should be encouraged to have more children, while the "incompetent classes" should be compelled to have fewer. Consequently, eugenicists in their distrust of laissez-faire concluded that "natural selection" must be helped along.
When the US Army entered Dachau concentration camp in Germany, they found evidence of horrific medical experiments of placing prisoners in ice water tanks and documenting how long they could survive in freezing water(s). The Nazi doctors wanted research on how to design clothes for pilots who would be downed in Russia or the wintry North Sea. As horrible as this was, the US kept the research reports and used the data to design suits that have since saved US pilots' lives, believing that the U.S. would not repeat such inhumane experiments again. That is, until the Obama Health advisor, Director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the U.S. National Institutes of Health and fellow at the right-to-die Hastings Center, Ezekiel Emanuel, urged the abandonment of the Hippocratic Oath and the "benign neglect" of the elderly and the less-than-perfect.
You see, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel doesn't advocate medical experimentation at this time. No, he just advocates passive benign neglect. He just leaves the door (or Pandora's Box) open to a new generation of "pragmatic" doctors to do what he himself doesn't have the will to publicly advocate at this point in time.
If what Dr. Emanuel advocates is carried out, future generations further desensitized to human suffering will carry his attitude to the next step of treating these "undesirables" like so much cattle. We have heard of the late Senator Moynihan's writings on Defining Deviancy Down, redefining the unacceptable as acceptable until we have a more lawless society. What Dr. Emanuel is advocating is a form of Defining Medicine Down until it is indistinguishable from The Law of The Jungle.
The abandoning of the Hippocratic Oath – and Judeo-Christian morality towards the ill and elderly – will lead to repeat medical experiments similar to the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment begun in 1932. However, the next time it won't be limited to poor blacks, so it won't technically be "racist" – but just as elitist, barbaric and coerced.
A year ago in 2008, Nancy Pelosi gave a talk and answered questions at New York's 92nd Street Y, an event I covered for American Thinker. When the subject of health care came up, this is what she said:
Ms. Pelosi stated her belief in alternative programs, something that was not advocated in the original HillaryCare program, by stating, "Think diet, not diabetes" and another slogan of "science, science, science."
That last statement about diabetes may look good on a bumper sticker, but someone should perhaps inform "Dr. Pelosi" that the millions of people suffering from diabetes can ill afford to treat their condition with diet alone. As for science finding a cure for all diabetes — and all fuel/energy problems, perhaps all that may happen one day, but one has to deal with the present situation more so than investing in future sources. Her statement here on diabetes implies that government sponsored research — and not any tax breaks for private research — should be the main area of concentration.
To this we can now state that a level of benign neglect for elders and/or those with advanced illness, i.e., doing nothing, has been added to her health care plan's design. Science, Science, Science. Yes. Dr. Josef Mengele Science.
"The abandoning of the Hippocratic Oath – and Judeo-Christian morality towards the ill and elderly"
I find it a bit interesting that you can actually mention the Hippocratic Oath and Judeo-Christian morality in the same sentence, implying that they are at least related, if not the same. Here is the introductory paragraph of the Hippocratic Oath:
"I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:"
Please explain the Judeo-Christian part of that for me. I missed it somehow.
chltx, I am not sitting in a Comparitive Religion Class, writing in an exam book. Your question is a diversion, a nit to pick that avoids the main arguments I made for the fascistic eugenics that the Emanuel brothers advocate, but I will address it in a later paragraph below.
One can further add hypocrisy to the Emanuel family traits, noting that their father, also a physician, left socialist medicine practicing Israel, with its' Kupat Cholim healthcare plan (I once had their member card when I worked in Israel) to make a lot of money in the United States. The elder Mr. Emanuel and his physician son Ezekiel could be practicing in Israel helping poor immigrants from Russia, Morocco, Ethiopia, etc., but they themselves chose not to work for single payer system doctors' salaries. Does that tell you something about how much all physicians are willing to join a highly regimented socialist National Health-like system?
I am not a scholar in the field of comparitive religion, but I will say this. I used the example of the Hippocratic Oath as a generalized moral statement that resonates with Judeo-Christian morality. It now appears necessary to specify here that many countries that have or had considered themselves strongly Christian or Jewish have used the Hippocratic for their physicians. The fact that a non-Greek historian such as myself has heard the term "Hypocratic Oath" since childhood in America shows that the bulk of the oath – not the part about Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea – has been adapted into the culture of the United States, a largely Christian society where a majority of citizens believe, however imperfectly, in the teachings of the Old and New Testament. I'm a lot more concerned about people who believe in materialist "Socialist Realism" being able to kill off old people without any moral concern than I am with people who make an oath to some spiritual entity I don't worship but who the oath takers consider higher than their own ego. I do not even know if modern physicians take the Hippocratic Oath with the Greek gods named in the preamble. Even if they do, it concerns me less than a political culture that is one step away from advocating turning in one's grandparents to a "senior end-of-life" center to be euthanized. The grandchildren will then trade in grandpa's car under Cash for Clunkers to sweeten the deal, all sanctioned because old people are "no longer contributing to the State."
Mr. Kemp,
I appreciate your addressing this subject. It astounds me at how much radical, inhuman ideas are brought forth and not shouted down by the general public. I read many news and blog sites and see article after article bringing to light subjects that, in the past, would have rarely been thought much less published. And yet, these are people with some level of education and position in society espousing these radical "Nazi-like" ideologies (and I have visited Dachau and do not use that term flippantly).
Is it because of our present day ability for any idea (regardless of how absurd), held by any person (regardless how demented or devoid of humanity), can be immediately spread worldwide via the internet and there find a small infestation of followers who will eagerly reproduce and spread the "ideals"? Whereas in the past, these deviants probably would have never been aware of each other.
I really do appreciate, again, your bringing to light these kind of propositions. I believe our only way to handle and eliminate this kind of radical garbage is to bring it to light, put it in front of sensible human beings, reject the "ideals" and ride these yahoos out on a rail.
Secondly, thank you for the way you addressed chltx's response. I get so tired of reading a well written article dealing with an important subject, then reading the comments which, after about three responses, have gone completely off point. So many times, an article or blog is written very well and the point proven only to have the people responding bring up some minute off the wall objection and take the string completely off course (like objecting to using Hippocratic Oath and Judeo-Christian in the same sentence). Your response was, in my opinion, perfect.
Thanks, again.
Read Leviticus 10,1-2
1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the L-RD, which He had not commanded them.
2 And there came forth fire from before the L-RD, and devoured them, and they died before the L-RD.
There is wisdom there, and a warning for those who play with G-d!
Thanks for the precise and clear statement of deeper concerns about the Progressive Socialists. By the way, I was using PS before we began to see it in conservative writings.
I wrote a response to the stupidity of American citizens in the Black America/Racial stuff and stopped because I had drifted astray. Following is the drift I made. Thanks!
Your article resonates with many who read and understand the direction of the ruling elite and the medical elite. Perhaps if we called the next czar of medical decision.
Compassionate Decision Making for the Elderly and Disadvantaged, then we could have the white dust of human flesh descending upon our beautiful country and call it volcanic ash. However the stench of the flesh would be a tell tale omen of the evils lying the heart of man (and from the 1940's – "The Shadow knows.") This ain' rocket science.
Uniting the Bear with the single handed salute and goose stepping is the most horrific of thoughts when combined in the egalitarian, politically elite, well educated and very articulate leadership we hear/see in the Media. Listen carefully.
The Medical Transport for the Aged and Infirm is a title which was already coined for the outrage perpetrated upon the aged and infirm (Read Francis Schaeffer and also view his two films)
I was a listener at a forum in a pretigious institution known for its research in medicine. The medical speaker assured us with some passion that there would never be abortion for other than extreme medical needs of mother.
Some were ridiculed with the "slippery slope" a insult and assigning to the questioners a "a lack of scientific knowledge" to understand the needs of the patients.
History has long documented annals of Man's Inhumanity to Man. 69AD was a time when the blood of 1million Israelites flowed in the streets under the Roman banner. Not the gas ovens of the 1940's, but the sword was the killer. And the power of authority lay in the mind of the Roman Ruler.
Silencing the opposition starts in a rewording of concepts found distasteful to the average citizen.
When the election was in process, I heard snippets in the media and watched longer conversations of the candidates. I was disturbed by the "tip of the iceberg" comments. We are gradually being introduced to "global ????" and world government as a testing of the waters.
I watch the salute of the Man descending the airplane and I am alarmed. The man standing in spit and polish represents men of honor and tradition who would die in a heart beat for their boss. This is not lost on the man in the street or the coffee shop.
My circle of influence is quietly, with passion speaking ab out World View and how it brings certain results.
Comment on Greek / Romans / Egyptian deities. They were created by the mind of man and produced actions which were barbaric. Judeo-Christian thought in the Biblical sense is the only philosophy of World View which liberates Man and provides Freedom without enslavement. No one gets ticked off about the gods (no caps)of history because their claims are worthless and not backed up by anything except mans inhumanity to man. And they tolerate multiple deities as equal.
It was mentioned that in the early 1900 hundreds the philosophical spinnings of the philosophical elite would eventually gain popular support and come to be acted upon. We witnessed the expression of Existentialist Liberal Mentality in the 1960's in the Anti-establishment Revolution. Sooner or later speaking about the "dealing with the aged and disadvantaged" will come to be lived out in a visible and horrifying way with all dissent silenced in passive and unseen use of Force (CALLED VIOLENCE). So good humoredly, "put that in your pipe and smoke it."
Empassioned opposition to Judeo-Christian faith based people and movements makes sense as they/it bring man into confrontation with G-d who holds Man to the highest Authority and a final Accountability. So it does make a difference in how "you" think and how "you" live.
Thanks for refining my ideas and "speaking" with clarity.
It's not at all clear that Pelosi was advocating the treatment of diabetes solely by diet. It's well-known, however, that a proper diet can prevent or, at the very least, delay the onset of diabetes. Even for many of those who've developed diabetes, there's solid evidence that a carefully-chosen diet can limit the progression of the disease. (Sorry, that's "science, science, science".)
If Pelosi's a closet Nazi, I'm afraid that quote doesn't establish it.
(Oh, and I wouldn't trust Weikart too far on the whole "Darwin to Hitler" thing, either. A much more influential "thinker" was Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who explicitly rejected Darwinian evolution.)
Mr. Ingles, I agree Pelosi's position could not be clarified from the lecture. She only accepted pre-screened questions and there were no follow-up questions by the person asking the original. It is all well and good to talk about diet as a perventive and even a reversing of diabetes method, however it does not work for all people afflicted with diabetes.
The entire House membership Demorats have not yet voted on a bill, so it gives them room to talk without being pinned down to specifics. What Pelosi has now done, however, is approve the House ObamaCare program probably without reading it. The House plan has sections on a five year review of senior's health and harsh cost effectiveness calculations that would kill many a senior and others by not-so-benign neglect. When Pres. Obama said he would not be interested in giving a pacemaker to a 100 year old woman, Nancy Pelosi didn't call a press conference to disagree with him. Ezekiel Emanuel's writings on the subject of tossing out the Hippocratic Oath are well documented. Just because Pelosi is slick in what she says, that doesn't mean one can't draw conclusions from what all of the Democratic Party leadership is collectively saying, what direction they are heading in. The only way, Mr. Ingles, we can pin Pelosi's advocacy down is when a final bill is voted on by the House by her and others. Right now your and my skepticism of the worst and best motives are of roughly equal value in the realm of scientific proof of her actions.
Mr. Kemp – The most expensive health care is acute, intensive, emergency care. In terms of health care, an ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure. It's true that diet "does not work for all people afflicted with diabetes", but it can absolutely help limit the number of people afflicted with diabetes in the first place.
Even in the "pacemaker for 100-year-old" bit, I didn't see anything that would forbid someone from getting a pacemaker. Not paying for something is different from forbidding it. And I fail to see how it's materially different from the current system, where private bureaucrats decide to drop coverage when expensive treatment becomes necessary (Google up Nataline Sarkisyan, or read this).
And I'm seeing so many parts of these bills misrepresented it makes me wonder. Advising parents on caring for their kids makes sense, if they ask for it. It can prevent a lot of problems later on. Now, I've seen people claiming that this means parents will be forced to allow Obama brownshirts into their homes to browbeat them about parenting… but in the bill it's voluntary. The "end-of-life" counseling… voluntary, too, not mandatory. When people apparently feel they need to lie about something to discredit it, it makes me suspicious.
And this appears to be happening with Dr. Emmanuel. It took some digging, but I found the original work the quote at the beginning of the article came from. To add some context, one of the ellipses contains the text, "In medical training, meticulousness, not effectiveness, is rewarded."
The section of the actual article the quotes come from seems to be arguing, not abandonment of the Hippocratic Oath (or even providing less care), but putting more thought into what tests are ordered. "Furthermore, the current system’s bias toward paying significantly more for procedures rather than for evaluation and management reduces physicians’ inclination to watch, wait, and communicate and increases their propensity to order a test." He's advocating more intelligent and effective use of the resources available, so far as I can see.
Mr. Ingles: If government healthcare becomes the norm, you can be assured that your willingness to pay for medical care out of your own pocket will become illegal. After all, that will make the lines even longer for the people relying on the gov't tit, and will be considered "unfair".
Mr. Kemp: My comment on your association of "Judeo-Christian morality" with the Hippocratic Oath may have been a nit, but not all Conservatives are Christian. I am a Conservative who does not subscribe to any of the major organized superstitions. When the GOP manages to get away from the unnecessary linkage of Conservative values and Christian Fundamentalism, the GOP will be a lot more appealing to people like me.
'Even in the "pacemaker for 100-year-old" bit, I didn't see anything that would forbid someone from getting a pacemaker. Not paying for something is different from forbidding it. And I fail to see how it's materially different from the current system, where private bureaucrats decide to drop coverage when expensive treatment becomes necessary…' – Mr. Ingles
Mr. Ingles, it wasn't a "bit." It was a question raised and answered by Pres. Obama in the negative. He said he woundn't want to pay for it. The President's opinion and values count for much in a government program, as they become codified in law and/or practice. He said, in a socially polite way, "Fuck her. Give her a pill and let her die."
As for "Not paying for something is different from forbidding it," in an imperfect private insurance system there are profits available to finance operations, however begrudgingly. There is also a group of government advocates to adversarially attack the insurance company's denial of a treatment. And if we had more flexibility in selling insurance across state lines and other innovations, the companies wouldn't be so trapped in making profits, the basis of both the corporate profits and the payment for additional patients' treatments.
A lot of the wording of this ObamaCare bill is ambigious. A lot will be determined by some panel after the bill is passed. I don't trust the government to make this end of life counseling "voluntary." In NY City, in WWII, there was something called officially the Temporary Rent Control Commission. Rent Control existed a "temporary 40 years or so, and even exists today in a few apartments. It's legal descendant, rent stabilization, is widespread in New York. If you wish to believe the power of the government to "suggest you voluntarily" (coerce) have end of life counseling is benign, I will disagree. I suspect you already believe you will personally have political connections or status to avoid this coercion and you are rationalizing your indifferce to those who can be more easily coerced.
There has to be improvements in how health care is delivered, but part of that has to involve tort reform and the ability to sell insurance across state lines and medical savings accounts.
Mr. Kemp: My comment on your association of "Judeo-Christian morality" with the Hippocratic Oath may have been a nit, but not all Conservatives are Christian. I am a Conservative who does not subscribe to any of the major organized superstitions. When the GOP manages to get away from the unnecessary linkage of Conservative values and Christian Fundamentalism, the GOP will be a lot more appealing to people like me. – chltx
chltx, I now see you are an athiest. That is your right. By the way, "Judeo-Christian" is not just about believers in Jesus. I am a Jew who believes in G-d. But as for your concerns about an appeal to religious values offending your intellect in health care political discussions, I would contend that you are living on the social decency learned in your family which probably had religous values perhaps two generations ago. I once wrote a blog piece at American Thinker asking how do athiests know that Hitler was bad, since they have no basis of their own for right and wrong. I stated that if there is no one to answer for my actions, no "Higher Authority," as the old Hebrew National hot dog commercials stated it, then I want the address of your grandmother so that I can stalk her on the first of the month when she goes to deposit her social security check I can beat her with a club from behind and steal her check and money, get in my care and flee. Since my made up rules are as as good as anyone else's, as an athiest, this would be merely "sharing the wealth." Probably you, chltx, wouldn't interpret atheism in this way, but there are a number of young men who would be more than happy to interpret right and wrong in this manner. And I also suspect the college professors who lecture about the "outmoded" bourgeois values of the middle class would take great offense if the computer programmers at the university diverted the money from the professor's salary check to their own, causing the professor's paycheck to bounce.
Years ago, I recall seeing Mama Cass, the late singer from the rock group The Mamas and the Papas, talk on the Tonite Show of her going to a Catholic hospital in the countryside. She (her real name was Cohen) openly said she didn't believe in Catholicism, but welcomed the care and consideration of the people who worked in that facility. I suggest you take a lesson from Mama Cass.
Not everything in this society is geared to minorities such as yours or mine. I don't get offended by Christmas decorations and people wishing each other "Peace on Earth, Goodwill to all Mankind." If you were to be hit by a car – and I don't wish it – I would advise you to not protest if they take you to a Christian affiliated hospital such as New York's Columbia-Presbyterian or St. Vincent's and not insist that the ambulance take you to a state-run hospital with no religious name as part of its' title.
In the last part of my father's life, he spent a few days at a Catholic hospice. A Protestant minister volunteer removed a crucifix from the wall (they were detachable). I can assure you, that the last thing on my mind or my father's (he was an atheist) was the presence of a crucifix on the wall. We were a lot more concerned about the caring of the people working in the hospital. I suspect that you, chltx, should center your concern about this.
I hear on the radio this afternoon that Obama has stated today that he wouldn't have approved of giving his white grandmother a hip replacement in the last months of her life. Does that tell you something about what you have to look forward to under ObamaCare with its' "post modern" values? They'd probably start a cash auction in the emergency room on your body parts if you came in after a car crash.
Gee, how many times have government-sponsored "voluntary" initiatives have inevitably become "mandatory?" Let me count the ways…
chltx, in a "value free, non-religous superstition" world, if you came into an emergency room, it would result in an instantaneous auction on eBay, using WiiFi laptops and Blackberries, to sell off your body parts to the highest bidder.
Mr. Kemp – It may surprise you to learn that the topic of the source of morality has come up on IC before, and not everyone agree with your conclusions.
chltx – Can you give an example of a health-care system where "willingness to pay for medical care out of your own pocket" is, in fact, illegal? Aside from buying organs from people, I've never heard of anyone prosecuted for that. If you've got an example, though, I'd be interested.
Mr. Kemp, you write, "As for "Not paying for something is different from forbidding it," in an imperfect private insurance system there are profits available to finance operations, however begrudgingly."
I'm afraid I don't follow. If Obama doesn't think the government should pay for something, that is not at all the same thing as saying nobody should be allowed to pay their own money for it. Not cutting a check for a pacemaker is not the same thing as saying, "If you try to get a pacemaker we'll put you in jail."
I don't see the connection between that and the current profits of insurance companies. Unless you're saying that they are deliberately killing people by their rescission of policies, happily taking premiums when people are well, but dropping them as soon as they get any expensive illness?
Mr. Kemp – It may surprise you to learn that the topic of the source of morality has come up on IC before, and not everyone agree with your conclusions. – Ingles.
Ingles, you are an arrogant little man. Save the condescention for your dog. I know beforehand that not everyone on these IC comment boards or in this world agrees with me without you having to remind me of the fact. And I'm not going to go look on other linked comments for your words. If you don't want to paraphrase or cut and paste, I think we just about finished talking to each other here. Your vapid response is not worth answering further.
I'm afraid I don't follow. If Obama doesn't think the government should pay for something, that is not at all the same thing as saying nobody should be allowed to pay their own money for it. Not cutting a check for a pacemaker is not the same thing as saying, "If you try to get a pacemaker we'll put you in jail." – Ingles.
Ingles, the President is a role model and spokesman for the Democratic party. If you want to pretend he isn't setting the tone for this bill, that's your problem. What you are talking about an event that might happen with late in life payment, but it would be a statistical anomily, i.e., the exception that proves the rule. Okay, have a nice life. I've got some other things to do this day.
Mr Kemp: "chltx, in a "value free, non-religous superstition" world, if you came into an emergency room…"
That is not true, and I believe that you know that, which would make your retort disingenuous. If you are not aware of why your retort was false, look up Desire Utilitarianism.
chltx, let me clarify. This is certainly not true today, but in a socialist utilitarian world where individual rights are totally subserviant to the state, a need for the state to make up its budget shortfall, declaring all individuals the property of the state, may make this become true in the future. As for your directing me to Desire Utilitarianism, I am not willing to do the background research for someone who is too lazy to post their own arguments on this board. By the way, the state doesn't have to be the ghoulish party selling body parts. A society that believes people have no individual rights and is financially troubled may look the other way as doctors, nurses and orderlies sell the body parts of someone coming into an emergency room too weak to protest. Your perfectly rational athiest state may have enough protection for those who would do what religion defines as evil desecration of bodies.
By the way, since there is no bourgoise "right and wrong" in an athiest's value system, you can email me your grandmother's home address so I can attack her on social security check day. Hey, if I kill her, you may stand to inherit a fortune. I am being facetious here for the sake of argument. I would not attack your grandmother on the first of the month or any other day.
Dennis Prager used to say, "If anyone tells you religion has no place in modern life, just ask them who they would prefer to meet on a dark night and a dark street: two large young men coming from a class where they learned that America is an unjust society where no one can get a break – or two large young men coming home from a Bible study class?"
Mr. Kemp – I've been trying to be polite, not condescending. I was also trying to keep this discussion on topic – health care reform and how closely it might resemble eugenics or Naziism – rather than go off on tangents. And, finally, I don't like to summarize an 8,000 word essay, along with its subsequent discussion, in soundbites.
But if that's how you want to handle it, I can come up with a few. First off you're arguing that a lack of morality, as the word is commonly understood, would lead to terrible consequences in this world, no? That would imply that morality has positive effects in this world. Which further implies that behaving morally is, or at least can be in many circumstances, advantageous in this world.
Second, as H.L. Mencken said, "People say we need religion when what they really mean is we need police." Look up the 1969 Montreal police strike sometime. Presumably, God didn't go away that day, but the police did. Which had a demonstrably stronger influence on people's behavior?
I'm not sure Dennis Prager still asks that question after he got an answer from Christopher Hitchens: …Hitchens addresses a hypothetical question he was asked on a panel with radio host Dennis Prager: if he were alone in an unfamiliar city at night, and a group of strangers began to approach him, would he feel safer, or less safe, knowing that these men had just come from a prayer meeting? Hitchens answers by listing some "unfamiliar cities" where he may indeed feel threatened if in that particular situation. Citing only cities starting with the letter B, he lists Belfast, Beirut, Bombay, Belgrade, Bethlehem, and Baghdad, giving detailed descriptions of the tense social and political situations within these particular cities, which he attributes to religion. From this, he writes that he has "not found it a prudent rule to seek help as the prayer meeting breaks up.".
Mr. Kemp – To get back to health care, I still have a couple of problems. First off, I don't follow the connection between Obama not paying for pacemakers for centenarians and "in an imperfect private insurance system there are profits available to finance operations, however begrudgingly". So far as I can figure, you're claiming that if the government pays for some things, people can't make a profit from that payment? (Defense contractors must be the poorest… oh wait.) Or is it that people will not be allowed to charge for services or something? I'm not familiar with any health care system where that's the case, but if you have an example I'd be interested.
Secondly, you write, "What you are talking about an event that might happen with late in life payment, but it would be a statistical anomily, i.e., the exception that proves the rule.
What rule? The rule that few people can afford pacemakers our of their pocket today? That's well established… but isn't changed whether the government or private insurers deny the claim. Or is it that denying pacemakers in general would be an exception? That would seem to undercut your case.
When the GOP manages to get away from the unnecessary linkage of Conservative values and Christian Fundamentalism, the GOP will be a lot more appealing to people like me. -chltx
chltx, I should have mentioned this earlier. You would best be served by in reconsiling and/or dealing with your athiest conflicts with the majority of the GOP by going the website of the Ayn Rand Institute or an organization called The Junto (not sure if they have large organization. I know they have a branch in New York). I personally agree with a lot of what Ms. Rand has said, but obviously we have religious belief (or non-belief) differences. The Ayn Rand Institute is very free market, points out shortcoming in the current GOP, and I believe would offer you some answers to the concerns you have.
Raymond: See http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/08/debbie-hirst-not-stephen-hawking.html
Jack: Wrong again, on several counts. It's interesting that you have the chutzpa to accuse me of laziness, since you are the one claiming to be "intellectual". Just because you are either unwilling or intellectually incapable of studying Desire Utilitarianism does not make it unimportant. And just because you can't free your mind of superstition does not mean that it is not possible for anyone else to do so. I also have better things to do than refute the many fallacies in your superstition-based arguments, but if you ever achieve a desire to learn how to think, you can start with http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
As for your anecdotes: The plural of anecdote is not 'data'. I avoid dark streets at night, period, and someone trying to rob my mother (or my wife, or me, since my grandmothers are both long-deceased) is very likely to die in the attempt, regardless of what kind of meeting he just left.
I willingly concede that certain religions (including Christianity) sometimes have a positive effect on people's lives. That doesn't make them correct (see "how to construct a logical argument", referenced above). Desire Utilitarianism, or just intelligent (enlightened) self-interest accomplishes much the same thing, and I have encountered Christian Fundies who are downright dangerous.
There are certain religions, notably Islam, that generally have a very negative effect. Even Christianity can have a negative effect on people willing to take all of it literally ("Suffer not a witch to live" http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/witch.asp, as just one example of hundreds).
Now, on to things about which we can agree. Socialism is bad. I believe that's because it cannot be made to work without the use of force, and even then, it works poorly.
Not all lies are dangerous, but all dangerous people lie. Obama and Pelosi are two very dangerous people. And the message about Healthcare (oh, now it's "health insurance" — when people start to catch on, you have to change the wording) coming from the current administration is full of lies. Some of which you touched on in your article above.
While the Hippocratic Oath is outdated and based on ancient superstition, I believe that something very much like it is both possible and necessary. (Starting with, "First, do no harm that can be avoided") But more important is a sense of ethics that works to the general good. One of my favorite definitions of 'ethics' is that which makes you do the right thing even if the wrong thing is legal. Unfortunately, such a sense of ethics is present in only a tiny minority, and some outside scrutiny (transparency, anyone?) is a practical requirement, hence, some way of measuring and exposing a lack of ethics is needed, both in medical practice, and in politics.
Even though you have demonstrated you are either unwilling or intellectually incapable of understanding Desire Utilitarianism (you are one cut&paste and about three mouse clicks away from Alonzo Fyfe's excellent reference on the subject, even though you consider yourself too superior to be bothered with it), I can assure you that it arrives at a code of ethics very similar to that of (modern, Liberal) Christianity (or modern, Liberal Judaism), without the intellectual baggage of authoritarian religion or holy books. And despite my lack of superstition, I am still a Conservative (with Libertarian leanings). Per my original post on this topic, I would have a great deal more respect for the GOP if they could somehow separate politics from religion (Perry's book on the subject notwithstanding), and recognize that not all Conservatives are Christians or Jews.
Mr. Ingles, the federal government is required in the Constitution to "provide for the common defense." That is why – along with fear of foreign invaders – the US Government buys military hardware.
The government pays for Medicare from tax money from the people – and they can't balance the books. Medicare is going broke with the arrival of the baby boomers.
Years ago, libertarian Harry Browne tried to start a "pay as you go" retirement fund in NY State. The NY State Insurance Dept. which tightly regulates that industry, refused to allow this system, saying he had to have a large cash reserve. Based on that fiscal responsibility, the Social Security Trust Fund and the SS System would not pass muster to exist in New York State – if they didn't have friends in high political office.
You may not be familiar with the scandal of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. When people tried to descend the stairs, they found that the state authority owned building had no emergency battery powered lights. Because the state was both the enforcer and the enforcee, with no outside check and balance, they discarded their responsibility to light the stairs. Only after this became a public scandal in the press did the NY Port Authority install lights which greatly helped in evacuation on 9/11/01. I basicly don't trust govt. monopolies for good reason.
This remark is directed at both chltx and Mr. Ingles.
We seem to have gotten off the topic of the health care system and onto the merits (or lack of) in religion and atheism. Perhaps I should use the term "people of goodwill" instead. There are those of goodwill and non-goodwill in both the religious and atheist populations. I don't deny your right to be atheists and people in both camps are imperfect. If you want to be an atheist, that's your business. Don't believe, however, that an atheist regime would automatically be a big improvement. The Soviet Union under Stalin was an atheist regime – and I'm not saying every atheist regime would resemble that one.
I believe that private sector health care can be better managed – particularly if legal barriers to tort reform or selling insurance across state lines are lifted. But to grant the government a monopoly over health care is to invite a sytem which few would trust.
For an interesting proposal on improving private health insurance, see http://www.cringely.com/2009/08/malpractice-makes-perfect/
I have to go to my dentist this morning and have other work-related projects, but will find some time to be on these boards.
I just submitted to Intellectual Conservative a report on my Congressman's town hall meeting I attended last night. In it, people talk about abstractions but also practical problems they found as both government officials and patients and workers needing both coverage and lower cost healthcare than their union plan which is hurting their employer's ability to bid on jobs. I hope Mr. Alexander posts it.
When I have more time, I will search for some of the websites and topics mentioned by other commenters, including chltx and Mr. Ingles.
chltx,
The Salem Witch Trials predate the US of A's government and are not exactly a timely issue. When was the last time you heard of Christian or Jewish legally sanctioned burning of witches in the last 100 years? For the record I'm against it – as I am against the burning of atheists and blasphemers. Look, we have got a major assault against our civil legal culture and civil rights in the Obama administration. You and I would do well not to vent our anger about things that are not relivant to the pressing issues of the day.
As for tort reform, I agree we need it. The state of Texas has a cap on the psychological "grief and suffering" part (only) of a medical malpractice suit which has lowered their medical malpractice insurance rates. I'm not holding my breath waiting for this to happen in NY or CA, but if things get bad enough in those two social utopian states, there just may be some more willingness to vote for strong reforms out of financial desperation, i.e., the public admitting they just can't go on. The current crop of politicians probably will never admit that, from what I saw at the Town Hall meeting last night with my US Congressman.
chltx makes a common atheist non sequitur. If some religious people behave badly, it means religion is at fault.
Compounding his error, he makes a snarky remark about being free of superstition, despite the fact that his other remarks clearly indicate that he embraces a wholly superstitous belief system regarding the nature of religion and of people who believe in God.
Typical for atheists. So convinced of their own superiority, their only means of relating to people who have a different world view is to denigrate them.
Mountain Man,
You make some excellent points. Thank you for your support.
Around a year ago, I was exchanging emails with an actual practicing politically conservative pagan. An insight came to me which I passed along to him: whereas I have a different religious belief than he, I respected that he believed in a Higher Good than his own ego. And I also thought the statists were trying to co-opt his religious beliefs in Mother Earth as a smoke screen for more governmental regulations and limitations on the citizenry, and that the "green parties" cared not a fig about the earth/Gaia but only about controling people's lives.
Mountain Man: You are reading things into my words that simply are not there. You are the one with the non sequitur, followed closely by a stawman argument, followed by the same sort of generalization you accused me of. Project much, do you?
chltx,
Since you offered absolutely no substance, no logic, and no argument in your response, I am simply obligated to respond in kind. So, here is my response: "Yes you did."
Now your turn to write, "No I didn't." Or, you can give a substantive response.
Typical atheist.
Mr. Kemp,
Based on your comment, there must be conservative atheists. It seems like the two components would be contradictory, however.
Yes, Mountan Man, but human beings are full of contradictions and opposing emotions and thoughts. Not everyone fits neatly into some expected category. There are gun owner and owning advocates in New York and San Francisco. There are big liberals in small town Indiana. Sorting out the contradictions in oneself is part of our life's work, so that we don't act at cross purposes and trip ourselves up. But no one does it perfectly.
I once wrote a piece that said there are no Jews without flaws in the Old Testament, even Moses. And the only perfect person in Christianity left this earth around 33 A.D. in the Jerusalem area.
Mr. Kemp, I'm quite aware of the rationale for the government handling national defense – and I heartily approve of it. My point, however, was that defense contractors are hardly failing to make a profit. There is no automatic reason that health-care providers paid by the government couldn't, either.
That's not to say that there are no other good arguments against the government getting into the health insurance business. But if it does, and people are allowed to supplement their health care budget with their own money (as chltx's link indicates is now the case in the U.K. since 2008), then the profit motive doesn't automatically depart the health care industry.
Overall, I'm a fan of the profit motive, combined with working competition, as a way to ensure maintenance and improvement of goods and services. In other comments here I've noted the Dutch health care system, which involves a regulated system of private insurers. (Not all regulation is bad – e.g. food and product safety laws. Look to China for what happens when those are nonexistent or not enforced.) Other ideas like chltx's link to malpractice insurance reform are welcome, too.
The "Obama plan" isn't necessarily a great idea. If it's going to be attacked, though, I think it should be attacked for actual failings rather than hypothetical or false ones.
Oh, and speaking of false failings, this is interesting:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/08/maddow_on_right_wing_lies_on_h.php#more
Oh, yes, Rachel Maddow. Truly an objective, non-partisan commentator.
Easy for the Left to mock legitimate concerns about Obama's take-over of healthcare. Easier still to provide links to commentators who cherry pick facts, and accept prima facia statements from the Obama administration, as if those statements themselves are sufficient to refute the claims made by detractors.
For those who actually have read the bills (in particular, HR 3200), the situation is a bit more troubling. The WSJ is just a bit more objective than Maddow: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574344900152168372.html
Mountain Man – Re: Maddow@39, a wise man once said, "Since you offered absolutely no substance, no logic, and no argument in your response, I am simply obligated to respond in kind." So, here is my response: Is so!
Mr. Ingles,
If you will admit that Rush Limbaugh is fair and impartial, I will do the same with Maddow.
It is not controversial to assert that Maddow is a hard leftist. She has said as much.
By the way, your post 38 contains no commentary or justification for Maddow's presentation, except an implied approval.
Is not.
Mountain Man, chltx, and Others:
The topic of how can a conservative also be an atheist has been raised here. A good example is an article in today's American Thinker called "Extort thy Neighbor…"
Here are two excerpts that show the common ground between conservatives and Ayn Rand atheists. The "Jack" referred to is not myself.
Quote 1:
Who can tell me why when Jack's friend visits, it is extortion, and when the government agent visits it isn't? No one can, because logically there is no difference. Ayn Rand in fact gives a slight moral edge to Jack's friend (from Collectivized Ethics in The Virtue of Selfishness):
In fact, the private hoodlum has a slight edge of moral superiority: he has no power to devastate an entire nation and his victims are not legally disarmed.
Who are the villains here?
Number one are the voters who choose politicians who will extort money for them from their neighbors. "Fair share of the rich" to these voters means they will be getting some of that money, with visions of free stuff dancing in their heads.
Quote 2
America has not been free, prosperous, and economically strong by magic. No other-worldly force guarantees us a high standard of living. We are economically strong only because our people have been free to pursue their own wealth. This year there are numerous examples of businesses not expanding or hiring because of an anti-business administration. History is full of examples of the failure of collectivized schemes, including the miserable failure of the initial communal structure at Jamestown.
Mountain Man – The question isn't whether Maddow or Limbaugh are impartial. The question is whether either of them are correct. In the clip, Maddow points out that Limbaugh, Gingrich, and Palin each were enthusiastic about counseling for 'living wills' and 'end-of-life' care… until it became politically expedient not to be. And she uses their own words to show it.
As C.S. Lewis put it, "You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong." (I think he'd be willing to extend that to women, too.) All you need to do is explain why Maddow is wrong, and then you won't have to call her "partisan" or "partial".
"The question isn't whether Maddow or Limbaugh are impartial."
Excuse me, but this is EXACTLY what we were talking about.
My comment in 39: "Oh, yes, Rachel Maddow. Truly an objective, non-partisan commentator." Your response in 41: "Is so!" My response to you in 42: "If you will admit that Rush Limbaugh is fair and impartial, I will do the same with Maddow."
Maddow is not objective, she is a harsh partisan, and we have not discussed whether or not she is correct on this issue. It is not the issue.
Once again, Mr. Ingles, you offer a link with no comment and then want to dispute issues that have not been offered.
Do you still not see why people call you dishonest? Still?
Mountain Man – Whether or not they are impartial may be what you want to talk about, but that's not what we've been talking about. We've been talking about, as I said before, "health care reform and how closely it might resemble eugenics or Naziism".
Noting inconsistencies in the rhetoric of the people making the accusations of "death panels" is fully in line with that. (And there's more where that came from: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/13/oh-those-death-panels/ ) Is Maddow wrong that these people are misrepresenting the contents of the bill, their own views, or both? Do you care to address that? Even if I agreed that Maddow and Limbaugh are biased and partisan – that still doesn't mean either is automatically wrong.
Besides, if we did decide to accept your change of topic – you made no case for your assertion, so why should I have to make a case for a counter-assertion? I was just taking you at your word, illustrating the strength of your own 'argument'…
Mr. Ingles,
There have been 46 posts on this thread, covering a multitude of topics. You brought in a bitter partisan in support of (?), well, you never really said. I challenged the objectivity of your source.
You can make the topic anything you like, but me questioning your use of a left-wing loon as a source is perfectly acceptable. I wouldn't trust her if she told me the sky was blue.
Rush Limbaugh can speak for himself. He is on the radio three hours a day and says a lot of things about a lot of subjects. My guess is that you rarely, if ever, listen to him. Your ignorance of his positions is obvious, and merit no further discussion.
Far from having a "gotcha," you don't have any idea what Rush has said or what he believes. Your link to swampland is irrelevent, since Rush is not elected, he is not a Republican, and is not on record as having supported end-of-life counseling.
Here we go around again. Pretty soon you will have the issue all contorted and twisted into something entirely unrecognizable. That is your track record.
Mountain Man – I "never said"? Read the last sentence of comment 37 and the first sentence of comment 38. If you can't follow that…
(BTW… go ahead and read the link to "swampland". Limbaugh doesn't figure in that article at all. "204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators" do, though. I'm pretty sure they're both Republican and elected. When I said "there's more where that came from", I wasn't referring to Rush – I was referring to more people than just Rush displaying such hypocrisy.)
As to Maddow – Fine, if it makes you happy, we'll happily stipulate that she's not objective. But… so what? Did she fake the video of Limbaugh advocating living wills? (I'd have to call that 'going on record', but perhaps you know of an obscure usage of the term I'm unfamiliar with.) Did she fake Palin's proclamation? (Will you trust the State of Alaska if they tell you the sky's blue?)
You don't have to like her tone. You don't have to like what she points out in that clip. But you don't get to ignore the actual facts she points out – such as that these people were for living wills before they were against them. That would be as bad as me ignoring when Rush points out actual facts.
What the h*ll? Mr. Ingles, please stop your obfuscations! I can hardly believe what I'm reading. Limbaugh and living wills is relevant how? Good Lord!
Palin's "proclamation" was on the money. Using a rhetorical device to make a point is something you, sir, are well acquainted with. Particularly if it is hyperbolic.
What I think of Maddow's tone, or whether or not I like her is irrelevant. She is an intellectual wasteland. She has no redeeming qualities, nothing to recommend her to a TV or radio show of her own.
Nothing that comes from her, factual or not, is worth heeding. Michael Vick may be a nice guy, but I'll pass on his opinions on proper pet care, thank you.
204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators have not been talking about death panels, then or now. I suspect few of them even knew that the provision was in the legislation.
"…these people were for living wills before they were against them." What? WHAT? What are you talking about? Why are we talking about living wills?
What is it that makes you tick, Mr. Ingles? Do you have to win the argument, even when none exists? I made a rather simple, non-controversial, tongue in cheek comment that Maddow is "truly an objective, non-partisan commentator." And now we have come to the point of realizing that none of what she brought up (if we assume that she even got the contexts right) is even relevant.
So what gives?
Mountain Man – You're right! The "204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators have not been talking about death panels"! They just voted for support of end-of-life counseling about living wills!
As to "Why are we talking about living wills?" – because that's what the provision in the proposed 'health care reform' bill covered – reimbursing doctors for time spent counseling elderly patients about living wills. That's the provision that was cited as creating 'death panels'. (Go ahead, look it up. I'm done doing your homework for you.)
Maddow pointed out that the identical concept that Limbaugh, Gingrich, and Palin decried when the Obama administration proposed it was all hunky dory when they and their GOP fellow-travellers were proposing it.
Either they're lying about 'death panels' following inevitably from such a provision, or they are lying about opposing death panels. Not really a third option, I'm afraid. Personally, I figure it's the former, though you might disagree, I suppose.