Friday, July 24, 2009

Obamacare is about killing grandma and population control

Brian Moore at The New Age Patriot posted this great piece about ObamaCare on Jul.24 ,2009

(see: :

"Soylent Green is a 1973 dystopian science fiction flick depicting a future in which overpopulation leads to depleted resources. In the film, an aged character learns the truth about Soylent Green, a government distributed wafer like substance that is actually made out of human remains. The character decides he can no longer deal with the world, and states that he is "going home". By this, he means that he is going to sign up for government-assisted suicide. When the character arrives at the clinic, he is asked to select a lighting scheme and a type of music for the death chamber. After changing into comfortable clothing and being sedated, the character lies on a large bed and listens to soothing music while beautiful images appear on a large projector screen, ....eventually he goes to sleep and dies.

Obamacare 2009, could very easily be a precursor to such an event, minus the green wafers made out of people of course!

Today, several health economist are warning that the current health care reform, that I like to call Obamacare, could very well end up denying health care to a rather large portion of the American population, .....the elderly. The reason for this rationale is not based on conjecture, it isn't based on hypothesis and ....drum roll is not based on some right-wing conspiracy to hurt the presidents image. It is based on statements made by top bureaucrats within the health care reform movement, most of which consider themselves "MODERN PROGRESSIVES."

In the medical journal The Lancet (January 2009 [PDF]) Obama's special health policy advisor Ezekiel Emanuel wrote that if health care has to be rationed, he prefers the "complete lives system," which "discriminates against older people." What the heck is the "complete lives system?" It is a proposed health system, that when implemented would give priority to persons age 15 to 40 instead of persons over the age of 40. Instead of "sickest person first" health care, like we now have in America, we would instead get "most substantial chance" health care. What does this mean?

Basically, it works like this, if a person is between the desirable ages of 15 and 40, they would be granted a higher priority than a patient over the age of 40. If, for example a 28 year old male and a 59 year old male both needed a liver transplant, the 28 year old would receive priority, regardless of who needed the transplant the most. The reason for this determination would be that the "younger" patient has more "profitable" years to offer to society and would therefore be deemed more deserving of the operation. Furthermore, statistics would also show that the younger patient would probably recover quicker and have less complications.

Just in case, you have any doubts about Emanuel's position regarding this "new, more progressive" health care approach, consider these comments.

Emanuel suggested that health care SHOULD NOT be guaranteed to "individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens." He said "an obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."

Notice the use of the words, Participating Citizens The obvious question here should be.......Who are these "participating citizens" and who gets to decide their status? Dr. Devon Herrick, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, says Emanuel believes young adults should be given preferential care over seniors because they have more years of their life ahead of them.

Herrrick says, "I guess the implication of that is if you're older, you will be assumed to have lived a complete life; whereas if you're younger, you'd have yet to live a complete life," Herrick suggests. "So in a way I kind of see it as a method to ration care to the elderly, but trying to use an ethicist's view to justify it."

The following chart, at the bottom of the blog..." {note: click above link to Moore's blog} "... demonstrates the probability of receiving medical intervention, based on the age of a person. The peak years for receiving intervention would be between the ages of 15 and 40, apparently the years in which we are the most "participating citizen." If anything, this chart proves that Obamacare is anything BUT free health care for all.

Under the proposed health care plan, instead of the doctor determining what is best care for the patient, the government will make the decision based on what is best for the "collective" This madness that is being proposed by the president is not about "free" health care, it is not about "helping" the less fortunate, it is not about regulating the industry, it is about population control and it will eventually lead to euthanasia or as our friend in Soylent Green called it "going home.""


Is this not shocking? Is this the 'change' Americans were 'hoping' for?! Who the f**k elected grandma killer Ezekiel Emanuel? WTF?! This is heinous Liberal Healthcare Duplicity! (see: )

I wonder if Ontario's Liberals are eagerly looking at Obama's Soylent Green - esque plans?

You can just see Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal gang salivating at the prospect of easily cutting their health budget. Hmm... a single-payer state-run monopoly can sure save some money on health care - by just "insuring" the young and giving the rest the old Kevorkian send off. The Americans don't yet have single payer - but we already do: Ontario Premier McGuinty can easily add the "Complete Lives System" to his already-fascist Commitment To The Future Of Medicare Act. He's probably already looking onto it.

"Participating citizens" are chosen how... politically? By the patient's Democratic Party membership; by the amount of their last DNC donation? By who they last voted for? By a Soylent Green ObamaCare lottery? (hey, look: lucky you... you won! Here's your pill...) Single payer was sold as not getting a bill - not about getting a pill.

This whole 'what's best for the collective' thing reeks. But this will appeal to Ontario Liberals, just as it does to Demotards.

Ontario Liberals have identified that the elderly cost a lot - the next step is obvious - cull the herd. In the States, Obamacare first has to force the sheeple into a single-payer, no-choice health care pen (like in Canada). After eliminating patient-payer-and-provider options, next, doctors must be forced to become employees of the state. Once the sheeple have been forced into no-choice health dependence, run by single-payer despots, then certain sheeple can be chosen for extermination, er, "counselling", by U.S. government agents to do 'what's best for the collective'.

When Moore says this is about population control, he's right. Here in Ontario, the same global-warming bullshit, the same population-control fear-mongering; the same health-care-cutting duplicity has been a trademarked belief of local St. Catharines Liberal MPP Jim Bradley.

Why, Canada's Tommy the Commie Douglas (Keifer's grandpappy), the socialist who pushed Canada into the single-payer system that we now have, also once had the same "progessive" belief that the "subnormal" are a burden, and should be sterilized, or euthanized.

When you allow the State to be THE "single-payer", you are now beholden and dependent on whatever the state deems fit to give you, like here in Ontario. You then vote for Liberals (or Demotards) who now control your care (because they, not you, are 'the single-payer') in the hope that they will be nice and not cut the services they solemnly promised you would get!

But: the politicians will cut services, cut coverage, raise taxes, institute fees, and play with all sorts of variables. It's a make-work project for political leeches who insert themselves between the patient and the doctor, for their own political gain.

This idea of a state-instituted "complete lives system" is horrifying. The idea that the state (having rounded the sheeple into their health-care prison of single-payer dependency) can now determine by its own fiat which 'elderly' to help kill first: by rationing the care to the "younger", to the "desirable"; to the "more important", is shocking.

Man, just six months after the inauguration, it looks like ObamaCare has already jumped the shark.

No comments: