Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Deadly Doctors?

  1. #1
    Bamboozled Guest

    Default Deadly Doctors?

    I have not heard one Townhall question on the issue of the President's
    prominent health care advisors who recommend rationing health care to
    the elderly, to the very young, and to the seriously handicapped. Here
    is a letter I wrote to Whitehouse.gov. I'll let you know if I get an
    answer.

    My letter:
    "Why do you have the following doctors as Special Health Care Policy
    Advisors if you do not plan to ration health care to seniors and the
    disabled?:

    Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, M.D.
    Dr. David Blumenthal, M.D.

    These two doctors are on record as recommending rationing of health care
    for the elderly, those with dementia and even young children.

    The opinions of these men are highly controversial in their profession
    and paint an ugly picture of the direction your administration may be
    considering.

    Add to this your recommendations to cut Medicare and Medicaid by hundred
    of billions of dollars while you deny that your health plan overhaul
    WILL NOT be paid with Medicare/Medicaid cuts, and you simply are not
    credible.

    Please explain.



    Supporting link: http: http://tinyurl.com/mbq3rc

  2. #2
    Nico Kadel-Garcia Guest

    Default Re: Deadly Doctors?

    Hey, look! Another throwaway lobbyist email account!

    Do you cover your lawn with Astroturf, too, or only use that for fake
    grass roots lobbying?


    On Aug 16, 1:15*pm, Bamboozled <Bambo...@nospam.com> wrote:
    > I have not heard one Townhall question on the issue of the President's
    > prominent health care advisors who recommend rationing *health care to
    > the elderly, to the very young, and to the seriously handicapped. Here
    > is a letter I wrote to Whitehouse.gov. I'll let you know if I get an
    > answer.


  3. #3
    Bamboozled Guest

    Default Re: Deadly Doctors?

    Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > Hey, look! Another throwaway lobbyist email account!
    >
    > Do you cover your lawn with Astroturf, too, or only use that for fake
    > grass roots lobbying?


    Ad hominem attack--no substance.

  4. #4
    Wes Groleau Guest

    Default Re: Deadly Doctors?

    Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > Hey, look! Another throwaway lobbyist email account!


    If "bamboozled" is wrong, why not say how and why?

    The above is not consistent with your usual credibility.

    By the way, I don't think a munged address is a "throwaway
    email account," especially when the same address has been
    on posts for at least two weeks.



    --
    Wes Groleau

    After the christening of his baby brother in church, Jason sobbed
    all the way home in the back seat of the car. His father asked him
    three times what was wrong. Finally, the boy replied, "That preacher
    said he wanted us brought up in a Christian home, and I wanted to
    stay with you guys."

  5. #5
    hwf Guest

    Default Re: Deadly Doctors?

    In message <h69m5s$gdh$[email protected]>, Bamboozled wrote:
    > Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > > Hey, look! Another throwaway lobbyist email account!
    > >
    > > Do you cover your lawn with Astroturf, too, or only use that for fake
    > > grass roots lobbying?

    >
    > Ad hominem attack--no substance.


    Naw, thats not an ad-hom...now *this* is an ad hom:

    **** right off you goat raping cocksucker.

    ^_^

    --
    Proof of Americas 3rd world status:
    http://www.ramusa.org/
    "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people
    by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and
    sudden usurpations.... The means of defense against foreign danger historically
    have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
    -James Madison


  6. #6
    hwf Guest

    Default Re: Deadly Doctors?

    In message <h69es4$6m8$[email protected]>, Bamboozled wrote:
    > I have not heard one Townhall question on the issue of the President's
    > prominent health care advisors who recommend rationing health care to
    > the elderly...


    Because the people who attend have been rational?

    Folks in the UK laugh at us, dimmy:

    "There are few tribes more loathsome than the American right" (Guardian UK)

    The Guardian (UK) - Simon Hoggart, August 15

    There are few tribes more loathsome than the American right, and their vicious
    use of the shortcomings in the NHS to
    attack Barack Obama's attempts at health reform are a useful reminder.

    I was thinking of this during a visit to my 91-year-old dad who is still in an
    NHS hospital after three weeks, recovering
    from a broken hip. He has had fantastic care, including a new metal hip, blood
    transfusions, different antibiotics to match
    every aspect of his condition; all administered by nurses who remain cheerful
    even when asked to perform tasks on men 
    the lethal combination of pain and old age makes some in the ward exceedingly
    grumpy  that I would not want to do for
    1,000 a time. If he was in an American hospital he'd be using up half his
    life savings to get that standard of care, and few
    ordinary Americans could afford the insurance that would provide it. (This is
    because health insurers spend a large part of
    their income on PR against the "socialised medicine" and on sending pro forma
    letters explaining why your policy doesn't
    cover actual illness.) All over the US there are people whose lives are being
    destroyed for lack of proper health care
    provision, and there is no sight more odious than the rich, powerful and
    arrogant trying to keep it that way.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardia...-hoggarts-week


    --
    Proof of Americas 3rd world status:
    http://www.ramusa.org/
    "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people
    by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and
    sudden usurpations.... The means of defense against foreign danger historically
    have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
    -James Madison


  7. #7
    Bamboozled Guest

    Default Re: Deadly Doctors?

    You seem to be unable to deal with the points I raised relative to
    Obama's two special health advisors who have publicly advocated
    rationing care to the very young, seniors, and seriously disabled.

    Obama needs to explain these appointments and you need to argue
    intelligently instead of wasting time by baiting others, something
    you're a master at.

    You're quite the master baiter.

  8. #8
    Nico Kadel-Garcia Guest

    Default Re: Deadly Doctors?

    On Aug 16, 3:56*pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
    > Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > > Hey, look! Another throwaway lobbyist email account!

    >
    > If "bamboozled" is wrong, why not say how and why?
    >
    > The above is not consistent with your usual credibility.
    >
    > By the way, I don't think a munged address is a "throwaway
    > email account," especially when the same address has been
    > on posts for at least two weeks.


    No, a munged address is fine. But such an address with no previous
    history or content whatsoever, cross-posting to multiple rather
    distinct groups, popping up with a political diatribe, is a spammer in
    another form sending Unsolicited Bulk Communications. That wasn't a
    personal message, that was a professionally written form letter
    pretending otherwise. If nothing, the subtleties of paragraph and
    sentence formation strongly indicate to *my* experienced ear that it
    was written by a committee, not an individual.

  9. #9
    Nico Kadel-Garcia Guest

    Default Re: Deadly Doctors?

    On Aug 16, 7:45*pm, Bamboozled <Bambo...@nospam.com> wrote:
    > You seem to be unable to deal with the points I raised relative to
    > Obama's two special health advisors who have publicly advocated
    > rationing care to the *very young, seniors, and seriously disabled.
    >
    > Obama needs to explain these appointments and you need to argue
    > intelligently instead of wasting time by baiting others, something
    > you're a master at.
    >
    > You're quite the master baiter.


    You just cited a "New York Post" article as your primary source for
    calling these physicians "Deadly Doctors". Has anyone else here ever
    read the New York Post? I was amazed to find a London-style right-wing
    ranting, pop-star worshipping scandal rag on a Boston subway, but
    there have apparently been some changes while I was away.

    The fact quality of New York Post articles approximates that of the
    Weekly World News. In fact, because the Weekly World News gathers a
    lot of its material from weirder Associated Press articles that have
    independent verification, I'd actually rate it higher.

    The "article" in question is taking what are, in fact, sensible quotes
    and stretching them into "they're gonna let granny die!" claims. And
    let's face it: American health care does have serious problems with a
    hospital spending $2500 on an MRI that is not likely to reveal
    anything about the injuries when a skilled doctor can diagnose faster,
    with less cost, and better patient comfort by simply palpating their
    abddomen. But doctors right now in the USA engage in a lot of "Cover
    Your Ass" policies, forced on them by malpractice-shy insurance and
    health group policies, and

  10. #10
    scrape Guest

    Default Re: Deadly Doctors?

    On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:06:08 -0700 (PDT), Nico Kadel-Garcia
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > But doctors right now in the USA engage in a lot of "Cover
    >Your Ass" policies, forced on them by malpractice-shy insurance and
    >health group policies, and...



    Bingo.
    The only thing needed for the entire health care industry is to
    keep the f'ing lawyers out of it.

    I know of more than one doctor that got out of the industry
    entirely after his business insurance topped $800,000/year with NO
    PREVIOUS MALPRACTICE CLAIMS.

    Like just about everything in the US, lawyers have found a way to
    steal a living off it.

  11. #11
    Nico Kadel-Garcia Guest

    Default Re: Deadly Doctors?

    On Aug 16, 10:58*pm, scrape <scrapeNOTHA...@earthlink.net> wrote:
    > On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:06:08 -0700 (PDT), Nico Kadel-Garcia
    >
    > <nka...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > But doctors right now in the USA engage in a lot of "Cover
    > >Your Ass" policies, forced on them by malpractice-shy insurance and
    > >health group policies, and...

    >
    > Bingo.
    > The only thing needed for the entire health care industry is to
    > keep the f'ing lawyers out of it.
    >
    > I know of more than one doctor that got out of the industry
    > entirely after his business insurance topped $800,000/year with NO
    > PREVIOUS MALPRACTICE CLAIMS.
    >
    > Like just about everything in the US, lawyers have found a way to
    > steal a living off it.


    Well, it's not the only thing needed. Demystification of what both
    birth and death mean in terms of patient's rights would help, as would
    sane policies about alternative care. So would sane policies about the
    medical usages of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana, all of which have
    significant clinical uses but are very difficult to get access to
    because of ludicrous federal policy and the "war on some drugs"
    political legacies. So would pro-active care for diabetics: more
    generous funding for glucose test strips to help reduce or avoid the
    need for amputation or optical surgery. So would a serious revamping
    of medical patent law: the patents on human insulin, for example, led
    to a huge and unnecessary switchover to a vastly more expensive and as
    it turns out, mostly unnecessary human insulin because the old
    manufacturing patents were expiring.

    The list goes on and on.

  12. #12
    Bamboozled Guest

    Default Re: Deadly Doctors?

    I just posted an article on the implosion of the Canadian medical system
    that comes from Canadian Press and quotes the President of the Canadian
    Medical Association who describes Canada's medical system as
    "unsustainable" and in a state of "implosion" and not serving the needs
    of Canadians very well. She recommends bring private insurance into the mix.

    BUT THE HEADLINE IS THIS---WHY ISN'T THE MAINSTREAM AMERICAN PRESS THAT
    YOU TRUST REPORTING THIS?

    I had to find this on Drudge.

  13. #13
    hwf Guest

    Default Re: Deadly Doctors?

    In message <h6a5lv$2tl$[email protected]>, Bamboozled wrote:
    > You seem to <SLAP>


    If you dont like my poasts, dont read them

    Public option works:
    http://www.nupge.ca/node/2486



    --
    Proof of Americas 3rd world status:
    http://www.ramusa.org/
    "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people
    by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and
    sudden usurpations.... The means of defense against foreign danger historically
    have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
    -James Madison


  14. #14
    hwf Guest

    Default Re: Deadly Doctors?

    In message <h6btma$833$[email protected]>, Bamboozled wrote:
    > I just posted an article on the implosion of the Canadian medical system
    > that comes from Canadian Press and quotes the President of the Canadian
    > Medical Association who describes Canada's medical system as
    > "unsustainable" and in a state of "implosion" and not serving the needs
    > of Canadians very well. She recommends bring private insurance into the mix.
    >
    > BUT THE HEADLINE IS THIS---WHY ISN'T THE MAINSTREAM AMERICAN PRESS THAT
    > YOU TRUST REPORTING THIS?
    >
    > I had to find this on Drudge.


    I bet you cry along with Glen Beck too...

    ^_^

    --
    Proof of Americas 3rd world status:
    http://www.ramusa.org/
    "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people
    by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and
    sudden usurpations.... The means of defense against foreign danger historically
    have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
    -James Madison


  15. #15
    Tiger Lily Guest

    Default Re: Deadly Doctors?

    Bamboozled wrote:
    > Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >> Hey, look! Another throwaway lobbyist email account!
    >>
    >> Do you cover your lawn with Astroturf, too, or only use that for fake
    >> grass roots lobbying?

    >
    > Ad hominem attack--no substance.

    and that differs from your OWN post?

    oh please, do inform us!

  16. #16
    Alan Mackenzie Guest

    Default Re: Deadly Doctors?

    Bamboozled <[email protected]> wrote:
    > I have not heard one Townhall question on the issue of the President's
    > prominent health care advisors who recommend rationing health care to
    > the elderly, to the very young, and to the seriously handicapped. Here
    > is a letter I wrote to Whitehouse.gov. I'll let you know if I get an
    > answer.


    > My letter:
    > "Why do you have the following doctors as Special Health Care Policy
    > Advisors if you do not plan to ration health care to seniors and the
    > disabled?:


    > Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, M.D.
    > Dr. David Blumenthal, M.D.


    > These two doctors are on record as recommending rationing of health care
    > for the elderly, those with dementia and even young children.


    OK, I'll byte. The tone of your posting suggests that these doctors'
    "recommending rationing health care for ....", if not entirely false,
    has been taken out of context or otherwise distorted. The question in
    your letter seems highly loaded, designed to give you an answer you can
    get all uptight about. You could have more courteously worded it
    something like "Are you planning to reduce health care to seniors and
    the disabled? If not, why have you appointed Dr. E. and Dr. B., who
    are known to favour such a policy?"

    > The opinions of these men are highly controversial in their profession
    > and paint an ugly picture of the direction your administration may be
    > considering.


    That sounds like an unsupported ad homines smear.

    It would have been helpful on these newsgroups, which are all
    international, if you could have summarized these Doctors' opinions,
    and given pointers to what you allege is their recommendations of
    rationing, in a neutral and fair context.

    > Add to this your recommendations to cut Medicare and Medicaid by hundred
    > of billions of dollars while you deny that your health plan overhaul
    > WILL NOT be paid with Medicare/Medicaid cuts, and you simply are not
    > credible.


    My impression is that you are just trying to create fear, uncertainty and
    doubt about the USA's government's intended reforms, with the aim of
    preventing them. This impression is reinforced by your anonymity.

    > Please explain.


    Yes. Please tell us all who you are. I don't need your name, address
    and 'phone number, but it would help to know what your interest is in
    all this. Do you live in the USA? Do you make money out of the current
    health "system" in the USA, and if so, how? What's your political
    background, your motivation?

    > Supporting link: http: http://tinyurl.com/mbq3rc


    --
    Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).


  17. #17
    Wes Groleau Guest

    Default Re: Deadly Doctors?

    Tiger Lily wrote:
    > Bamboozled wrote:
    >> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >>[snip]
    >> Ad hominem attack--no substance.

    > and that differs from your OWN post?


    "bamboozled" expressed disagreement with policy recommendations
    allegedly made by two doctors.

    Nico apparently attempted to discredit "bamboozled"
    without addressing the point "bamboozled" made.

    I think there's a big difference.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    "But, Professor! I didn't plagiarize! I paid someone to
    write the essay for me, and that person plagiarized!"
    -- from http://rateyourstudents.blogspot.com

  18. #18
    Wes Groleau Guest

    Default Re: Deadly Doctors?

    Alan Mackenzie wrote:
    > OK, I'll byte. The tone of your posting suggests that these doctors'
    > "recommending rationing health care for ....", if not entirely false,
    > has been taken out of context or otherwise distorted. The question in
    > your letter seems highly loaded, designed to give you an answer you can


    Now _this_ is not an ad hominem attack. Thank you, Alan.

    > My impression is that you are just trying to create fear, uncertainty and
    > doubt about the USA's government's intended reforms, with the aim of
    > preventing them. This impression is reinforced by your anonymity.


    Ah, well, we're really all anonymous here, aren't we? Some of us
    aren't trying to be, but you can't tell, can you? I might not be
    Wes Groleau--that might just be part of a very successful attempt
    at anonymity.

    > and 'phone number, but it would help to know what your interest is in
    > all this. Do you live in the USA? Do you make money out of the current
    > health "system" in the USA, and if so, how? What's your political
    > background, your motivation?


    What difference does any of that make? First, it's pretty hard to
    know whether the answer is a lie. Second, if someone makes money
    out of something, that doesn't automatically make their comments on it
    wrong. I know Guy would disagree...:-) And it doesn't automatically
    make them right either.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    Film Review: The Blue Butterfly
    http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1565

  19. #19
    Alan Mackenzie Guest

    Default Re: Deadly Doctors?

    Wes Groleau <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Alan Mackenzie wrote:
    >> OK, I'll byte. The tone of your posting suggests that these doctors'
    >> "recommending rationing health care for ....", if not entirely false,
    >> has been taken out of context or otherwise distorted. The question in
    >> your letter seems highly loaded, designed to give you an answer you can


    > Now _this_ is not an ad hominem attack. Thank you, Alan.


    My pleasure. :-)

    >> My impression is that you are just trying to create fear, uncertainty
    >> and doubt about the USA's government's intended reforms, with the aim
    >> of preventing them. This impression is reinforced by your anonymity.


    > Ah, well, we're really all anonymous here, aren't we? Some of us
    > aren't trying to be, but you can't tell, can you? I might not be
    > Wes Groleau--that might just be part of a very successful attempt
    > at anonymity.


    Yes, in a strict Proof-Beyond-Reasonable-Doubt sense, we're all
    anonymous. But for the practical purposes of this newsgroup, we know
    eachother. We can look at eachother's past posts, see consistent
    attitudes, consistent points of view, consistent descriptions of our
    problems to do with DM, and so on. "Wes Groleau" might be some fictional
    personage created by whomever you really are, but why would you bother
    doing this? Wes Groleau might not be your real name, but that wouldn't
    bother me at all.

    I'd quite happily meet Wes Groleau for an evening in the pub. I'd not be
    happy meeting "Bamboozled" - She or he seems like a mendacious meddler,
    somebody stirring up confusion and fear for his/her own purposes,
    somebody who profits from the misery, poverty and death that the current
    USA health "system" causes. If I'm wrong, Bamboozled, then tell us more
    about yourself.

    >> and 'phone number, but it would help to know what your interest is in
    >> all this. Do you live in the USA? Do you make money out of the current
    >> health "system" in the USA, and if so, how? What's your political
    >> background, your motivation?


    > What difference does any of that make? First, it's pretty hard to
    > know whether the answer is a lie. Second, if someone makes money
    > out of something, that doesn't automatically make their comments on it
    > wrong. I know Guy would disagree...:-) And it doesn't automatically
    > make them right either.


    I disagree with you on these points. The sort of smart Alex that
    "Bamboozled" seems to be doesn't like telling barefaced lies. They
    revel in their own cleverness at twisting words and senses, they are
    economical with the truth. But they fancy themselves superior to
    bare-faced liars, and won't descend to that level. If s/he is making
    money from the current system, it doesn't make his/her comments wrong,
    but it has a massive influence on how we should evaluate them. These
    comments would be both better informed and less disinterested than yours
    or mine.

    --
    Alan Mackenzie (Nuremeberg, Germany).


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32