Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-05-2009, 09:24 PM
 
4,459 posts, read 4,198,722 times
Reputation: 648

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
How many czars are confessed Communists and Marxists? I know 0bama loves to pal around with and associate with these types of people, so it would not surprise me to see a few less well know William Ayers types in his administration of Czars..
Ronald Reagan had a kitchen cabinet of allies and friends from California who advised him during his terms. This group of ten to twelve rich businessmen were all strong proponents of the free enterprise system. His wealthy, conservative California backers included: Alfred Bloomingdale, Earl Brian, William French Smith, Charles Wick, auto dealer Holmes Tuttle, beer baron Joseph Coors, philanthropist Earle Jorgensen, and about four to six others. Coors was the major funder and most active participant. He also funded many think tanks and policy institutes at about this time, including the Heritage Foundation.

Kitchen Cabinet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-05-2009, 09:25 PM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,064,536 times
Reputation: 6194
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverOne View Post
Bush's Czar's were very quite and you did not hear of them making policy, With Obama they tell him what is the legislation that he is signing.
link?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2009, 09:27 PM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,064,536 times
Reputation: 6194
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetiredElizabeth View Post
befriend, YES I ACTUALLY DO! I Think if more people had paid attention to what he was saying during his campaign, I don't think the Democratic Party would have selected him. HE BOUGHT HIS WAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE.He's nothing but a radical raciest hates White Or Rich People.
links?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2009, 09:37 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,246,121 times
Reputation: 27718
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
Thanks

Arent they like heads of departments in a company, who report to the CEO?

I dont think these "czars" have the un-overrideable (?) power they're reputed to have.
Their jobs are defined by the President. And they do not have to answer questions about what they do.

So you have to go on trust that they will not overstep any boundaries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2009, 09:11 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,772,490 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
some do, some do not. One example of a Czar's work is the Salary Czar Kenneth R. Feinberg has the powers to review and set caps on salaries and bonuses received by CEO's of private businesses that receive government money.

The Car Czar is allowed to write the guidelines for $15 billion in stop-gap loans, and set the terms for and oversee the restructuring of any carmaker that takes a loan.


the Health Care Czar is in charge of setting up a board to establish standards for health-care delivery. It would only oversee the public health systems (Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration, etc.) - which provide about 32 percent of health care nationwide.

They take on more powers than just being Obama's taddle tales.

This stuff should be left up to Congress, not some group of people that only answer to the president, and not have to adhere to the constitution.

This is not something new in government, and it should most definitely be stopped. Bush had a circus of Czars, all the way back to when FDR called them Dictators.
Since you brought up Feinberg, why don't we talk about him? Hmmm, he has authority at SEVEN companies to cap the salaries of the top 5 executives and 20 most highly employed employees. That's less than 150 people employed at companies that received substantial bail-out funds. Feinberg doesn't report to Obama at all, he reports to the Treasury department. And Feinberg is doing this work for nothing. He's unpaid. Working pro bono, just like he did when he supervised the 9/11 Compensation Fund and personally read every claim from victims. Wow, he's some kind of evil czar, isn't he?

Editing to add a link so people can verify this information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/business/11pay.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2009, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 10,395,859 times
Reputation: 972
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Since you brought up Feinberg, why don't we talk about him? Hmmm, he has authority at SEVEN companies to cap the salaries of the top 5 executives and 20 most highly employed employees. That's less than 150 people employed at companies that received substantial bail-out funds. Feinberg doesn't report to Obama at all, he reports to the Treasury department. And Feinberg is doing this work for nothing. He's unpaid. Working pro bono, just like he did when he supervised the 9/11 Compensation Fund and personally read every claim from victims. Wow, he's some kind of evil czar, isn't he?

Editing to add a link so people can verify this information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/business/11pay.html
I never said he was an evil czar, I said his position was circumventing the constitution.

Lets talk about some of the more unsavory Czar's
such as Ezekiel Emanuel HHS czar

"Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."
-Ezekiel Emanuel

"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated."
-Ezekiel Emanuel

"Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects.... Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments.... It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does."
-Ezekiel Emanuel


"Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change. Savings 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."
-Ezekiel Emanuel

wow, now he is harmless right? not having to follow the guidelines of the Constitution, being able to circumvent Congress, yet allowed to right the health policies of the nation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2009, 11:52 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,772,490 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
I never said he was an evil czar, I said his position was circumventing the constitution.

Lets talk about some of the more unsavory Czar's
such as Ezekiel Emanuel HHS czar

"Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."
-Ezekiel Emanuel

"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated."
-Ezekiel Emanuel

"Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects.... Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments.... It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does."
-Ezekiel Emanuel


"Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change. Savings 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."
-Ezekiel Emanuel

wow, now he is harmless right? not having to follow the guidelines of the Constitution, being able to circumvent Congress, yet allowed to right the health policies of the nation.
I certainly don't agree with all of Dr Emanuel's statements, but you should note that some of these statements are taken out of context and don't express his personal views as much as his assessment of current policy. The article he wrote was about scarce medical interventions and his article was an evaluation of the various methods of allocating those scarce resources. I would not characterize him as evil. He's a doctor who's keenly aware that in allocating medical services and resources that choices have to be made and are made regularly by the medical community. When a transplant heart becomes available, the medical community has to evaluate potential recipients of that heart, and choose the optimal recipient. Dr Emanuel's article was an examination of how those evaluations are performed, what factors are considered, and who's making those decisions. It was Dr Emanuel's position that in all fairness the criteria for these sorts of decisions should be standard and the decision should be strictly pragmatic rather than emotional. Again, I don't agree with all the criteria points he makes, but I hardly consider him to be the Death Czar.

It should also be noted that while Dr Emanuel is Rahm Emanuel's brother, and therefore opens the issue of Obama selecting him as an advisor not only because of Dr Emanuel's qualifications but also for personal reasons, Dr Emanuel is an extremely well-qualified and well-respected doctor and authority on public health issues.

As for him making policy, while no doubt he has provided President Obama with information that was used to help craft the healthcare reform legislation that is now in Congress, I'd be interested to know what policies you are aware of that Dr Emanuel has imposed on the American people without the consent of Congress. Can you provide an example?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2009, 12:31 PM
 
12,867 posts, read 14,873,437 times
Reputation: 4459
can anybody read that quote:

Savings 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."
-Ezekiel Emanuel

and not say YIKES!

doctors take the hippocratic oath too seriously, REALLY?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2009, 12:39 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,772,490 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy View Post
can anybody read that quote:

Savings 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."
-Ezekiel Emanuel

and not say YIKES!

doctors take the hippocratic oath too seriously, REALLY?
It is scary, isn't it? But he was talking about choices. For example, (and it's just an example) a rural hospital has one dialysis machine. Patients come in by appointment on a weekly basis for treatment. Then a doctor has a horrific case, where a young woman has been critically injured in an accident. Her head injuries are severe, there are serious questions if she's going to make it. Should the doctor be able to knock other patients off the dialysis schedule to accomodate this patient's needs? His Hippocratic Oath might be an imperative for him to do so. But does he have an obligation to consider the costs involved and the effect his decision will have on others?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2009, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,246,121 times
Reputation: 27718
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
It is scary, isn't it? But he was talking about choices. For example, (and it's just an example) a rural hospital has one dialysis machine. Patients come in by appointment on a weekly basis for treatment. Then a doctor has a horrific case, where a young woman has been critically injured in an accident. Her head injuries are severe, there are serious questions if she's going to make it. Should the doctor be able to knock other patients off the dialysis schedule to accomodate this patient's needs? His Hippocratic Oath might be an imperative for him to do so. But does he have an obligation to consider the costs involved and the effect his decision will have on others?
They usually have helicopters in the county to take critically injured people to an urban hospital. Here in central Texas we have Star Flight which operates in several counties as an emergency medical response. I live out in the county so when I see the "yellow bird" flying past I know it was a bad accident.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 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, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top