It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ~Lucidity
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ~Lucidity
Says the person who did not read the source which has nothing to do with names.
I read the source and far, far more. My statement stands. Your reply to the statement that Hitler was not a socialist was a floppy fish of deflection and diversion to start with. The latest conservative lifeline is broken. Face it.
National Health Care: Medicine in Germany, 1918-1945
Does the modern bureaucratization of medicine risk a return to the horrors of national socialist medicine?
Marc S. Micozzi M.D.
Monday, November 01, 1993
Marc S. Micozzi, M.D., Ph.D., a physician and anthropologist, directs the National Museum of Health and Medicine in Washington, D.C., which recently brought from Berlin the exhibition, “The Value of the Human Being: Medicine in Germany 1918-1945,” curated by Christian Pross and Götz Aly.
Today we are concerned about issues such as doctor-assisted suicide, abortion, the use of fetal tissue, genetic screening, birth control and sterilization, health-care rationing and the ethics of medical research on animals and humans. These subjects are major challenges in both ethics and economics at the end of the twentieth century. But at the beginning of the twentieth century the desire to create a more scientific medical practice and research had already raised the issues of euthanasia, eugenics, and medical experimentation on human subjects. In addition, the increasing involvement of the German government in medical care and funding medical research established the government-medical complex that the National Socialists later used to execute their extermination policies.
The German social insurance and health care system began in the 1880s under Bismarck. Ironically, it was part of Bismarck’s “anti-socialist” legislation, adopted under the theory that a little socialism would prevent the rise of a more virulent socialism.
Medical concerns which had largely been in the private domain in the nineteenth century increasingly became a concern of the state. The physician began to be transformed into a functionary of state-initiated laws and policies. Doctors slowly began to see themselves as more responsible for the public health of the nation than for the individual health of the patient. It is one thing to see oneself as responsible for the “nation’s health” and quite another to be responsible for an individual patient’s health. It is one thing to be employed by an individual, another to be employed by the government.
Under the Weimar Republic these reforms resulted in clearly improved public health. However, the creativity, energy, and fundamental reforms found in social medicine during the Weimar Republic seem in retrospect a short and deceptive illusion. Medical reformers had wanted to counter the misery inherited from the first World War and the Second Empire on the basis of comprehensive disease prevention programs. In the few years available to the social reformers, they had remarkable success. But in connection with these reforms the doctor’s role changed from that of advocate, adviser, and partner of the patient to a partner of the state.
With the world economic crisis of 1929, welfare state expenditures had to be reduced for housing, nutrition, support payments, recreation and rehabilitation, and maternal and child health. What remained of the humanistic goals of reform were state mechanisms for inspection and regulation of public health and medical practice. Economic efficiency became the major concern, and health care became primarily a question of cost-benefit analysis. Under the socialist policies of the period, this analysis was necessarily applied to the selection of strong persons, deemed worthy of support, and the elimination of weak and “unproductive” people. The scientific underpinning of cost-benefit analyses to political medical care was provided by the new fields of genetics and eugenics.
by Andrew Walden
Obama answering a question written by a campaign worker and given to her daughter to read from a card. Today at the New Hampshire Town Hall meeting, Boston Globe:
Responding to Julia -- an honors student entering grade 6 at the Cheverus School -- Obama said:
"Well . . . I've seen some of those signs,'' prompting laughter. "Let me just be specific about some things that I've been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that's been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for "death panels" that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we've decided that we don't -- it's too expensive to let her live anymore. And there are various -- there are some variations on this theme.''
According to a White House transcript, Obama continued:
"It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, et cetera. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they're ready, on their own terms. It wasn't forcing anybody to do anything. This is I guess where the rumor came from.''
Compare this to June 24th, ABC National Town Hall on Health Care:
WSJ: At one point in the town hall, broadcast from the East Room by ABC news, a woman named Jane Sturm told the story of her 105-year-old mother, who, at 100, was told by an arrhythmia specialist that she was too old for a pacemaker. She ended up getting a second option, and the operation, for which Ms. Sturm credits her survival.
OBAMA: I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's spirit. Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that we are gonna provide good quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know -- and your mom know -- that you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off, uh, not having the surgery but taking, uhhh, the painkiller.
...Under the socialist policies of the period, this analysis was necessarily applied to the selection of strong persons, deemed worthy of support, and the elimination of weak and “unproductive” people. The scientific underpinning of cost-benefit analyses to political medical care was provided by the new fields of genetics and eugenics.
... At least we can let doctors know -- and your mom know -- that you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off, uh, not having the surgery but taking, uhhh, the painkiller.
Justice Ginsburg: "Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae -- in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions[b/]. Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion."
The word "socialist" keeps getting thrown out there, which I consider to be a really broad term has historical negative stigma (Nazi and Communism) but
Yes, it would! Almost starred your post at this point.....
...would be damned interesting to see the government plunder capitalism and do something about the obscene disproportion of wealth as Sanders describes.
originally posted by: MOMof3
Who are you that you can label anyone you don't like as a socialist? Are you some kind of authority or expert or just another obsessively deranged conservative?
originally posted by: MOMof3
I think you need to wake up that we are not in Cuba. Not even an island. Most of us can distinguish between social programs and fascists governments. And irregardless of how conservatives want to convince the world that we are a lazy bunch, they are wrong. We already screw our wounded veterans because conservatives want to lump social programs as something designed by Hitler.