The New York post isn’t exactly a unbiased publication, it is one of Rupert Murdoch’s companies so expect them to be anti Obama. this was a republican you really cant expect her to be pro Obama, it is amazing that we even talk about this, the thing you have to keep in mind is for the vast majority of Republicans if you have a D in front of your name that is reason enough to oppose you, that is why there is a birther movement, it is not that they think Obama is born somewhere else is so they can create doubt in the publics mind and delegitimize him, the health care proposal attacks are just the latest way to oppose him, what he should do is use his justice dept the way Bush did.

The Deadly Doctors
New York Post Deadly Doctors Story Takes Off
New York Post op-ed incorporated one of the more notorious Obama health care charges, that the young and elderly would have to die as a result. Now the New York Post Deadly Doctors piece is the basis of a couple of recent speeches, and as such, is being highly sought after on the Internet today.

The original New York Post Deadly Doctors editorial was written on July 24 by Betsy McCaughy, the former lieutenant governor of New York. The target of the Deadly Doctors piece was Ezekiel Emanuel, brother to Rahm Emanuel and important Obama health care advisor.

The Deadly Doctors part of the accusation comes from McCaughy's conviction that an Obama universal health care plan would cut off the elderly and the young from being cared for. Since it would cost too much money to care for certain elderly patients, and since money needs to be spent on better "social justice" programs, the New York Post Deadly Doctors piece alleges that doctors would have to let senior citizens die on purpose, if they can't participate in society.

We all are human and whether you are a doctor or a musician, you will make mistakes. Sadly, the MD standpoint has a far worse outcome.

My initial reaction after reading the original article from the "New York Post" about "Deadly Doctors" was outrage but after pondering it for a while I realized that this is what was meant by the article. It was meant to instill anger and outrage but when you break it down logically no one in this country is going to allow the Government to let people die over politics and finances. This is a country that spends billions on bailouts. If Obama wont let the auto or bank industries die what makes us think for even a minute that he'd allow his citizens to die? Not to mention Obama's blessing and push to fund stem-cell research. This article contradicts that. It is my personal belief that these statements quoted by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel are not based on fact, but rather fear mongering in order to gain funding (aka bribes) from the insurance companies to shoot down these proposals. This is the United States Government were talking about here remember? Largely driven by politicians immersing themselves in the gray area of the legal system, saying or doing anything to achieve whatever hidden agendas they may have.

It's almost absurd that Drs.Ezekiel Emanuel and David Blumenthal are Americans. Discounting the Hippocratic Oathe to make a horrible decision to cut out aid to the elderly and the crippled. Where is the intelligence and common sense when Emannuel says "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). These are the top men of the U.S. Frightening.
And to say "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).
This is going to be a huge mistake if congress is'nt careful.