Really. Zeke is Rahm Emanuel's (Obama's chief of staff) brother and is a health policy adviser at the White House Office of Management and Budget. He's an oncologist (deals with cancer) and a bioethicist (studies the ethics of medical care). Nancy-Ann DeParle is heading the health reform efforts, under Kathleen Sebelius, who leads Health and Human Services.
The fringe has grabbed hold of comments that Zeke Emanuel has made, taken it out of context (imagine that) and has turned his statements into meaning that he advocates "death panels" and so does Obama. In fact, the more grannies killed, the better the chances that the youth can take over. After all, they're being re-educated at Obama's re-education camps, such as the Peace Corps. Do you see how this big nonsensical socialist plot is coming together?
Here is a bit about how Sarah Palin and Betsy McCaughey (more about her below) latched on to Zeke:
Her political spokesperson later confirmed that Palin was referring to the principle of "community standards," which she linked to a New York Post piece about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a noted cancer physician an a presidential adviser on health care economics and the brother of the Chief of Staff. (Emanuel is also an occasional contributor to the Atlantic.)In other words, they're just makin' stuff up. Palin is a fool. Her comments shouldn't even be part of a rational debate. Newt is a guy who wants to be relevant to make up for past deeds.
Emanuel, in a few journal articles and an Atlantic feature, has written about the enormously complex emotional, social and economic decisions that individuals and the health care system confront whenever someone begins to die from a terminal illness. Emanuel's thesis adviser at Harvard was Prof. Michael Sandel, a noted communitarian who has argued that our political debates bracket gut-level values to our detriment. Emanuel writes in the tradition of a communaritan who believes that procedural liberalism -- the reigning philosophy of government today -- does not allow for priorities among health care services because it "cannot appeal to a conception of the good." Emanuel writes: "But without appealing to a conception of the good, it is argued, we can never establish priorities among health care services and define basic medical services." Emanuel sketches out a "civic Republicanism" telos -- that is -- our health care decisions as a society should be yoked to a system that "promote[s] the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic." He notes that such a system would deny "services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens."
Emanuel is setting up a contrast: our health care system today treats everyone equally -- as if they ought to have equal access to every possible procedure or treatment. To most of us, the status quo seems intuitively right. Everyone is equal -- equal under God -- Emanuel doesn't say this, but he might as well -- and therefore it would be evil to make distinctions. What Emanuel is arguing, here, is that this liberalism substitutes one goal -- equality -- for another -- a healthy society -- and that substitution may be responsible for the limited choices that policy-makers confront. He also points out a trade-off between providing a basic level of coverage for all and providing the opportunity for anyone with some coverage to get every possible benefit, treatment and procedure.
Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich aren't debating the moral philosophy of John Rawls, whose formulations Emanuel borrows. They're taking Emanuel's academic point about health care values, assigning it to Emanuel as if Emanuel were advocating for something he isn't, then jumping over the entire health care colossus, and they assign this distorted belief to Barack Obama by implying an argument that actually disproves the linkage they are trying to make. read more at the Atlantic
Here is Zeke talking about "high touch" health care vs. technology. He's the complete opposite of a death doctor. The right doesn't like Rahm Emanuel. Some on the left don't like Rahm either, so his brother is an easy target for small minded people.
Emanuel is astonished that he's been smeared. Imagine that you've fought for something your entire career and then suddenly, some idiot's lies takes hold:
"I couldn't believe this was happening to me," says Emanuel, who in addition to spending his career opposing euthanasia and working to increase the quality of care for dying patients is the brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. "It is incredible how much one's reputation can be besmirched and taken out of context." TimeBetsy McCaughey wrote an opinion piece for the New York Post. ABC fact checked that she's the origin of the "death panels" idea (see that video here). Read Politifact's debunking of McCaughey's smear here.
Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).Here is Betsy on with right winger Mark Levin's radio show (to get an idea of who Levin is, watch the video here):
Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.
Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.
Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.
He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "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" (Lancet, Jan. 31). NYP
It occurs to me that the reason that the right wing is so successful with seniors is that seniors listen to radio and conservative talk show hosts dominate radio.
Another one of their strategies: books. Conservatives crank out a book a day practically.
Here is Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of health reform, debunking the latest rumors in granny's inbox:
Here are tenets of health reform from the White House:
Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Get more information here.
