ObamaCare train wreck has been and is being allowed to happen?

imagesWhat if this spectacular slow motion ObamaCare train wreck has been and is being allowed to happen so that what’s going on around the bend from the fiery crash site gets little attention, from the public, from the media or from Congressional investigators? Think about it, friends.

How could Barack Obama and his celebrated team of incredibly proficient, plugged in techies – the team that twice got him elected – be behind the utterly disastrous launch of the ObamaCare online storefront, healthcare.gov – arguably the biggest website failure in history?

How could so much money have been spent to produce such a problem-plagued site that apparently was doomed in its developmental confusion? And how to fix this monumental mess, well, there doesn’t seem to be any clear plan…other than hope. And now we learn that many, if not most, of the people actually signing up for ObamaCare through the website are enrolling in Medicaid, not signing up for private insurance policies they pay for, but adding their names onto government rolls – a financial drain on the system, not contributing to it.

And many, if not most of those who are enrolling in private plans are finding their insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays unaffordabley high. Plus, many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans on individual plans are losing their coverage

male-crying-100100961 Every day we learn of massive new policy losses with company after company in state after state. Private health insurance is quickly becoming the endangered species conservatives have been warning about for years. So, the ObamaCare train continues to run off the rails, car after car exploding and burning. And our focus continues to be on this unfolding disaster, this spectacular, colossal failure. But is it…is it really a “failure”? Or is this train wreck a shocking success?

A success in crushing the market-based health insurance industry, turning private insurance companies into government allies and crony accessories to a culture of dependency, forcing millions of Americans into a scary health care void.

shovelreadyThen you’ve got all the seniors being robbed of Medicare benefits and Medicare-available doctors. In other words, ObamaCare is a wrecking ball, a virus spreading through and debilitating the system, a train wreck that wrecking health care.Meanwhile – and here’s the really shocking part – tax dollars, insurance industry dollars, foundation dollars – tons of money – is flowing into a vast network of non-profits and community-based organizations that are building a massive and dynamic database of government dependents in order to fundamentally change America.

Talk about the ultimate community organizer enterprise – infiltrated by, if not run by, Obama activists, former campaign operatives, former White House insiders, advisors and advocates for social justice and wealth redistribution.

We’ve identified a nationwide network of Obama supporters, sycophants and surrogates that’s growing bigger, stronger, more influential every day as they lay the groundwork for the successor to the current version of ObamaCare – the son of ObamaCare. That will be even more powerful and politically connected and formidable

. When this ObamaCare train wreck is finally and totally derailed, and voluntary ObamaCare signups are acknowledged to be a failure, then we’ll see auto-enrollment – automatic signups of all sorts of people will become a necessity in order to salvage what’s left of a shattered system.

Yes, ObamaCare in its current form is a disaster –

me lie.bmp I just changed the promise.bmp smallerpossibly purposeful, certainly useful to the community organizer of all community organizers and his expanding political army. An army of darkness forming and fortifying just around the bend from the spectacular ObamaCare train wreck at which almost everyone is gawking…almost everyone. –

See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2013/10/revealed-obamas-immense-shadow-army-its-shocking-takeover-plan/#sthash.K7j8NxWB.dpuf

COMMENTS:

As soon as this is declared a failure, the single payer government run plan will be all that is available. Control health care and the population is controlled.

Frances Maddox Don Matthews

Power, Power and more POWER……the BULLYING WILL GET WORSE…my way or the highway. GANGSTER TACTICS learned in Chicago and taught by professionals, many of whom are BHO advisors and appointed CZARS. Birds of a feather! Even now a classmate of the FIRST LADY on the web-site team. Just wondering, did Michelle go to school with Valarie? And is there such an ALUMNI as A WHITE one from Princeton

Lori Servies

Yeah, I have been preaching this for the past two years . . . but who is gonna listen to me, a simple woman from the South . . . #BarryCare is NOT a failure . . . it is accomplishing exactly what they have intended it to and it may take awhile for all of those implications to surface . . .

Dr.Roy Lori Servies

The communist, homosexual, muslim terrorist occupied white house needs to be dealt with I would pray the rest of this country wakes up before its to late. the reason he and the democratic party is pushing Obama care is not to provide affordable health care, but a attempt to castrate the constitution and the bill of rights to give to the Executive Branch of government more power and control.

Obama care relinquishes many of our 10th amendment rights, it chips away at the 2nd amendment and it also infringes on the 4th and 5th amendment. doctors are not to inquirer before treatment if you own guns, but if you do and if you been proscribed anti depressant or pain medication you are no longer able to own guns. in like manner if you have been diagnosed with ADHD, Depression, anxiety attacks, ever had a brain injury or ptsd or use marijuana regardless if its legal in the state you live you are no longer able to own or possess firearms. your guns can be taken from you without a search warrant and with out due process and criminal charges filed on you. threw this health care bill you are going to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
all this bill dose is targets veterans and the citizenry to control them through the powers the government has massed to its self for power and control to strip you from your right to chose what is best for yourself. may God bless us all

http://www.libertynews.com/2013/10/revealed-obamas-immense-shadow-army-its-shocking-takeover-plan/#sthash.K7j8NxWB.dpuf

Hillary more of the same

 

Obama the Corporatist

what happened to land of the free

By Ron Paul

Lately, many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding of and hostility toward the truly free market.

But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist.

Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design policies that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.

A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single-payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care “exchanges.”

Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.

To call the president a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the president’s agenda

obama-communism.jpg rothchildsWhen he is called a socialist, the president and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the president’s policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term — corporatism — forces the president to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and ignore  his  favorite Corps like GE and the Comcast Monopoly. as he expands de facto subsidies to big businesses.

This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations and subsidies, and has done so for decades.

Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place.

Government is the Problem. It Cannot Be the Solution.

The fundamental problem with health care costs in America is that the doctor-patient relationship has been profoundly altered by third-party interference. Third parties, either government agencies themselves or nominally private insurance companies virtually forced upon us by government policies, have not only destroyed doctor-patient confidentiality. They also inescapably drive up costs because basic market disciplines — supply and demand, price sensitivity and profit signals — are destroyed. Obamacare, via its insurance mandate, is more of the same misdiagnosis.

Note added 11/28/14

Hungary Kills The Rothschild Banks: Ordered To Vacate Country.Hungary is making history of the first order along with Iceland & Russia.

Not since the 1930s in Germany has a major European country dared to escape from the clutches of the Rothschild-controlled international banking cartels. This is stupendous news that should encourage nationalist patriots worldwide to increase the fight for freedom from financial tyranny.

GLOBAL ELITES THROWN OUT OF ICELAND: Iceland Dismantles Corrupt Gov’t Then Arrests All Rothschild Bankers |

Since the 1900′s the vast majority of the American population has dreamed about saying “NO” to the Unconstitutional, corrupt, Rothschild/Rockefeller banking criminals, but no one has dared to do so. Why? If just half of our Nation, and the “1%”, who pay the majority of the taxes, just said NO MORE! Our Gov’t would literally change over night. Why is it so hard, for some people to understand, that by simply NOT giving your money, to large Corporations, who then send jobs, Intellectual Property, etc. offshore and promote anti-Constitutional rights…

Hillary more of the same

 

Obamacare: A House of Lies

evil face 2

**By MONEY MORNING STAFF REPORTS

If current trends continue, Obamacare will go down as one of the biggest mistakes in our government’s history.

Of the many Obamacare lies, the biggest fallacy was that “If you like your plan can keep your plan.”

Corporations from GE, IBM, to Time Warner have said they will stop providing insurance for hundreds of thousands of employees. Already, over 4.5 million Americans have received cancellation letters because of Obamacare and it’s estimated that one-third of all U.S. employers could stop offering health insurance to their workers.

Others who still receive healthcare through their employer might have thought they were safe from the law, but starting in 2014-2015-2016 they will feel Obamacare’s wrath, if they haven’t already.

(Many of the most onerous parts of Obamacare have recently been postponed until after the 2014 and 2016 elections. safeguarding the votes of progressive democrats. Who will go back to voting with Harry Reed and Nancy Pelosi as soon as their seats in government are assured.)

And don’t forget, healthcare was supposed to be “affordable for all.” But experts are now predicting premiums could rise up to 413% for some individuals.

Millions of other Americans are finding out that the many Obamacare taxes don’t just hurt those making over $250,000.

Worse, the federal subsidies provided to lower-income individuals under Obamacare won’t provide enough financial assistance for some consumers and***the burden of paying for these subsidies ultimately falls on middle class Americans, who will suffer most under the law. (We told you so)

The government program officially known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is quickly becoming a house of lies.

Even staunch liberal Michael Moore declared, “Obamacare is awful” in a New York Times op-ed.”For many people, the ‘affordable’ part of the Affordable Care Act risks being a cruel joke,” he wrote. “The cheapest plan available to a 60-year-old couple making $65,000 a year in Hartford, Conn., will cost $11,800 in annual premiums. And their deductible will be $12,600. If both become seriously ill, they might have to pay almost $25,000 in a single year.” (Redistribution ?)

Americans are taking notice of the disastrous plan. Obamacare’s approval rating recently hit an all-time low of 35%.

Perhaps the most ominous sign about Obamacare’s future is that doctors are among the biggest Obamacare critics.

Besides the taxes and higher costs, doctors are worried that Obamacare will result in poor patient care.

A recent study by the prestigious Doctor Patient Medical Association revealed that an astounding 90% of doctors feel that the U.S. health care system is heading in the wrong direction.

In 2010, the American Medical Association lost over 215,000 members just because they didn’t agree with Obamacare. (Obama cares less. I believe progressive  immigration will bring to the U.S thousands of doctors from 3rd world countries like India, Pakistan even Iran)

The Association of American Medical Colleges predicts a shortage of 160,000 doctors by 2025, and applications for medical programs are already down 6%.

A poll from The Doctors Company revealed 60% of doctors said Obamacare will have a negative impact on patient care. And another poll done by Jackson & Coker in 2012 showed that 55% of doctors surveyed would repeal and replace Obamacare.

Add it all up and there’s going to be a detrimental shift in how you interact with your physicians.

(How about the sur charge on floridians restaurant bills? !!!!!)

**Money Morning Staff Reports

Obamacare Tax Hikes Stoke Outrage                              Many of the Obamacare taxes are already in effect, others will hit after elections.. But they are already infuriating millions of Americans.

While even Obamacare detractors applaud the requirement that insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions and put a stop to lifetime caps on benefits, they say these laudable benefits(the cheese) don’t compensate for the bills high cost – especially in new taxes.(the trap comes later)

According to most experts, Obamacare will create a total of twenty new taxes or tax hikes on the American people.

In fact, the Obama administration has already given the IRS an extra $500 million to enforce the rules and regulations of Obamacare.

The new taxes don’t bode well for millions of middle-class Americans. Incomes for the rich have soared this decade but middle class workers have seen their wages stagnate and even drop since the 2008 Recession.

Many fear Obamacare with its high insurance costs and new taxes, could provide the middle class a fatal blow.

(Parenthesis added – my take jj )

206165_453413278032501_108773658_n

 

 

Obama Has Set His Eye On The Oldest and Sickest Denying Them Costly Medical Care?

If this dire end-of-life scenario sounds too awful to be possible, that is only because the reality of Obamacare has not been sufficiently reported

obamacare now you know whats in itWhy Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers

 Imagine lying in some government-run hospital, hospice or nursing home many years from now. Imagine languishing unattended for days in soiled sheets, suffering from hunger and thirst, covered with bed sores, your flesh aboil with untreated infections.

Imagine living in fear of resentful, underpaid health aides who take out their anger on you and abuse you. And imagine spending your final moments on earth in the company of a government health care worker with a syringe, who injects you with a lethal cocktail.

Do you find this hard to imagine? You should. In any civilized country, such things should not happen – ever. But President Obama’s health care proposals have the very real potential to turn this nightmare into a reality for many Americans, according to an in-depth investigation reported in the August edition of Whistleblower magazine, titled “MEDICAL MURDER: Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers.”

Especially vulnerable are the 80 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964. “If you belong to that group, take note,” says Richard Poe, author of the August cover story. “Your generation has been targeted for a program of age-based medical rationing such as our country has never before experienced.”

Adds Whistleblower editor David Kupelian, “If this dire end-of-life scenario sounds too awful to be possible, that is only because the reality of Obamacare has not been sufficiently reported. For this is not a fantasy – it is what is already occurring in other ‘civilized’ nations, including Canada and Britain, that have adopted the same government-run system.”

For instance, the cover story, “Medical Murder,” documents how British seniors, under a government-run system, “are routinely denied treatment for cancer, heart disease and other deadly illnesses,” many dying “in filthy, overcrowded hospitals or nursing homes, rife with pestilence, including the deadly, antibiotic-resistant superbugs.” Numerous horror stories of needed medical care intentionally denied reveal the stark reality of government-run health care worldwide.

To a small degree, Obamacare’s ominous implications are starting to leak out. Here’s how columnist Charlotte Allen explained it recently in the Los Angeles Times:

In looking for a way to fund healthcare, Obama has set his eye on the oldest and sickest. You see, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, about 30 percent of Medicare spending – nearly $100 billion annually – goes to care for patients during their last year of life. What if there were no ‘last year of life,’ the president seems to be asking. … Why not save billions of dollars by killing off our own unproductive oldsters and terminal patients, or – since we aren’t likely to do that outright in this, the 21st century – why not simply ensure that they die faster by denying them costly medical care? The savings could then subsidize care for the younger and healthier.

And for those who have been paying close attention,** Obama himself has ever-so-gently hinted at his true intentions. At a town hall event in June televised by ABC News, Obama cited the case of his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who died on the eve of his election, suggesting one way to cut medical costs would be to stop expensive procedures on people about to die.

Families, Obama said, need better information so they don’t approve “additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care.”

Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,” the president offered. (death by morphine injection)

Obama was slightly more explicit in a May 3 interview with the New York Times, when he said there ought to be a national “conversation” over whether “sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model.” Such decisions, added Obama, shouldn’t be left to patients or their relatives, but to a “group” of “doctors, scientists, ethicists” who are not part of “normal political channels.” smiley-shocked028

One such elite medical decision-maker would be Obama’s special adviser for health policy, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel. He’s a longtime advocate of “age-weighted medical rationing” – meaning, the older you are, the less care you get, as in Britain. But what about the Hippocratic Oath, you might ask, the sacred vow doctors have always taken to do all they can to heal their patients? As Whistleblower documents, Emanuel advises doctors to stop taking that oath so literally, and instead to be “prudent” in assessing how much time, effort and money each patient is worth, for the greater good of society.

Moreover, as “MEDICAL MURDER” reports, a bill being pushed hard by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health Care, will take from Congress all authority over federal health spending and decree that such decisions in the future would be made by a secretive committee of “experts” modeled after – are you ready? – the Federal Reserve Board.

 

 

Especially vulnerable are the 80 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964. “If you belong to that group, take note,” says Richard Poe, author of the August cover story.

** “Your generation has been targeted for a program of age-based medical rationing such as our country has never before experienced.”

Adds Whistleblower editor David Kupelian, “If this dire end-of-life scenario sounds too awful to be possible, that is only because the reality of Obamacare has not been sufficiently reported. For ** this is not a fantasy – it is what is already occurring in other ‘civilized’ nations, including Canada and Britain, that have adopted the same government-run system.”

For instance, the cover story, “Medical Murder,” documents how British seniors, under a government-run system, “are routinely denied treatment for cancer, heart disease and other deadly illnesses,” many dying “in filthy, overcrowded hospitals or nursing homes, rife with pestilence, including the deadly, antibiotic-resistant superbugs.” Numerous horror stories of needed medical care intentionally denied reveal the stark reality of government-run health care worldwide.

To a small degree, Obamacare’s ominous implications are starting to leak out. Here’s how columnist Charlotte Allen explained it recently in the Los Angeles Times:

In looking for a way to fund healthcare, Obama has set his eye on the oldest and sickest. You see, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, about 30 percent of Medicare spending – nearly $100 billion annually – goes to care for patients during their last year of life. What if there were no ‘last year of life,’ the president seems to be asking. … Why not save billions of dollars by killing off our own unproductive oldsters and terminal patients, or – since we aren’t likely to do that outright in this, the 21st century – why not simply ensure that they die faster by denying them costly medical care? The savings could then subsidize care for the younger and healthier.

And for those who have been paying close attention,** Obama himself has ever-so-gently hinted at his true intentions. At a town hall event in June televised by ABC News, Obama cited the case of his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who died on the eve of his election, suggesting one way to cut medical costs would be to stop expensive procedures on people about to die.

Families, Obama said, need better information so they don’t approve “additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care.” ?? ( my question Mr Obama What about enjoying a better quality and a longer life ?? )

Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,” the president offered. (death by morphine injection ?)

Obama was slightly more explicit in a May 3 interview with the New York Times, when he said there ought to be a national “conversation” over whether “sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model.” Such decisions, added Obama, shouldn’t be left to patients or their relatives, but to a “group” of “doctors, scientists, ethicists” who are not part of “normal political channels.” What if there were no ‘last year of life,’ the president seems to be asking. … Why not save billions of dollars by killing off our own unproductive oldsters

(There is a distinct possibility that the President of the United States was raised within a household where mass murder of civilians was not considered a crime against humanity.                                                           .                                                                                               Dunham Soetoro moved with her seven-year old son to Jakarta to be with her husband , Indonesian Army Colonel Lolo Soetoro – a hit man for the CIA-installed Suharto regime President Obama’s step-father, Lolo Soetoro, was a colonel in the Indonesian armed forces. Lolo Soetoro took part, in a coup with the net total of Indonesians killed ranging from 250,000 to 1 million.

President Obama’s mother arrived in Indonesia to join Soetoro with young Barack Obama, Jr. This is the environment that Obama’s mother chose to raise her son )

http://www.scribd.com/doc/168390521/by-Wayne-Madsen-Obama-s-CIA-Mommy-Dearest-%E2%80%94-identifying-Indonesians-for-assassination

One such elite medical decision-maker would be Obama’s special adviser for health policy, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel. He’s a longtime advocate of “age-weighted medical rationing” – meaning, the older you are, the less care you get, as in Britain. But what about the Hippocratic Oath, you might ask, the sacred vow doctors have always taken to do all they can to heal their patients? As Whistleblower documents, Emanuel advises doctors to stop taking that oath so literally, and instead to be “prudent” in assessing how much time, effort and money each patient is worth, for the greater good of society.

Moreover, as “MEDICAL MURDER” reports, a bill being pushed hard by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health Care, will take from Congress all authority over federal health spending and decree that such decisions in the future would be made by a secretive committee of “experts” modeled after – are you ready? – the Federal Reserve Board.

Highlights of “MEDICAL MURDER” include:

“It’s D-Day for choice in health care” by Joseph Farah

“The evil of Obamacare” by David Kupelian

“Alice in Medical Care” by Thomas Sowell, who says those raising healthcare alarm are “long on catch phrases, short on coherence”

“Medical murder” by Richard Poe, a stunning, in-depth investigative report why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers

“Massachusetts: A model not to copy” by Phyllis Schlafly, who shows the Obama-Kennedy health care bill is based on a failing plan

“Government is the problem” by Ben Shapiro, on why Obama’s plan will only make America’s health care system worse

“How Obama’s health care agenda will hurt American families” – documenting how the plan chips away at fundamental rights while putting bureaucrats in control of decisions

“Exposing the myths of universal health coverage,” by Devon Herrick, on why Obama’s plan to lower costs would have the opposite effect

“’45 million Americans’ – who are those guys?” by Larry Elder, revealing what the government isn’t telling you about the so-called “uninsured”

“Live free or die” by Mark Steyn, who explains how government health care “can be used to justify almost any restraint on freedom”

“MEDICAL MURDER

The Culture of Death: The Assault on the elderly

large group we wont take it any moreThe Culture of Death: The Assault on the elderly.( History books will read that Lincoln freed the slaves and Obama enslaved the free.)

From Obamacare, and Death Panels by ray harvey

When it is the government, rather than private individuals through the open market, deciding what is or isn’t “unnecessary care,” and deciding what care to get “rid of,” then that by definition is government rationing. Government acts by compulsion. If government decides what is “necessary,” and grandma’s hip-replacement surgery is deemed “unnecessary” even if grandma wants the surgery, then grandma’s care has been rationed by the power of the state — no matter what words you use to describe it.

Here is what Barack Obama told the New York Times regarding his desire to control your health:  “The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here. [Therefore] I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place.”

It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And Obama also said “that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance”.

**Keep in mind that this unspeakable injustice would all be avoided if your inalienable right to your own life — and only your own life — were recognized as it should be.

In response to that despicable ideology, no less than Nat Hentoff — a civil libertarian about as far to the left as the socialist Noam Chomsky — wrote the following: “I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. *But now I am finally scared of a White House administration. President Obama’s desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) — as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill — decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive.

The members of that ultimate federal board will themselves not have examined or seen the patient in question. For another example of the growing, tumultuous resistance to “Dr. Obama,” particularly among seniors, there is a July 29 Washington,  Emanuel writes about rationing health care for older Americans that “allocation (of medical care) by age is not invidious discrimination.” (The Lancet, January 2009) He calls this form of rationing — which is fundamental to Obamacare goals — “the complete lives system.” 1996, he wrote that ***”services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.”

Rationing is a basic part of Obama’s eventual master health care plan. Here is what Obama said in an April 28 New York Times interview (quoted in Washington Times July 9 editorial) in which he describes a government end-of-life services guide for the citizenry as we get to a certain age, or are in a certain grave condition. Our government will undertake, he says, a “very difficult democratic conversation” about how “the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care” costs.

Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Chief Heathcare Advisor to Obama and brother of Rahm Emanuel said.”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.”

(comments) Here is what will happen first:

“…I’m sorry sir…we cannot schedule that appointment for you in November 2010 to have that melanoma removed because you have not undergone your mandatory annual counseling after age 65…oh, of course you are right. I know you are only 62, but they did move the age down again this year…we have an opening in three months with the counselors office…would you like that?”

This is fully expected, but It will not be the people you will be FORCED to talk to in order to receive your care, nor the intentional delays in care that will be the most insidiously evil facets of this. It will be the conversations like this one below that will become commonplace that ONLY BEGIN to illustrate what it is all about:

“…Hi Jan, how are you?  I heard your father is resisting counseling. It must be difficult, I know. There just seems to be so much of that lately. I know I am only 40 years old, but I don’t understand why people like your father are so opposed to this.

I went with my mother to her counseling session, and while she was angry because she was supposed to have another five years before she had to go but they moved the age down again, she went anyway. I thought she was really rude to the counseling agent, who was just a young woman only doing her job. Hm.

Someone told me they are only hiring young women as counselors now, because the men who were doing it just got angry too easily and shouted at people to just “sign the damned papers”. Hm. I tried to tell my mom why they have to do this, but she said they do it just to get rid of old people to save money.

The counseling agent gave my mom a copy of the book “Death is Joy”. I read it, and it makes a lot of sense to me. Of course, when I was going to school, we didn’t have to read it, but now they have required classes they take every year beginning in first grade.

Suzie is in third grade and is taking the course this year that deals with the chapter on keeping birth rates down, and Tommy is in his senior year where they cover the financial aspects of care for the elderly. He was so excited, he said that since they have implemented this national care program, the number of elderly people has dropped dramatically, so they can spend more money on programs such as monthly equality checks for the economically disadvantaged and reparations for the descendants of slaves. I think it is wonderful.

He asked me why so many elderly people are so selfish and refuse to accept counseling…I didn’t really have an answer for him. Hm. Now, don’t be defensive, I am not criticizing your parents.I am just saying, it is a problem.

They had an hour-long program on PBS about this the other night, and they were saying how the people who are being selfish about this and refusing to take advantage of early exit programs that pay cash to their children are being so self-centered because they grew up in a time where everyone was self-centered and were interested only in money. You know, they showed films from the days of the capitalists where there were people who had what they called ‘gas-guzzlers”, and they used to make so much more money than they needed to live comfortably, so many people were going without health care because they were taking all the money…”

Then, just wait until they pass legislation for a “Death Benefit” that will be paid to the families of elderly people. That will be the icing on the cake. It will be presented as a compassionate gesture to help the families with their grief, and will put at ease those people slated for “end of life” counseling. I can see the conversation on this as well:

COUNSELOR:  Thank you for coming in today, sir. Now, let’s see…you have high blood pressure, rheumatoid arthritis but more importantly, positive genetic tags for vascular/heart disease, Alzheimer’s, matricular degeneration and three types of cancer, prostate, esophageal and colon. Prostate and colon are very high. We see one of these two expressing itself in the next three years.

MEEr…really?

COUNSELOR:  Yes. This is all very scientifically based, and the results are incontrovertible. There is no mistake.

ME:  Ahhh…could I speak to a doctor about this?

COUNSELOR: I am afraid not, sir. The rules are physicians are for direct care only,   and nothing else. Federal Statue HCR23.1771-b mandates that I communicate this information to you, and inform you of the various options.

ME: But you don’t know anything about medicine! You are a clerk, nothing more! How can I discuss this issue with you?

COUNSELOR: Sir, I have taken all the courses coming through High School, and attended the Life Counseling University courses offered by the government   I graduated in the top half of my class. I do understand the issues here.

MEBut…but…

COUNSELORLook, sir. You are getting old, and are soon going to be a burden on society. You don’t have cancer right now, and can still think and get around, but for how long? You need to think about your children and their children. We offer a special financial compensation package that will help them bear the grief of your passing, to be paid out upon your death. With your approval, we emailed them an official forms packet before this meeting.

ME:  I approved that?

COUNSELOR  Well, yes sir. The electronic copy is right here with your  signature (TURNS SCREEN TO FACE ME).

ME:  I never signed that!

COUNSELOR: Sir, didn’t you read the codocil that was automatically added at the bottom of your government supplied Will and Last Testament session that we finished up your first End of Life session you had with us last year?

You did click the button that said “I approve all the changes” and you did use your voice authentication to say “I do approve”.

ME:  What! What is going on here? I…

COUNSELOR: Your two sons and your daughter who came in with you today have been in communication with our department on this.

(Smiles) I think it is great that the government approves time-off pay for employees to attend these End of Life meetings for their parents. I’ll call them in…

ME:  Hey!  I am not finished discus…

(DOOR OPENS, CHILDREN ENTER)

SON 1: Dad, I am so glad you signed up for the Early Exit Death Benefit. I was really behind on my tax payments for last year, and that will put me over the top…

ME:  You…what?

SON 2:Yeah, dad. Billy is graduating from high school, and we want to send him to a quality college, but we could never afford it. But now we might…thanks to you.

Daughter: Oh, Daddy (tears in her eyes) I know none of us live forever, and I will miss you so much, but this money will allow me to pay th license fees to the government so I can open my dream business! Without you…

ME: HEY! WTF is going on here? I am not “ready to die”, I feel pretty good, I could live for another twenty years! I didn’t sign that damned thing, they just threw all this stuff in front of me! This is effing stupid! (TURNS TO COUNSELOR) Look, I don’t know what kind of crap you set in motion, but undo it. I didn’t sign up for this.

COUNSELOR: (PRIGGISH, TIGHT LIPPED LOOK ON HIS FACE) Sir…you have already been scheduled for next year, and your family has been paid that benefit in advance as the law allows. We cannot undo it. See the text that you signed (TURNS SCREEN) states explicitly that this if final and cannot be remanded…

ME: (SMASHES SREEN WITH HAND) LOOK! I DON’T GIVE A RAT’S ASS IF YOU HAVE TO BURROW THROUGH THE WIRES BACK TO THE CENTRAL COMPUTER SYSTEM YOURSELF, USING YOUR SLIMEY PENCIL NECK AS A LEG TO DO IT SO YOU CAN UNDO THIS ROYAL F*CKUP ON YOUR PART…

COUNSELOR: (HAND CUPPED OVER SPEAKER, EYES ON ME, WHISPERING) We have a 22-22 in here…get in here right away… DAUGHTER: (WAILS) How could you be so selfish?

SON 1:Great. I might as well go down to the Tax Police right now to get fitted for the volunteer industry uniform…How am I going to tell Billy he can’t go to the Barack Obama University? How?

DOOR OPENS, BURLY UNION GUYS IN BLACK COVERALLS RUN UP TO ME AND TASE ME. ALL GOES BLACK

Emanuel has said 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.”

Democrats are generally slow on the uptake as they have been taught in their leftist schools to not use their minds and eyes and ears but rather to trust their loving government. One has but to study history to see the error of such blind trust in mankind as governments throughout history have murdered more innocent people than any given human institution.

Obama Administration’s New Proposed Rule For Medicare Part D

large group we wont take it any more

The Obama administration’s new proposed rule for Medicare Part D would eliminate half of all Medicare Part D plans and raise prescription drug premiums for millions of seniors by up to 20 percent, according to a U.S. House subcommittee chairman.

“Today, the average senior has 35 different [Medicare Part D] plans to choose from this year. This rule would reduce that choice to two plans. 50% of the plans offered today will be gone, and the health care that seniors like may go with it,” House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee chairman Rep. Joe Pitts said in a statement at a Feb. 26 hearing attended by a top administration health official.

“Limiting seniors’ choices like this will inevitably lead to higher costs. By some estimates, the restriction on the number of plans that can be offered could cause premiums to rise by 10%-20%. Costs to the federal government may increase by $1.2-1.6 billion according to a study by Milliman,” Pitts said. “…I urge Secretary Sebelius and Administrator Tavenner to rescind this.

The study Pitts cited also showed that the new rule would increase  out-of-pocket drug costs for 6.9 million seniors who do not qualify for  low-income subsidies, and would raise federal taxpayer costs for 6 million  seniors who do qualify.

President Bush signed Medicare Part D into law in 2003 to subsidize  prescription drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries.

The Daily  Caller reported that the administration’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid  Services (CMS), a division of Kathleen Sebelius’ Department of Health and Human  Services (HHS), recently introduced a new proposed rule on the Federal Register called “Medicare  Program: Contract Year 2015 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare  Advantage and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs.”

The new rule “would revise the Medicare Advantage (MA) program (Part C)  regulations and prescription drug benefit program (Part D) regulations to  implement statutory requirements; strengthen beneficiary protections; exclude  plans that perform poorly; improve program efficiency ; and clarify program  requirements,” according to the Federal Register.

The rule states that it also aims “to implement certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act.”  smiley-shocked028       Oh of course they do !!!! ???

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/02/house-subcommittee-chairman-obama-administration-policy-would-eliminate-half-of-all-existing-medicare-part-d-plans/#ixzz2uuf6k0xS

Ending the lives of Social Security recipients before they become a financial drain

large group we wont take it any moreIt’s the reality of Obamacare which was NOT enacted to guarantee medical care for all Americans. OBAMACARE is the pressure valve to make sure the program never goes bankrupt by ending the lives of Social Security recipients before they become a financial drain on the Old Age benefits system by denying them medical care. The Independent Payment Advisory Board whose job it is to ration medical services.

Obamacare went into effect. On Dec. 30, 2010, the Wall Street Journal noted that “…for the first time, an unelected group will be empowered to limit health spending for the vulnerable elderly.” While it was believed that the Death Board would not be empowered to deny lifesaving procedures to the elderly before Jan. 1, 2013, it has already begun—at least the horror stories now surfacing make it appears that way.

I first encountered the Obama Death Board on Aug. 30, 2009, a full half year before Obamacare was enacted. It was buried in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009—the Obama stimulus bill. It was adroitly concealed under the boring name of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Research (yawn). The bill said its mandate was to “…assist the agencies of the federal government including HHS and the Dept. of Veterans Affairs…to coordinate comparative effectiveness and related health services research…The Council will consider the needs of the population served by federal programs.” (yawn)

In reality, the sole job of the Federal Coordinating Council, whose members were quickly selected by Barack Obama within a week of the law passing was to create the formula for rationing healthcare to seniors and to other Social Security recipients who were disabled and, like the elderly, were deemed to be “double-dippers”—receiving Social Security benefits and were on Medicare.

On March 21, 2011, I found a video recorded on Oct. 13, 2010, less than 3 weeks before the 2010 Midterm Election that was made by Dr. David Janda concerning the rationing that was going to take place beginning on Jan. 1, 2013. Dr. Janda first addressed the Obamacare warning as the keynote speaker at a congressional dinner in the Capitol building on July 17, 2010. He began his speech by saying, “It should be clear that the same warning notice must be placed on the Obamacare Plan as on a pack of cigarettes: consuming this product will be hazardous to your health.” (No yawns here.)

“The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on rationing and denying care. There is no focus on preventative health care needs whatsoever The . plan’s method is the most inhumane and unethical approach to cutting costs I can imagine as a physician.” Click on this sentence to visit Dr. Janda’s March 21, 2011 political rally speech.

In the speech, he reiterates that a National Coordinator for Health Information Technology will ultimately be responsible for implementing the guidelines created by the the Federal Coordinating Council. The National Coordinator (or those working for him) will “…determine treatment at the time and place of care.” That means, Dr. Janda said, “…when your physician walks into your hospital room, his nurse or physician’s assistant [PA] will be carrying a small hand-held computer. As the doctor verbally tells you his prognosis, she will be typing that data into the computer…” and while the doctor chit-chats with you, someone at the other end of that computer terminal is deciding whether you live or die based not on your medical needs, but rather, if its profitable for the government to let you continue to live by gauging the cost of the procedure (and the other monetary factors in the Social Security database) with your life expectancy combined with your economic value to the community-at-large.

the forgotten onesOnce you pass 75, unless you’re a politician, a relative of a politician or a major political donor (a rich guy), with rare exceptions, you will have virtually no economic value to community, and you will be denied medical care. In some cases, if expensive medications are the only thing keeping you alive, you may find youself on an aspirin regime instead. The core objective of the Death Board is not to save the patient—it’s to save government by curbing the number of people who outlive the actuarial mortality tables, and who continues to receive retirement income benefits their government believes they don’t deserve because the actuarial statistics from which those benefits were computed, predicted they should be dead by now.

Until Obamacare, America was the only nation smart enough to avoid the legal euthanasia devise of government.

Obamacare

is Barack Obama’s, Nancy Pelosi’s, Harry Reid’s—and the 2007-11 Democratic super majority’s—toxic program to correct the national mortality rate in order to save Social Security. You can’t convince me that the Democrats (the only ones with full access to the text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010) didn’t know that Obamacare, which guarantees people with preexisting conditions health coverage, would also ration healthcare to the elderly, and deny lifesaving procedures and medications to those the social progressives viewed as a financial drain on society. But as Americans prayed that the Supreme Court would rule Obamacare unconstitutional, the Obama Administration decided to begin implementing it —through Medicare. That way, even if the Supreme Court had ruled Obamacare unconstitutional, Medicare will do the housecleaning Obamacare, without modification, would not be able to do.

Reid, Pelosi and then White House pit bull Rahm Emanuel (whose brother heads the Independent Payment Authority Board) wisely funded the National Coordinator for Health Information with $105,464,000,000.00 (that’s billions) that was surreptitiously buried in Obamacare—just in case. I guess that’s why Pelosi said, “Let’s hurry up and enact this so we can see what’s in it.” But, what the American people wouldn’t see in Obamcare was the Death Board, enacted a year earlier.

Seniors were being told by their Medicare primary care physicians in January and February, 2012 to prepare for the fact that specific procedures and, in some cases, expensive lifesaving medications will no longer be available to them next year. In many cases seniors, who were trying to put off life-threatening procedures until they were absolutely essential since many of the operations were life threatening, began having those lifesaving procedures in 2012 instread of gambling on their being available to them in 2013. In some cases, it appears, seniors this year are being told the procedures they need are now suddenly not available because although they may been lifesaving, they are suddenly being viewed as “elective” surgeries because the patient, not the doctor, is requesting it.

Today, due to questions of whether or not medical procedures on those 75 years of age or older are available to seniors who need them to prolong their lives are spreading like a wildfire in a drought, HHS Director Kathleen Sebelius insists that the “rumors” that the HHS will ration healthcare to the elderly is false.

Yet, a large percentage of practicing physicians (many of whom plan to retire rather than participate in Obamacare) insist they have already been informed by the government that it will; and that when the government denies benefits, that patient may not be treated by any healthcare practitioner—which is currently what happens in Canada.

male-crying-100100961

1950s heart throb pop Singer Pat Boone, best known hits like “Love Letters in the Sand,” and “Ain’t That A Shame” is working closely with Jim Martin of 60 Plus Association fighting the implementation of Obamacare. In a recent TV commercial, Boone said “…the IPAB will operate in secret, and will have vast powers to reach into our lives, and will have the final, irrefutable say on Medicare policy,” adding that the IPAB Board “…can ration care and deny certain Medicare treatments.” The IPAB will decide “…whether you get care such as dialysis or cancer therapy..” or cardiac bypasses or angioplasty. Boone noted that the IPAB will make all of the health care decisions over 300 million Americans.

If they are not now, seniors will find themselves being denied lifesaving procedures—.

On June 17, 2012, I received an email from a 67-year old male (whom I will call “Henry” [not his real name] who claims he discovered that Medicare threw him under the bus. It may or may not be factually true although the content is theoretically correct.The email begins:

Forget about getting to age 75. This exact thing happened to me this morning…here in Connecticut. I was scheduled for a cardiolite stress test. (This is a treadmill stress test where, during the process, they inject nuclear dye into your blood stream and then put you in a CTscan or something similar and take pictures of your heart…I have had three of these tests in the past 12 years due to blocked arteries discovered in 2000. They use the test to determine if I need a roto router or a bypass operation.

So, I arrive at the hospital at 8 a.m. this morning. I’m in process of checking in at Cardiology and the lady says that my appointment has been canceled. She makes a call and speaks with someone and hands me the phone. It is a nurse in cardiology who says my medical coverage denied the procedure. I said it was a routine part of my heart maintenance, and it was ordered by my primary care physician, with the approval of my cardiologist who is the head of Cardiology—which is right where I was standing. She says, Yes, but we were denied our request.  So, Henry said, “I have Medicare, so what is my back-up insurance doing denying anything?” Then the bombshell dropped. She said it was the Medicare Medical Board that denied the procedure.

I have personal knowledge of instances with extended family members who have experienced, in part, what Henry claims he experienced. Early this year, two family members were told that “…within a few months Medicare will not pay for this procedure for you.” The ramifications of stories about Medicare patients being denied tests and procedures their doctors felt were necessary to prolong their life are too serious to ignore even if those needed procedures are future events. Even discounting 85% of the rumors as exaggerations, there is still 15% that can’t be ignored. Even 1% can’t be ignored—particularly if, within that 1% is a family member you love.

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Lawsuit Challenging Death Panels in Obamacare

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/03/30/supreme-court-wont-hear-lawsuit-challenging-death-panels-in-obamacare/

hillary bill obama cartoon More of the same. Obama-Biden-Chit-ChatMore of the same.

The dangers of giving the government authority to meddle in a legalized system of euthanasia and assisted suicide,

The American people—thanks to Hillary Clinton—now have a more complex understanding of how, by design, universal healthcare puts into place the foundation of regulations that will allow government to control not only the lives of the people, but their mobility as well. Universal healthcare provides government with the platform that will surreptitiously allow them to, ever so slowly, steal the liberty of the People under the guise of taking care of them.

A large faction of American people still dislike Clinton because, as First Lady with no constitutional authority to engage in the legislative process, she formed a healthcare task force out of the public eye and created the most without change or comment. Her plan, created with the assistance of Bill Clinton’s chief healthcare architect, Ira Magaziner, did far more than create a healthcare bill. Obamacare is Hillarycare with a few minor tweaks. Both, by the way, contained provisions for a federal Health Board whose job it would be to limit the government’s liability by rationing healthcare to those with terminal or catastrophic chronic illnesses for which there is no cure. Actuarially, old age is one of those catastrophic chronic illnesses since old age always results in death. Hillarycare also included a biometric national ID card that was disguised as a healthcare card. That same card will be included in any healthcare system enacted by Congress—including the healthcare co-ops if that becomes Congress’ only option to get government’s foot in the door.

Mary Therese Helmueller  an RN from Minneapolis authored an article in the Catholic magazine, Homiletic, in 1998. In the article she noted that while she was visiting in Mexico City in February of that year, her grandmother was admitted to a local hospital with a fracture above her left knee. According to the hospital records she personally examined upon her return, her grandmother was alert and oriented upon admission. But, the report added, she became unresponsive after 48 hours, went into a coma. She was transferred to a hospice two days later. Carefully tracing the events that led up to her grandmother’s coma, Helmueller discovered that her grandmother became unresponsive after each pain medication.

She was diagnosed as having a stroke and being in renal failure. Helmueller‘s grandmother died shortly after her arrival at the hospice. The hospital charts were normal. The CATscan was negative for stroke or obstruction. The EEG indicated no seizure activity. All the blood work was normal. She was not in renal failure. The only anomaly Helmueller found was the overmedication of her grandmother. She also noticed her grandmother was listed as a “No Code” patient.

Helmueller insists her grandmother had no terminal illnesses. Nevertheless, the hospice’s admitting records reveal that two doctors stated that she was terminally ill and would die within six months. The first doctor, the director of the hospice, never examined or evaluated her. Nor did he even read her chart. The second doctor was on vacation when she was admitted. He did not return until three days after her death. Yet, in their expert medical opinion, she was terminal when she arrived at the hospice.

The dangers of giving the government authority to meddle in a legalized system of euthanasia and assisted suicide,

(Hospices, for those who don’t know, are transitional care facilities. Those who are suffering either from terminal illnesses or progressive debilitating chronic illnesses are usually transferred to TC facilities which are generally referred to as “exit treatment” facilities—referring to an exit from life. Hospice patients usually arrive by ambulance and leave by hearse.)

No one better understood what was going on at the Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida than the pro-life disability rights groups like Not Dead Yet that showed up to stand, in solidarity, with Terri Schiavo and the Schindler family during Terri‘s deathwatch. Like thre rest of America, they have been watching the alarming growth of medical euthanasia over the past decade, and they find it troublesome that our courts are legalizing euthanasia by judicial fiat. While the catastrophic impaired—particularly when they are aged and infirmed—now have a court-protected right to die— with or without a Living Will, they no longer possess an unquestionable right to live. Not Dead Yet recently asked Congress to pass a law requiring federal courts to review all cases where the end-of-life wishes of the impaired person are not in writing and where family members disagree on end-of-life decisions.

Even if such a law were written, the courts can be expected to weigh in favor of those family members opting for euthanasia.

The federal government is increasingly faced with a catastrophic dilemma as America grays. Too many people living too long is now creating an unfathomable burden on the U.S. Treasury that the US government and the taxpayerscannot afford.

The American Court system is increasingly embracing the argument that beneficence prevents unnecessary suffering for the individual and saves the family—or the State—from bearing what could become a crushing financial obligation if the patient lingers too long. Beneficence—a selfless act designed to spare the loved ones of the patient from both physical and financial anguish—right-to-die advocates argue, justifies euthanasia. Even with the best palliative care there will always be patients for whom there will be no relief from suffering since there are no pain killers strong enough to dull the pain they endure daily. Right-to-die advocates maintain that since many of these people can’t even find temporary relief from the intractable pain that is an inescapable part of their lives, terminally ill or chronically ill patients should have an option that will allow them to escape the pain and misery that blankets their minds like a death shroud and makes them wonder, from day-to-day or hour-to-hour, what is the point of their continued existence.

While euthanasia may rightly be construed as an act of mercy for a handful of people in a handful of instances nationwide, the American people need to very carefully consider what they wish for when they demand the passage of “right-to-die” legislation since the Living Will does not give those signing them more control over their fate. It provides legal cover for its beneficiary—the medical care facility—who has been given the power to take your life.

The Living Will does not promote well-being—except perhaps for the “well-being” of the coffers of the government. Medicare, which foots the bill for medical care for the aged, is facing the same types of shortfalls as Social Security—a rapidly shrinking tax base as more and more members of grey America becomes eligible for benefits. The question lurking in the back of the mind of government is: at what point can Uncle Sam no longer afford to care for chronically ill patients? At what point does voluntary euthanasia, requested through a Living Will, become mandatory euthanasia?

If we accept the logic that it is morally defensible to demand that we be allowed to die to alleviate our own needless suffering from a chronic or terminal illness or injury that will ultimately result in our dying, then how can we reject the notion that government is not morally justified in establishing a mandatory criteria for doctors to follow in cases where patients are construed to be terminal? Or, where elderly patients are admitted with chronic medical problems that simply drain the system without any hope of the patient’s health improving?

The moral argument is a two-headed dragon. You can’t argue for the right of people to be allowed to end their own lives by rejecting extraneous measures to keep them alive and, in the same breath, reject the right of government to arbitrarily decide to end lives judged to be not worth living, or which are too much of a drain on the healthcare system to pay for the care needed to assure your survival..

Hollywood actor-director Mel Gibson, who had been in constant contact with the Schindler family through most of their 13-day ordeal, told Sean Hannity on Fox News that what was happening in Pinellas Park, Florida was a modern-day crucifixion with a pro-death agenda driving it. “It’s just completely wrong to deprive this poor woman of food and water,” he said. “It’s a prolonged and cruel execution. What happened to just being a human being, you know? It’s nothing more than State-sanctioned murder. All the big guys—they all have their hands tied up by some tinhorn judge down there. Come on. When they want to whip a judge, they got no problem doing it. Look what they did to [Judge] Roy Moore. So they can do it if they want. They just didn’t want to. It’s a precedent that they set.

We may be able to save a few Social Security dollars later on down the track simply by pulling the plug on the infirmed, or the disabled, or the aged. It’s the inevitability of gradualism. There is an agenda, and people say, ‘Well, they can’t all be in it together,’ but there’s no other way to explain this behavior.”

 

Tom Delay warned the State and federal judges that Congress ”…will look at an arrogant and out-of-control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president.” Delay added that he “…never thought [he’d] see the day when a US judge stopped feeding a living American so that they took 14 days to die.”

After the Schiavo incident was televised almost nonstop for 13 days on satellite TV, the Euthanasia Society distributed over 60 thousand living wills. The only one I know of that amended a Living Will to protect her from premature euthanasia was Michael Schiavo’s common law wife, Jodi Centonze—who suffers from nacrolepsy. Centonze amended her own Living Will to include a precaution about euthanizing her during a deathlike nacroleptic trance that resembles an irreversible coma. “I love Michael,” Centonze told the media, “and if/when we are married, I want a clear and lucid stipulation between a ‘vegetative state’ and ‘really, really tired.'” Centonze has made every effort to get her narcolepsy “on the record” so that, in the event she dropped into a narcoleptic sleep her husband would not be able to “litigate” her slumber. Knowing Schiavo’s penchant for discarding infirmed spouses, I guess she doesn’t want to be the next Fox News euthanasia special.

When the Netherlands enacted an euthanasia law on November 28, 2000, Pope John Paul condemned the law which violated the Geneva Accord of 1948. A Vatican spokesman said, “Again we find ourselves face to face with a state law that violates natural law and individual conscience…[that is] a grave problem of professional ethics for the doctors who must put it into practice.” Under the Dutch law, patients are able to make a written request for euthanasia, giving their doctors the right to use their own discretion when patients become too physically or mentally ill to make rational decisions on their own. Last year in the Netherlands there were over 2,500 physician assisted suicides. How many of them, I wonder, actually wanted to go through with it at the time their doctor arbitrarily acted upon their request?

In one case a man—a Catholic—who had been estranged from his family for quite some time developed terminal cancer. His doctor estimated he would die within a year or so. Knowing the pain he was going to face down the road, he signed a consent form. Shortly thereafter, he reconciled with his family. As the family reunification progressed, he began experiencing some new pain that was not alleviated by his current pain medication. His wife called the nurse who, in turn, relayed the wife’s message to the doctor.** Instead of asking the patient to go to his office, the doctor went to his home. The physician gave his patient an injection. The patient gasped and died. The wife screamed that she had not asked the doctor to kill her husband—who had not yet reconciled with God. Neither she nor her husband realized that the release he signed trumped his current desires. He gave his doctor the right to determine when he should die and the doctor exercised that option when his patient’s condition worsened.

Those who favor assisted suicide or euthanasia do so in the mistaken belief that being transited will assure them of a dignified and comfortable death.

There is no such thing. Death is never dignified. Nor is death a comfortable experience. What they are really saying is that most people fear suffering a painful death far more than they fear dying.

However, those who favor assisted death have not prudently weighed the pitfalls inherent with giving either a physician or a government board unprecedented power over their life or the lives of their loved ones. They assume because they live in a democracy that is governed by the rule of law, that government—which plays God with our lives anyway—will, for some strange and unfathomable reason, not abuse the power of life and death. Even without a national law authorizing the use of euthanasia to “protect the well-being” of the terminally-ill, there is already a killing field in every hospital in America. It’s called the “Transitional Care Unit.” That’s where “No Code” patients are taken to await death.

They may be terminally-ill, chronically-ill or simply too old and too much of a drain on Medicare for anyone to care. The most serious health hazard for many seniors when they are hospitalized today is simply their age. When you are old enough, age by itself is a terminal illness. Anything that can cause your death within six months of diagnosis at any age may be termed a “terminal illness.” Diabetes. High blood pressure. Heart disease. According to the yardstick applied by Judge Greer, if you have any of those chronic medical problems, you could be classified as having a terminal illness and denied medical treatment or even food and water.

 For some unexplained logic, medical caregivers honestly believe that their use of euthanasia—the intentional oversedation of patients or overdosing them with morphine or other painkillers—is the most common and humane method used to spare the family. The death certificates likely read “death by natural causes” or perhaps “death from complications of…” whatever chronic illness the patient suffers.

Today every hospital and healthcare facility is required to ask patients if they have a Living Will. Healthcare agencies risk losing federal funding if they do not ask. When an aged patient does not have a living will, hospitals are required to attempt to get them to sign a “do not resuscitate” form—so their “exit care wishes” will be respected. A sales pitch—given to the elderly—in the form of a horror story about a parent’s endtime medical bills destroying the finances of their children accompanies the form the patient has been asked to sign. The children of the elderly patient are generally told that Medicare and Medicaid will not pay for any extraordinary efforts to keep their terminal or chronically-ill parents alive. If extraordinary lifesaving procedures are requested, family members are told they, not Medicare, will be forced to bear the cost. The Living Will has been “packaged” as part of every hospital or hospice patient’s “bill of rights.” In realty, it’s a death warrant—your’s. Most people believe a Living Will places them in charge of their life—and their death. It does not. It removes choice from their hands and places it in the hands of bureaucrats whose job it is to cut costs—regardless of the cost.

For example, a 70-year old man who had previously signed a Living Will suddenly found himself admitted as an inpatient through the emergency room of his local hospital. He was suffering from respiratory distress. He was placed on a ventilator. As he struggled to breathe, he learned that his family was discussing removing him from the ventilator since, they were told, Medicare would not pay for the treatment and the most humane thing they could do for him was to let him go.

Unable to speak but very cognizant, the man scribbled notes to the nurses, saying “Don’t take me off this machineI changed my mind! I want to live!” The family, however, agreed with the doctor who felt it was stupid to waste their inheritance on hospital bills for a man whose condition was terminal. He was removed from the ventilator. Because he signed a Living Will, he was viewed as incapable of making a rational decision to recant the legal document he had previously signed in a more “lucid” moment. His wishes, as stated in the Living Will, prevailed. A man who was not terminal became terminal. He died.

 

In 1990, the American Medical Association adopted the position that physicians, with informed consent, could withhold or withdraw treatment from patients who were close to death. That “position” was pushed by the managed healthcare systems that were footing the bill for what that industry called “wasted treatments” on people who could not be rehabilitated.

Urged to do so by the HMO lobby, the Democratically-controlled Congress passed the Patient Self-Determination Act that forced hospitals to tell patients [a] they had a right to either demand or reject treatments, and [b] it required all medical care facilities to ask if the patient had a Living Will—and to urge those without them to sign one. In 1993

Bill and Hillary Clinton went on the Living Will offensive, encouraging States to legalize them and working class people to sign them on the pretext that it was the only way people could protect their rights. By 1994 every State and the District of Columbia have Living Will provisions that allow physicians extreme latitude in dealing with terminal or chronic patients.

What American witnessed taking place in Pinellas Park, Florida between March 18 and March 30, 2005 only appeared to be a battle between Michael Schiavo and the Schindler family. They were simply pawns on the chess board of life. What actually transpired was America’s first naked look at the pure ugliness of State-dictated, court enforced euthanasia. But, strangely, America watched that spectacle through rose-colored glasses. They did not see what they should have seen. They should have realized that the courts denied Terri Schiavo equal protection under the law. Someone should have noticed that Circuit Court Judge George S. Greer sentenced an innocent woman to death. Someone should have noticed, and asked, why Greer denied Terri Schiavo sustenance consumed by swallowing. Instead, the American public—which has been brainwashed into believing that a Living Will is good thing—saw Terri Schiavo as less than human and somehow, less deserving to live

.

Yesterday the victim of forced euthanasia was Terri Schiavo. Who will it be tomorrow? Perhaps it will be…you. Have you signed a Living Will? You did? Yes, tomorrow, it will be you

 by Jon Christian Ryter.
.

Today it does not matter if you have a Living Will or not. Hospital officials in every city in the nation urge thefamily members to “no code” elderly relatives who are being admitted into the nation’s medical care facilities—even if they are diagnosed witnon-terminal chronic illnesses. “No code”denies any form of medical intervention to the patient in the event of an emergency situation like cardiac arrest or some other form of respiratory failure. It is the essential first step in euthanizing a terminal patient. Increasingly, it is used to quietly dispatch chronically-ill patients whose quality of life cannot improve and who have become a financial drain on the Medicare system and on their families.

Mr. President, Fox News isn’t what’s making Americans sick

Neil Cavuto at his absolute BEST

Mr. President, Fox News isn’t what’s making Americans sick about your healthcare law. Your healthcare law is. Welcome, everybody, I’m Neil Cavuto. And excuse this departure from form. But I think this is just poor form. So, it’s time we set some things straight.

Mr. President, we at Fox News are not the problem. I hate to break it to you, sir. You are. Your words are. Your promises are. We didn’t sell this healthcare law. Sir, you did. Remember this?

President Barack Obama: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period.

Mr. President, tell that to tens of thousands of retirees at IBM and Time Warner and dozens of others, who’ve been dumped from their coverage and told to find their own coverage. Fox News didn’t break that news to them, Mr. President. Their companies did.

Fox News didn’t push more of those firms to hire part-time workers. Your healthcare law did. Fox News didn’t incentivize fast food restaurants to scale back their benefits. Your healthcare law did. Fox News didn’t make doctors want to opt out. Your healthcare law did. Fox News didn’t make insurance premiums sky rocket. Your healthcare law did. Just like Fox News didn’t grant hundreds of exemptions to companies that needed them. You did. And Fox News didn’t delay one key provision after another, including online enrollment for those small business exchanges. You did.

Just like it wasn’t Fox News that said we had to pass this to see what was in this. You did. Or was that Nancy Pelosi? Sometimes I’m confused. But of this I am not. Fox News didn’t re-do basic math. Sir, you did. Fox News didn’t say you can cover 30 million more Americans and not see a hit in premiums. You did. Fox News didn’t say you could throw in those with pre-existing conditions and not have to pay for it. You did. Fox News didn’t all but say you could get something for nothing. You did. Fox News didn’t come back years later and say, oh yea, we did raise some taxes. You did.

Here’s where you are right about Fox News, however, Mr. President. We can do math. And did. You cannot. And did not. We said it, and proved it. You didn’t. And we’re all suffering for it. Take it from the numbers guy at Fox. Numbers don’t lie. The number of Americans working part-time and nervous. The number of retirees days away from being dumped on exchanges and anxious. The number of company bosses with any news to pass along on those exchanges, but still clueless. The number of doctors who want out. The number of congressmen now opting out. No, Mr. President, none of those numbers lie.

But with all due respect sir, I can only conclude you do know; I know, I know you hate us at Fox. But please take a look in a mirror, and fast. You think we’re the skunk at your picnic. But that doesn’t mean we’re the ones that stink. Because that smell isn’t coming from the folks reporting on your law. Mr. President, that smell is your law.

The AARP is directly attached to the success of ObamaCare.

ObamaCare plans to sacrifice your healthcare to provide for their political agenda. This law was not designed to serve anyone but the government, and seniors are positioned to loose the most. 
 
IF YOU ARE 50 OR OLDER, WE URGE YOU TO READ THIS CRITICAL OBAMACARE ALERT:
 
The AARP is directly attached to the success of ObamaCare.
 
The American Association for Retired Persons(AARP), an organization originally designed to provide for the needs of senior citizens, strategically supported the passing of the ObamaCare law, which will cut 716 billion dollars from Medicare to help fund the 1.9 trillion dollars in added entitlement spending. 
 
In exchange for their undying support, Obama has made certain that AARP gets a “sweetheart deal” when ObamaCare is fully implemented in January of 2014.
 
Here’s what we’ve discovered…
 
AARP is exempt from:

  • Premium tax placed upon private insurers
  • Cap on executive compensation for insurance companies
  • Requirement to accept all insurance applicants

In Addition AARP is entitled to:

  • 200 percent of the administrative charges allowed by their competitors
  • A 4.5 percent royalty fee, which is purely profit and will not be attributed to their administrative costs.

Remember, AARP competitors do not receive the exemptions and allowances above. This is Obama’s way of paying back AARP for their support.
 
AARP is sacrificing seniors for their own corporate gain!
 
ObamaCare has put AARP in a position to reap untold wealth – as much as $1.8 billion dollars in Medigap reforms while the seniors it services will be penalized and potentially crushed under the weight of higher premiums and higher taxes – not to mention less coverage and fewer services.
 
This is another example of the immoral greed that is stifling just governance for the American people. As long as Americans continue to use the services of powerful and corrupt organizations like AARP, citizens will (in many cases) continue to unwittingly fund the ever-growing tyranny of our once free nation.
 
AARP’s decision not to serve your best interests cannot be ignored. As freedom-loving patriots, we are duty-bound to respond. We must challenge those who have “sold” us for a buck. We must fight for the right to make our own healthcare decisions!
 
+ + Fight Back by Striking Back
 
From the information above, it’s obvious that AARP is only interested in their bottom line. Motivated by the promise of billions of dollars to support a healthcare overhaul that doesn’t have the best interests of their people at heart, they cannot be trusted.
 
In short, they are an organization to be avoided!
 
Grassfire has teamed up with Conservative 50 Plus, the conservative’s alternative to AARP, to fight ObamaCare.  Unlike AARP, Conservative 50 Plus does have your best interests at heart, and is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with you in the fight to defund and dismantle this dangerous piece of legislation to protect you and your family.
 
Join us now in the fight to defund ObamaCare by signing your name to this joint petition. Tell Washington that you do not want ObamaCare or all the political cronyism that has gone along with it.
 
www.grassrootsaction.com/901/petition.asp

Speak up! Let Congress know that you do not want dangerous cuts to your coverage and higher premiums.
 
Cast your vote to defund ObamaCare today by clicking here to sign.
 
Help us end this abuse of power! Your voice must be heard if you want your healthcare to be protected.
 
Sincerely,
 Your partners at Grassfire
Grassfire, a division of Grassroots Action, Inc., is a million-strong network of grassroots conservatives that is dedicated to equipping you with the tools that give you a real impact on the key issues of our day. Copyright 2013 Grassroots Action, Inc.