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.

Microchip Implants, Are We are going down that slippery slope.

An article in the Orlando Examiner earns a posting here:
Obama’s Orwellian health care vision
October 30, 2009
By Jim Kouri
President, Barack Obama has promised a massive change to “modernize health care by making all health records standardized and electronic.” Part of his ambitious health care program will be the computerizing of medical records of all Americans in order to make the health care process more cost-effective.

But even proponents of Obama’s plan have mentioned that ensuring the privacy of patients’ records in a nationalized computer network will be tricky. There are obvious concerns about hackers and system failures. And new online health record systems, such as Google Health are not currently subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the national health privacy law.

This is especially true when you consider the advocates of implementing a program using so-called ‘v-chips containing all a person’s medical information. No one has said how much information will be contained in those implants. DNA? AIDS information?
With so much information already being compromised within government security systems, how can Obama possibly promise confidentiality of such records?

Although in five years the VeriChip Corp., the US company creating microchip implants, has yet to turn a profit, it has been investing heavily – up to $8 million a year – to create new markets.
The company’s executives have said their present push is the tagging of “high-risk” patients — diabetics and people with heart conditions or Alzheimer’s disease.
In a medical emergency, hospital staff could wave a reader over a patient’s arm, get an ID number, and then, via the Internet, enter a company database and pull up the person’s identity and medical history.
To doctors, a “starter kit” – complete with 10 hypodermic syringes, 10 VeriChips and a reader – costs $1,400, according to information on the Verichip web site. To patients, a microchip implant means a $200, out-of-pocket expense to their physician. Presently, chip implants aren’t covered by private healthcare insurance companies, or by Medicare and Medicaid.

For almost two years, the company has been offering hospitals free scanners, but acceptance has been limited. According to the company’s most recent SEC quarterly filing, 515 hospitals have pledged to take part in the VeriMed network, yet only 100 have actually been equipped and trained to use the system.
Some patients and their families are wondering why they should abandon noninvasive tags such as MedicAlert, a low-tech bracelet, that warns paramedics if patients have serious allergies or a chronic medical condition, for the microchip implants.

In early September, up to 200 Alzheimer’s patients living in the Palm Beach, Florida area were implanted with the microchip by the company VeriChip absolutely free.
The chip, which is about the size of a grain of rice, contains a 16-digit identification number which is scanned at a hospital. Once the number is placed in a database, it can provide crucial medical information. People are already lining up for the VeriChip, but it’s already stirred up controversy.
The story, carried by ABC TV News, caused one reporter to ask, “Is Big Brother watching?”

The relative permanence is a big reason why Marc Rotenberg, of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, is suspicious about the motives of the company, which charges an annual fee to keep clients’ records.
The company charges $20 a year for customers to keep a “one-pager” on its database — a record of blood type, allergies, medications, driver’s license data and living-will directives. For $80 a year, it will keep an individual’s full medical history. In recent days, there have been rumors on Wall Street, and elsewhere, of the potential uses for RFID in humans: the chipping of U.S. soldiers, of inmates, or of migrant workers, to name a few.

In May 2008, a protest outside the Alzheimer’s Community Care Center in West Palm Beach, Florida, drew attention to a two-year study in which 200 Alzheimer’s patients, along with their caregivers, were to receive chip implants. Parents, children and elderly people decried the plan, with signs and placards.
“Chipping People Is Wrong” and “People Are Not Pets,” the signs read. And: “Stop VeriChip.”

Dr. Katherine Albrecht, the RFID critic who organized the demonstration, raises similar concerns on her http://www.AntiChips.com web site.
“Is it appropriate to use the most vulnerable members of society for invasive medical research? Should the company be allowed to implant microchips into people whose mental impairments means they cannot give fully informed consent?” she wrote.
MICROCHIP IMPLANT FAQ
“Microchip Implants: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions” by Katherine Albrecht, Ed.D.Answers 85 of the most commonly asked questions about chip implants, including damning evidence that the VeriChip Corporation misled reporters, regulators, and the public about studies linking chips to cancer.
MICRO CHIP

CityWatcher.com, a provider of surveillance equipment, attracted little notice itself — until a year ago, when two of its employees had glass-encapsulated microchips with miniature antennas embedded in their forearms.
The “chipping” of two workers with RFIDs — radio frequency identification tags as long asgrains of rice, as thick as a toothpick — was merely a way of restricting access to vaults that held sensitive data and images for police departments, a layer of security beyond key cards and clearance codes, the company said. He compared chip implants to retina scans or fingerprinting. “There’s a reader outside the door; you walk up to the reader, put your arm under it, and it opens the door.”Innocuous? Maybe.

But the news that Americans had, for the first time, been injected with electronic identifiers to perform their jobs fired up a debate.“It was scary that a government contractor that specialized in putting surveillance cameras on city streets was the first to incorporate this technology in the workplace,” says Liz McIntyre, co-author of “Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID.”As the polemic heats up, legislators are increasingly being drawn into the fray. Two states, Wisconsin and North Dakota, recently passed laws prohibiting the forced implantation of microchips in humans. Other states, such as Ohio, Oklahoma, Colorado and Florida, are studying similar legislation.
Meanwhile, Oklahoma legislators are debating a bill that would authorize microchip implants in people imprisoned for violent crimes. Many felt it would be a good way to monitor felons once released from prison.

But other lawmakers raised concerns. Rep. John Wright worried, “Apparently, we’re going to permanently put the ‘mark’ on these people.”
Rep. Ed Cannaday found the forced microchipping of inmates “invasive…. We are going down that slippery slope.”

Another drawback to microchip implants is the suspicion that they are linked to cancer in test animals. Opponents of human microchipping are concerned with the speed with which these chips received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration. Opponents such as Dr. Albrecht believe the FDA approval has more to do with politics than medicine.

Opponents believe the government is choosing the most vulnerable citizens for the initial implants — Alzheimer’s patients, the handicapped, retarded, the elderly — but eventually every human being in the US, Mexico and Canada will be required to have the microchip implants if only to keep track of them and their activities.
“Under the federally supported National Animal Identification System (NAIS), digital tags are expected to be affixed to the U.S.’s 40 million farm animals to enable regulators to track and respond quickly to disease, bioterrorism, and other calamities,” according to a Business Week article.

“Opponents have many fears about this plan, among them that it could be the forerunner of a similar system for humans.”To others, the notion of tagging people was Orwellian, a departure from centuries of history and tradition in which people had the right to go and do as they pleased without being tracked, unless they were harming someone else.Chipping, these critics said, might start with Alzheimer’s patients or Army Rangers, but would eventually be suggested for convicts, then parolees, then sex offenders, then illegal aliens — until one day, a majority of Americans, falling into one category or another, would find themselves electronically tagged.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2009m10d30-Obamas-Orwellian-health-care-vision

Another Hidden Secret In Obamacare? Implanted Microchips ?

Congressman Ron Paul from Texas, stated on his website:

Buried deep within the over 1,000 pages of the massive US Health Care Bill (PDF) in a “non-discussed” section titled:  National Medical Device Registry, and which states its purpose as…….. He quotes that part of the law and then goes on to say: “In “real world speak”, according to this report, this new law, when fully implemented, provides the framework for making the United States the first Nation in the World to require each and every one of its citizens to have implanted in them a radio-frequency identification microchip for the purpose of controlling who is, or isn’t, allowed medical care in their country”.

That is from a currently serving member of congress. Cutting through all the political ease, the bottom line is that eventually if you want to participate in a government healthcare plan you will have to have this chip implanted in you. This law mandates that you have to have insurance and by virtue of this law guarantees that all private healthcare insurers will be driven out of business with only the government option left. We will be in a single payer system and you will have to have an imbedded chip to be a member of this system and it is mandatory that you be a part of this system.

******************************

by Charrington on May 26, 2011 > Another hidden secret in Obamacare

^Page 1004 of the new law (dictating the timing of this chip), reads, and I quote: “Not later than 36 months after the date of the enactment”. It is now the law of the land that by March 23rd 2013 we will all be required to have an RFID chip underneath our skin and this chip will be link to our bank accounts as well as have our personal records and tracking capability built into it.On Sunday March 21, 2010 the Senate Healthcare bill HR3200 was passed and signed into law the following Tuesday. Like I said before, there are a legion of horrible and just plain evil aspects to this bill and I’m sure you’ve heard a lot them by now. I don’t want to discount them but what cannot be missed here is this new law now opens a prophetic door on a magnitude not seen since the reformation of Israel.

This new law requires an RFID chip implanted in all of us. This chip will not only contain your personal information with tracking capability but it will also be linked to your bank account. (SS now mandated to deposit in a bank account)

 I’m going to show you the black and white of the law itself and you can see it with your own eyes and wonder why an event of this magnitude which is nothing less than seismic in nature is met with little more than silence.

 I want to show you the law itself. I’ve downloaded a PDF copy of HR3200 from the government’s website so what I’m about to show you is from the bill itself its nothing that I’ve written. You can access it all and see it all for yourself straight from the source itself. ( Charrington)

H.R. 3200 section 2521, Pg. 1001, paragraph 1.
The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that— ‘‘is or has been used in or on a patient; ‘‘and is— ‘‘a class III device; or ‘‘a class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining.”

What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? , it is the device approved by the FDA in 2004.

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuid…

A class II implantable device is an “implantable radio frequency transponder system for patient identification and health information.” The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as “claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records,

and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary.”

Going back to what we just looked at, the creation of the national medical device registry in section 2521, page 1002 line 5:

“In developing the registry, the secretary shall…”

And the law continues on with a laundry list of items that the secretary must do in the process of creating this registry. In this laundry list of items to do, Line 17, subparagraph B: “validating methods for analyzing patient safety and outcomes data from multiple sources and for linking such data with the information included in the registry as described in subparagraph (A)”

Going back to subparagraph A [right above subparagraph B], it says: “including in the registry, in a manner consistent with subsection (f), appropriate information to identify each device described in paragraph (1) by type, model, and serial number or other unique identifier;”

Don’t be confused by the intentional obfuscation and skillful wording, This law first creates the national device registry and then immediately list all the task the secretary of health and human services will have do in the process of creating this registry.

The very first two items in the list mandates that the secretary first gives a unique identification to each of the items listed in paragraph 1 which is:

‘‘a class III device; or ‘‘a class II device that is implantable.”

Then, the very next thing the secretary is to do is to create the process by which “patient safety and outcomes data from multiple sources”, which is electronic medical records, that are linked to these newly and uniquely identified items from paragraph 1 which are the class III and class II implantable devices.

Class III devises are items such as breast implants, pacemakers, heart valves, etc. A Class II device that is implantable is, as you seen from the FDA, an implantable radio frequency transponder, RFID chip. From breast implants, to pacemakers, to RFID chips which one is the only possible one that can used for the stated purpose in section B which is, “for linking such data with the information included in the registry”? As we know from subsection A, the information in the registry is the name of a device. In plain speak, we are in a clear way being told that our electronic medical records are going to be linked to a class II implantable device!

Continuing a few lines down in this same section, section B subsection ii on still on page 1002, the “patient safety and outcomes data from multiple sources”, that is to be linked is clearly spelled out as electronic medical records. It reads: “link data obtained under clause (i) with information in the registry”. Information in the registry is, as we know from subparagraph A, the name of the device. So what is the data obtained under clause i? Back up a few lines to clause i

It reads: “obtain access to disparate sources of patient safety and outcomes data, including Federal health-related electronic data”. Again, from breast implants, to pacemakers, to RFID chips which one is the only possible one that can used for the stated purpose in section B? That stated purpose is “for linking such data” and the such data is electronic medical records.

What we already have already seen in just the creation of this registry, is the device that will serve as the link, which is an RFID microchip that is categorized as a Class II implantable device, as well as what it will be the link for which is your electronic medical records.

In case the law wasn’t clear enough on that point,still in the laundry list of things to do a few more lines down on the next page, page 1005

“The Secretary to protect the public health; shall establish procedures to permit linkage of information submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A, remember subparagraph A is the class 2 implantable device reference) with patient safety and outcomes data obtained under paragraph (3, which is electronic medical records); and to permit analyses of linked data;”

Continuing on to page 1007, in the STANDARDS, IMPLEMENTATION CRITERIA, AND CERTIFICATION CRITERIA section, the secretary of health and human services is given full power to intact all mandates from the laundry list of to-do items in the creation process of the registry as well as dictate how the devises listed in the National Medical Device Registry are to be used and implemented.

“The Secretary of the Health Human Services, acting through the head of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, shall adopt standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for the electronic exchange and use in certified electronic health records of a unique device identifier for each device described in paragraph 1 (National Medical Device Registry), if such an identifier is required by section 519(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360i(f)) for the device.”

Now on Page 503, section E Lines 13-17 and I quote: “encourage, as appropriate, the development and use of clinical registries and the development of clinical effectiveness research data networks from electronic health records, post marketing drug and medical device surveillance efforts”. Let me say that again, medical device surveillance efforts!

Now lets look at section 163 of HR3200, which gives the government a direct electronic access to your bank account which will work in conjunction with an implanted chip.

 Page 58 Lines 5 through 15 reads:
(D)enable the real-time (or near real time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identity detection card; (E) enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims

What does this mean? It means that the government will give everybody a health ID card that contains a machine readable device (magnetic strip or RFID chip) similar to a credit card. Embedded in this chip or strip is your Health Identification Number. When you visit a medical provider, the medical claims will be processed while you are still in the office. The medical providers will be paid in real time.

The portion that you owe will be deducted from your bank account, in real time, according to HR 3200.

Notice here in this part which is at the beginning of 2000 plus pages of the law, it is carefully worded “which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identity detection card“. Here we are told that it may be a card. As you have already seen, deeper in the law [Sec. 2521 Pg. 1000] what this “may” utilize is clearly spelled out as a “class II device that is implantable”. We can only speculate at this point why the law is set up this way.Most likely this section was written to account for the gap in time from when the process of chipping begins to when everyone has received a chip. A means of starting with a card for the sake of expedience while the process of chipping citizenry plays out. One thing is certain, the law mandates that within 3 years we will all have a chip under our skin that will serve this purpose.

Evidence of this logic is found in the deadline set for the start of the registry on page 1006.

“EFFECTIVE DATE.—The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish and begin implementation of the registry under section 519(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as added by paragraph (1), by not later than the date that is 36 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, without regard to whether or not final regulations to establish and operate the registry have been promulgated by such date.”

Also on page 259, this law requires the use of Electronic medical records system in all hospitals by 2012 which will leave a gap of at least a year before the class II implantable device is required.

When I have a number of different pieces of data, I like to lay it all out in bit size pieces so the picture becomes clearer so I’m going to lay out the data and cut through the political circular logic and legal ease:

2004:
Class II implantable devices receive FDA approval and verachip VeriMed electronic health records system also received approval from the FDA.

2009:
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act authorized $23 billion in stimulus funds for health care information technology. In conjunction with that, VeriChip re-launches VeriMed electronic health records system which is a system that is made up of implantable RFID microchips, handheld scanners for emergency room personnel to read these chips, and online electronic personal health records.

2010:
HR3200 was passed by the House and signed into law by the president
Now looking at the new law, Page 259 Electronic Medical Records system will be required for all healthcare providers by 2012.

Pages 1001-1002:
A national medical device registry is created and populated with devices. Chiefly noted among them, a Class II medical device that is implantable.

Pages 1002-1004:
Mandates the use of class II implantable devices to serve as the link between you and your electronic medical records.

Page 1005:
The secretary of human services will establish the procedures for the linking of the Class II implantable device and electronic medical records.

Page 1007:
Secretary of health and human services is given full power to intact all items required in the creation of the registry as well as the power to dictate how the devises listed in the National Medical Device Registry are to be used and implemented.

Page 503:
Medical device surveillance is authorized.

Page 58:
The link to your electronic medical records which is the Class II implantable device will also be linked to your bank account.

Page 1006:
Without regard to whether or not final regulations are in place, you will be required to get a Class II implantable device linked to your medical records and bank account in order to participate in the government healthcare plan.

Pages 155-158:
It is mandated that you have health insurance or you will pay $100.00 dollars per day that you are not covered.

Page 159:
The IRS will enforce healthcare enrolment and fines for not caring health insurance.

Lastly:
This law mandates that you have to have insurance and by virtue of this law, guarantees that all privet healthcare insurers will be driven out of business with only the government option left. We will be in a single payer system and you will have to have an imbedded chip to be a member of this system and it is mandatory that you be a part of this system.

This new law, when fully implemented, provides the framework for making the United States the first nation in the world to require each and every one of its citizens to have implanted in them a radio-frequency identification microchip. In theory, the intent to streamline healthcare and to eliminate fraud via “health chips” seems right. But, to have the world’s lone superpower mandate a device to be IMPLANTED is not just scary. It is prophetic!

 Keep in mind, we are already staring down the barrel of a global government who will implement this on a global scale. I wouldn’t be surprised if same healthcare ruse won’t be applied under the premises that the mass disappearance of people is a global healthcare emergency and the application of this law [globally and under a global government] will prevent others from disappearing or at a minimum be a means of determining what happened via the tracking capability inherent to RFID chips.

One can only assume that America is asleep at the wheel. Maybe everyone is so bogged down in all the other evil facets to this new law that this has slipped through the cracks. I tend to doubt that is the case though. I think the reason that hardly no one has seemed to even so much as mentioned this is because human nature is kicking in and it’s hard to get past the logical mind when it is telling you that this just can’t be or this is somehow a misrepresentation of the new law and all those who had a part in it. Mixed in with that, no one wants to risk their reputation or for some their ministries reputation by saying something that could get them labeled as conspiracy nut.

Update  OBAMACARE DID NOT MEET THE MARCH 2013 deadline Also the links to the government pages have disapeared.

I dont believe with all the snooping into our personal life they will do any implementatation of this horror.

http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/forum/topics/another-hidden-secret-in