Wow. I can hardly believe what I am reading here. I started out trying to double-check or verify my memory on a couple of statements by our president when discussing health care.
One being a statement he made about his grandmother: The “question was,” Obama said, “does she get hip-replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough they were not sure how long she would last?” I am still checking but it seems he did make this or similar statements at least two times (May 3/NYT and June 24/ABC.)
The other statement I wanted to verify was one where he answered a lady from the audience (ABC) saying that rather than a pacemaker, a pain killer might be more appropriate (and cheaper, implication being). The red pill? Or the blue pill? I know he made that red pill blue pill statement because I heard that live. There is a video of him answering the woman about her elderly mother and it seems he did say something about taking a pain killer but it’s one of his long, rambling answers so who knows what he said. Here’s a link to the entire statement on video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJYvaLS-xOw
BUT beyond those very revealing statements about what Obamacare has in store for Americans and his own mindset concerning the same, I came across PETER SINGER. He is a Princeton professor of bioethics and he wrote an article at NYT.com/magazine about rationing of health care and how it must be done. This is not some old writing either but dated July 15, 2009. Peter Singer is a real piece of work and caused some controversy when he was first hired at Princeton (I believe 1999) and no wonder.
He has come up with these equations such as “one teenager is worth (blank) 85 year olds.” I guess maybe he has not come up with the number of old people worth the one teenager. I suppose this will be up to the government committee or maybe the health czar. I find this shocking.
The following are Peter Singer quotes. This comes from an older source:
“I do think that it is sometimes appropriate to kill a human infant. For me, the relevant question is, what makes it so seriously wrong to take a life? Those of you who are not vegetarians are responsible for taking a life every time you eat. Species is no more relevant than race in making these judgments.”
and “A human being doesn’t have value simply in virtue of being a human…..”
and “I don’t believe in the existence of God, so it makes no sense to me to say that a human being is a creature of God. It’s as simple as that.”
Here’s a couple of links:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week302/cover.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?scp=2&sq=peter%20singer&st=cse
I will be reading more to see if Princeton Professor Singer and Barack Obama have any connections to indicate if and how Obama has been influenced by Singer, or maybe even formulated his ideas on health care based on some of his equations. Seems likely that he did to me.
I can’t read too much more right now. It makes me ill. My opinion: This is about as anti-American, anti- Christian as anything could be. The word evil comes to mind.
UPDATE: There are two Obama czars who seem to have ideas in conformity with Singer – Cass Sunstein, Obama Regulatory Czar and John Holdren, Obama Science Czar. There is not much about them that is easily available (can’t imagine why). There was a question posed on Answer.com about them but the post has been deleted. Sunstein is a advocate of animal rights to the point of giving them a right to sue in court. Not sure how they would do that, but…..John Holdren is a eugenicist and has a history of advocating population control and sterilization. (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/)
Also, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama healthcare advisor.http://rightsoup.com/rahms-brother-dr-ezekiel-emanuel-the-death-czar/
So I have said I guess a hundred times, birds of a feather flock together. And who is at the center of the flock? – none other than Barack Obama. From his mentors throughout life to his choices of all the czars, they are all far out of the mainstream of America. He has over 30 czars now and this is where he’s putting the more controversial people.
I know one thing without a shadow of a doubt, I don’t want Peter Singer, John Holdren, and Cass Sunstein with their hands anywhere near our health care. I mean, this stuff is extreme, shocking, and radical. And are they somewhere in some obscure college or something – no, they are the president’s right-hand men, and answer to no one but him. (Well, Singer is not but I think he is somewhere in the shadows pretty close at hand.) And this is why we cannot sit by and let these ungodly beliefs creep in. And creep is to put it mildly. They are at the door!!
Posted: 07.28.09 Update: 07.28.09 @ 7:36 p.m. Updated: 07.29 @ 1:22 p.m.
Update: Knowing how much the conservative is hated by the left, I wonder what weight of value Singer and company would put on a conservative life? Probably minus zero. A tea bagger or a birther would be snuffed out like a roach.
How would it feel to have your fate in the hands of those who do not think human life necessarily has value? Talk about insanity, this would be insanity. This whole thing is about much much more than health care or health insurance.
Posted 07.28.09
can i just finish my waffle? 
Bella: Singer certainly has endorsed Obama’s presidency in no uncertain terms.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/singer42
LikeLike
HC: Truly disturbing.
LikeLike
What does singer have to do with anything? Yeah he has some offensive ideas – where is the evidence that these ideas will influence government policy? It seems like such a non sequitur to bring that guy into the picture.
LikeLike
Well, he brought himself in when he wrote this article
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?scp=2&sq=peter%20singer&st=cse endorsing Obamacare wherein he said that rationing of health care must take place, and illustrating certain equations he uses to access the value of human life, in other words, the complete lives system. So when I wanted to find out who Peter Singer was and what he believed, I found he has such radical and outrageous ideas as infants not being human beings, et cetera.
Plus, Obama has chosen as Czars and advisors those who, upon examination, believe along the same lines as Singer, as Holdren, Sunstein, and Emanuel, who have stated in their writings they endorse the complete lives system and other strange and unusual practices such as giving animals and trees standing in court.
So my question to you is, where is the evidence that these ideas WON’T influence government policy?
From beliefs come actions.
LikeLike
Fine – like I said Singer may have disagreeable/offensive/abhorent ideas – but that doesn’t mean that those ideas will become public policy (unless you have some actual evidence to the contrary). Singer has not been appointed to any government position.
LikeLike
Singer makes me sick, and ashamed to be an Australian. Maybe a dingo should’ve eaten _him_ as a baby.
LikeLike
http://www.worldwariihistory.info/in/Australia.html
Hitler started with mercy killings, we all know how that ended up WWII. Australia stood up to the axis powers in WWII. They have to have their own WWII veterans wondering- do we have to fight these basterds every 50 years? That’s what I keep asking my father in law.
LikeLike
They hate humans and that starts with self hate….who hates you baby? Well eugenicist obviously, and they are circling like buzzards over the U.S.
Obama must ration health care? Really, why must he? Where is the imperative? Hhe has been in office 8 months, all of sudden he must kill off X amount of the population, for the common good? So why didn’t this need to be done prior to Obama being sworn into office 8 months ago?
LikeLike
Ree, it’s nothing short of diabolical. Anybody who starts with the hypothesis that human life is not sacred is a person I don’t want to be making health care decisions. This is not what America was founded on.
Media Matters has said that Dr Emanuel has been “smeared” and here’s how they clarify it:
“Emanuel did not “blame” the oath for the “overuse” of medical care. Rather, as Media Matters for America noted, Emanuel argued in his June 18, 2008, JAMA piece, co-authored by Victor R. Fuchs, that the “physician culture” in which “meticulousness, not effectiveness, is rewarded” has led physicians to interpret the Hippocratic Oath “as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others.””
Well, that explains it now doesn’t it.
Diabolical.
LikeLike
How old is the Hippocratic oath? Pretty old, and that doesn’t stop Progressives from trying to nuance it…if only they could just get words to mean something else you know the opposite, like doublespeak in Orwell’s 1984, it would all be so much easier then….Well for them anyway 🙂
LikeLike
ABOVE ALL DO NO HARM that must be the part they don’t like.
The Hippocratic Oath is an oath traditionally taken by doctors swearing to ethically practice medicine. It is widely believed to have been written by Hippocrates, the father of western medicine, in the 4th century BC, or by one of his students[1], and is usually included in the Hippocratic Corpus. Classical scholar Ludwig Edelstein proposed that the oath was written by Pythagoreans, a theory that has been questioned due to the lack of evidence for a school of Pythagorean medicine.[2] The phrase “Above all, do no harm” is usually attributed to the oath. Although mostly of historical and traditional value, the oath is considered a rite of passage for practitioners of medicine, although nowadays the modernized version of the text varies among the countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
LikeLike
“”Fine – like I said Singer may have disagreeable/offensive/abhorent ideas – but that doesn’t mean that those ideas will become public policy (unless you have some actual evidence to the contrary). Singer has not been appointed to any government position.””
Jake, We don’t really need Singer, Obama has already chosen Holdren and Cass Sunstein who have the same beliefs. That’s my point. Oh, and Dr. Emanuel, also. He has stacked his advisers with people who are just as bad as Peter Singer – they are like his disciples. So I ask again, how do we know these diabolical ideas won’t become a part of policy. Odds are they will. And you said yourself that such ideas are disagreeable,offensive, and abhorrent.”
The evidence is that from beliefs and convictions, come actions. Prove they won’t be part of public policy.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/15/study-in-contrasts-christian-scientist-vs-eco-mad-scientist/
LikeLike
I’m not willing to defend any of these guys, not having enough information to make a sound judgement. I would be willing to bet money that whenever Obama leaves office, no eugenics program will have been put in place.
LikeLike
Pingback: Obama sticks it to us again, bypasses Congress on Medicare appointment « Can I Just Finish My Waffle?
Pingback: 6 Month Fetus Declared a Human in MA - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Pingback: Another Liberal Religion: Paganism - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Pingback: “Must I die?” Shiela Jackson Lee’s argument against repeal of Obamacare | Can I Just Finish My Waffle?
Pingback: Death panel (IPAB) is Obama’s way to cut medicare costs | Can I Just Finish My Waffle?
It’s about quality of life.
LikeLike
who will dcide the acceptable quality of life?
LikeLike
Pingback: HOW DOUBLESPEAK WORKS: Obama Appears To Condemn Killing For Body Parts | The Oil in Your Lamp