The American Spectator

stephanie| 8.14.09 @ 6:32AM

As I have written here before, I wake up every morning and cannot believe this utopian speak is being said outloud and is being pushed into law.
I can't believe this is happening to our country.

Vaemar| 8.14.09 @ 7:53AM

Perhaps it is time to re-read exactly what the Declaration of Indpendence says.

The Interloper| 8.14.09 @ 8:43AM

Ezekiel, one day you'll be 65... if we let you live that long.

danny| 8.14.09 @ 8:55AM

interloper, be careful what you say.

Tony in Central PA| 8.14.09 @ 8:59AM

On the one hand, I can understand if we're in a situation where are resources are becoming more limited, the " women and children first " policy. On the other hand, I'm not sure that's entirely what this is about. I'm increasingly getting the sense that we are witnessing the establishment of a strictly utilitarian scale of human worth that is being centered around an individual's economic and political utility to the state.
Maybe its not surprising in a propserous nation like ours that our liberty would be taken away through economic pressures.

James Pawlak| 8.14.09 @ 9:11AM

This death-merchant should take a lessor from the fate of George (The Baby Killer) Tiller. "What goes around, comes around".

Melvin| 8.14.09 @ 9:11AM

Tony brought up a good point. And to further expound. Is this, "Limited Resources" a natural phenomena or is is it a crisis created by those who wish to fashion the American society to their political philosophy?
Eugenics isn't a new idea, this philosophy has been tried many, many times in the past with great success by Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Mao and now Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

Galen| 8.14.09 @ 10:03AM

Doesn't anyone remember the Nazi Euthenasia program for "Life Unworthy of Life"? It pioneered the techniques of the Holocaust. These people are trying out for the role of Kapos and Sonnderkomandos. They want a first class carriage to Aushwitz!

Tim| 8.14.09 @ 10:19AM

"Mr. President, will the relocated Gitmo detainees qualify for your healthcare program?"

What kind of QUALY score does a 25 year old Jihadist get?

JimJam| 8.14.09 @ 11:15AM

Obama hates America. Aside from the health angle, older Americans pose more of a threat to his agenda than do younger ones who have had the blessing of a public non-education. Older Americans have more life experiences to draw on to form opinions; younger Americans can only draw from a very shallow well of propaganda. Nevertheless, Obama and his puppetmasters won't be satisfied until they have torn this country apart by continuing to pit American against American. Hopefully, the American people, liberal and conservative, will wake up to this gross manipulation and send these frauds packing.

JimP| 8.14.09 @ 11:26AM

If this does not sound like something straight out of Nazi Germany then the reader is either a fool or a liar. It's beyond chilling that someone with views like this is part of the U.S. Government's advisory team. The Democrat Party has gone completely mad and they now literally represent everything they have been accusing their opponents of for the last 40+ years. Good luck you foolish Democrat voters because you will be victims of these monsters just as surely as we will.

Dan| 8.14.09 @ 11:36AM

Now see I'm confused, when I turned 60 a few years ago both my wife and doctor assured me that 60 was the new 40. Who's telling the truth my doctor or the Obama gang?

Dixie Pixie| 8.14.09 @ 1:00PM

Okay, Now I am really confused. Who won WWII? Apparently I was under the mistaken opinion the Allies won. I thought Freedom, Liberty and the Democracies was secured for all time.

Imagine my surprise when the German Nationalsozialismus policies of the 1930's are being implemented in America of the21st century.

Paul Milenkovic| 8.14.09 @ 1:05PM

I hear that Dr. Emmanuel is expressing "outrage" about Sarah Palin's sound-bite expression "death panels."

The thing is that there may be some patients and familes who will withold nothing in the way of expensive medical care to prolong life, the medical community is already on board with the concept that some medical care is futile and in influencing patients and families to decline that manner of care.

I have already received two such "death panel" consultations on family members. One consultation was given to me with my consent and delivered in entirely respectful tones. Fortunately, the "hard decisions" discussed in that consultation did not have to be made.

The second such consultation was offered to me a little less gently, when a family member with early-stage Alzheimers was brought to the ER and then admitted to the hospital with what could have been a stroke. "Why did you bring him in?" I was scolded more than asked by this query. "Thought he was having a stroke." Turns out they did not find anything, and no particularly expensive health care apart from time in the hospital for observation was delivered, and no care was delivered that would have changed the outcome one way or the other.

"If you thought he was having a stroke, why did you bring him in? What did you think we could do for him." "Well doctor, they tell me that they have these clot-disolving drugs that make a big difference." "You father has Alzheimers with all of the consequences that entails, why did you bring him in?" "A stroke has implications by way of morbidity, especially if it is not immediately lethal" I replied.

What am I, a "fine young" medical student receiving the Socratic brow-beating from the med school prof? My anger was boiling. I wanted to tell the doctor (a neurologist by the way, the neurology profession is big on the afore mentioned line of reasoning) "I brought Dad in because I am not emotionally ready to deal with the paperwork associated with his estate, yet."

Death panels, indeed!

Dan| 8.14.09 @ 1:57PM

I have a living will, so my Doctors know that if theres no hope its ok to pull the plug.
But that's my choice, I don't want some Government agency deciding that it would be more cost effective to give me that last shot!

Steve| 8.14.09 @ 2:48PM

Welcome to the Obama medical plan for seniors which combines the elements of "Brave New World" with "Soylent Green". I recommend that everyone capable of reading should read these books in addition to "1984" and "Atlas Shrugged" to get some background where the liberals are getting their ideas for the new America.

Red Dwarf| 8.14.09 @ 3:02PM

It's a real shame that Mrs. Emanuel didn't have a couple of abortions.

Tim| 8.14.09 @ 3:03PM

Comrade Dan:
Welcome to government health plan, where 60 is the new 90.

jerryofva| 8.14.09 @ 3:22PM

Zeke has designed a heathcare regime that Heinrich Himmler would be proud of. Doesn't anybody see the irony of a Jewish doctor aping Nazi medicine?

When I was in high school I met and old friend of my father’s family. He told me how after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact the Jewish toughs on Chicago’s Westside would wait for the Jewish reds on the Friday evenings to leave their party meetings at which point they would beat the snot out of what they saw as turncoats. I guess Ezekiel Emanual is lucky that they don’t make many Jews like that anymore.

Sue| 8.14.09 @ 3:32PM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions

Access it and READ it. It is primarily dealing with the allocation of organs and vaccines. He turns on its head the government policy of babies and the elderly first in line for vaccines; this was because babies immune systems are underdeveloped (duh) and the elderly's immune systems are compromised. He effectively argues that since the babies do not have much in the way of a "complete life" or benefit, they are expendable; and since the elderly have already "lived the life of a 25 yearold" they are expendable.

This is evil. I don't care if it is out of academics and the discussion is perceived to be necessary for the allocation of resources. It is still evil. Governments may be faced with difficult decisions for resource allocations, but you never, ever sacrifice the weakest in our society for the benefit of the strongest.

I'm telling all of you, this is evil for America.

Please read it and make up your own minds.

I did.

Sue| 8.14.09 @ 3:36PM

Isn't it odd that the Democrat party has spent decades telling us that power should be shared by all? What, pray tell, do innocent babies and the elderly have left? This administration and the czars will not use the power of government to protect the weakest, but will use the power of government to destroy the weakest. That is what makes government policy dictated by bureaucrats wrong.

Sue| 8.14.09 @ 3:40PM

To Steve: I read 1984 in 1964. When you're young, sometimes decades seem to be so far into the future that you believe it could never come true.

As far as Atlas Shrugged, great read and Ayn Rand was a national treasure. There is a $10,000 scholarship/contest being offered by the Ayn Rand Institute - Deadline Sept. 17.

Everyone read Ezekiel's paper please.

Dan| 8.14.09 @ 3:58PM

Tim, I hope your not right.
Obama, let me keep my crestor and fish oil pills!

Wally Sandaber| 8.14.09 @ 4:22PM

Fellow Americans, please repeat after me: "It is not in the bill. It is not in the bill. It is not in the bill. " Nor is it in Emmanual's writings, coded or not.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199703/euthanasia

Now there actually are several bills going thru Congress as is normal, but death panels or decisions to base care on cost or advice on euthanasia are ... that's right.. NOT IN THE BILL. And Emmanual is against such provisions.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199703/euthanasia

And it is, of course, nutty to believe that he does support euthanasia. If you have actually listened to him or read his writings.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199703/euthanasia

Yes, I know links to what is ACTUALLY being discussed here are frowned upon in this forum but doggone it, I am a gonna link anyway!

BTW, death panels do exist now. Insurance companies routinely reject expensive procedures because the insurance company will not pay for them. And this would not change either because ... ta dum... the health care reform does not nationalize the health care insurance industry either through the insurance company reform mechanisms or thru a public option.

Some of the bills do provide the opportunity to (wisely) take up a doctors offer to consul you on living wills. But you can (stupidly) reject it. Get over the fear people. Health care modernizes. Death happens. People talk about both them. Without ridiculous claims of euthanasia towards those who oppose them.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199703/euthanasia

Scott A Joseph, MD| 8.14.09 @ 4:54PM

Even suppose I wanted to become an Obamascum MD and ration care, the big bozo is not going to do tort reform. Lots of luck, Barack.

Jack Neidlinger| 8.14.09 @ 5:47PM

The Emanuel Brothers, Geithner, Obummer, Soros, Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter, AL Whore, Kissinger, the Rockefellers, the Rothchilds, Van Jones, Chris Mathews, K. Olbermann, B. Maher, H. Reid, N. Pelosi, C. Dodd, Ted Kennedy, Serpent Head Carville, Lanny "Ichabod Crane" Davis, the "Forehead", the Clintons, ..etc. etc. etc.
Grade A # 1 POND SCUM.

jr| 8.14.09 @ 6:24PM

Today I visited a Maaco (auto painter, etc.) franchised dealer in Florida. The owner was in the midst of a conversation with a man and woman customer discussing the Obamacare. None of the 3, as well as me, like the smell of such an idea. The owner said "he pays for 1/2 the health insurance cost of his employees but if he had to pay all, it would put him out of business." His words, not mine. The result of that would be to put the employees off onto Obamacare and hit the dealer for an 8% surcharge. If he could afford the 8% it wouldn't be him paying for it, it would double the sales tax to 15.5%. I could not afford that!

TBake| 8.14.09 @ 6:34PM

I am starting to think that everything that is happening right now is some evil attempt at population control. First, while pushing healthcare and cap and trade, we get this Swine Flu out of nowhere (that people are saying was created) Next they declare it a pandemic and now there is talk of *forced vaccinations*. So instead of waiting to see who dies from it, they are going to do their part to elminiate those who will suck too much from the new healthcare system by getting rid of them now. If you are healthy and survive the vaccine, well, good for you, if not? Well, good for the government because you were going to cost them too much money in the first place. Obama is the most evil man ever and 3.5 years cannot some soon enough.
You guys need to wake up before every ounce of your freedom is taken away. What is happening is absolutely NUTS!

PTSON| 8.15.09 @ 12:06AM

The world would be so much better if the brothers were still just a doctor and a ballarina.

Sue| 8.15.09 @ 12:41AM

Wally Sandebar: I know it's not in the bill. That is not the issue. The issue is that the UK health care system utilizes the QALY theory of health care delivery and has attached a value of $22,000 as being the maximum amount to be spent on you if you are at the "end of your life." To me that's morbid.

There is an article on the web in thelancet.com, Vol. 373, January 31, 2009, Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions, by Govind Persad, Alan Wertheimer, and Ezekiel Emanuel, Lancet 2009; 373: 423-31. Correspondence directed to: Ezekiel J. Emanue Dept. of Ethics, The Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD emanuel@nih.gov.

Is this not a true article with his name on it? This article discusses three theories of the allocation of medical resources and intervention - The Quality Adjusted Life Years (used by UK) the DALY and the Complete Lives theory. (For the distribution of scarce medical resources (organs) and vaccines.

It is my understanding that policy has been written where vaccines will be distributed to certain age groups heretofore not listed as the most vulnerable to the flu, etc. (immune compromised, elderly and the young). It's right here in this article.

Can you please clarify for us all? And, exactly what policies will be used to ration care once we go to a single-payer, insurance risk-eliminated system? There has to be rationing; Mr. Obama said it himself that the bulk of the Medicare expenditures come in the last two years of a persons life and he wants to "bend the cost curve." I know he'll say that he means he wants to provide more "preventive" medicine but that's a ha-ha because if you're 85 years old, you're beyond "preventive medicine care" dear.

Please clarify if a policy is not being considered as to how to "bend the cost curve."

Sue| 8.15.09 @ 12:46AM

Wally: Two states have instituted state-run health care and one state has "doctor assisted suicide" and you're telling me to get over it? Honey, when you come to my door and take my life for me because that's what YOU want to do, I guess then I'll get over it. But right now, this is still America and I think I still have a right to life even though I'm not in some god-forsaken womb where the mother can murder me.

James A. Glasscock| 8.15.09 @ 6:41AM

Intelligence is not measured by the number of degrees or honors one accumulates. In Dr. Emanuel's case, it appears his education [two doctorates] has done him little good. HE is reduced to be in government rather than working with women in breast oncology.
I guess the stress of seeing women die under his expect medical was too horrible for him; and as with Howard Dean, M.D. and a cardiologist by traning, both wanted to play gad-fly and play GOD. Don't have the equipment mentally for the job.
Longdrycreek Ranch
Texas Panhandle

Richard Baker| 8.15.09 @ 12:47PM

Dean and Emanuel are giving Quack Doctors a bad name.

catladyjan| 8.15.09 @ 2:14PM

Zeke the freak should be in horror movies.

The Jewish Theives on Earth| 8.15.09 @ 3:23PM

Peterson Hits Social Security Myths
September 27, 2000
Peter Peterson, former Commerce Secretary and founder of the Concord Coalition, lamented in the New York Times this week that in the coming election "what poses for debate on entitlements may be worse than no debate at all. The bidding and one-upmanship on the campaign trail could easily lock the new president into indefensible positions that block genuine and badly needed reforms."

"Why is there so little understanding of the long-term challenge? Two big myths are anesthetizing our judgment: Myth No. 1: Social Security is in good shape because it has a trust fund. We are often told that the trust fund will keep the system solvent until 2037 if we do nothing and, if we make some minor tweaks, it will last until 2075. Who could get excited over such a distant danger?

"What we are rarely told is that the trust fund is fiscally and economically meaningless, an accounting fiction; this money has already been spent. Its so-called assets are nothing but a stack of IOU's from the Treasury. By 2015, Social Security's annual costs will start to exceed its tax revenues by ever ballooning margins.

"Because this is a pay-as-you-go system, Congress would then have to raise taxes, cut other spending or borrow from the public to redeem the IOU's -- precisely as if there were no trust fund -- or else take a heavy hatchet to Social Security and Medicare at the very moment the huge boomer generation is moving into its elder years.

"Some argue that we can use the projected budget surpluses to pay off the IOU's. Alas, this isn't possible. The surpluses themselves may not materialize. For one thing, an economic downturn could easily turn the surpluses into deficits in just a few years. For another, the budget projections assume, implausibly, that discretionary spending will not grow faster than inflation -- in spite of major new commitments to defense and education.

"If the surpluses do materialize, much of the money is likely to be spent. Gluttons don't often turn down a free lunch. Presidential candidates and members of Congress rarely withstand the temptation to give away surpluses by increasing spending or cutting taxes. There's much talk of putting a "lock box" on the surpluses. But no one has yet designed a lock box that Congress couldn't pick. Even if the lock box works, the money in the trust fund is but a small down payment on future obligations.

"Myth No. 2: The New Economy will allow us to grow our way out of the problem. According to this myth, official projections, which point to a gradual slowdown in economic growth, are too pessimistic. The critics confuse pessimism with arithmetic. Economic growth depends not just on growth in productivity, that is, output per worker, but also on rising numbers of workers. By the 2020's, the labor force will be growing only about one-tenth as fast as in the last quarter century. Given the demographics, it would fly against all logic if economic growth did not slow.

"A better question is whether the official projections are too pessimistic about the growth in productivity. But keep in mind that even a huge boost in productivity won't do much to reduce Social Security's burden. According to Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, eliminating Social Security's long-term deficit would require a 200 percent increase in long-term productivity, a leap that few economists, even new economy enthusiasts, believe is possible.

"Our leaders face a choice. They can address the question of entitlements for the elderly while the economy is still booming and the budget is in the black, and before most baby boomers retire. Or they can delay until the window of opportunity closes. Either way, America will change course. If we act now, everyone, young and old, will have time to adjust and prepare."

2001 Index | 2000 Index | 1999 Index | 1998 Index

Sue| 8.15.09 @ 8:47PM

Peter Peterson is right, but, he only wants the democrats to try to fix the problem. He supported Obama along with Warren Buffet and David Walker. The film I. O. U. S. A. did nothing to propose solutions to the problem - they just spent a lot of time whining about the problem. I have yet to see any solutions come from Peterson, Walker, or Buffet.

Bush tried to reform social security and the democrats did everything in their power to prevent him from doing it. The facts are, the democrat party is not interested in solutions via the free market; they are only interested in solutions that expand government, expand union membership, and buy the votes needed to keep themselves and their cronies in power.

The republican party tried this under Bush and it failed miserably and the party is still being punished because of it.

Mr. Steele doesn't have a clue as to what principles to stand by, what principles to promote, and how to attract people to the party. He mentions that he wants young people to join - well, show the young people a future that is not burdened with a debt to their parents and grandparents and they just might listen to you.

The baby boomers aren't going anywhere. The government will not be able to reduce our numbers quickly - even though I believe that they may use every trick in the book to ration care to us.

The solutions lie in the free market with competition and the demand from our government that we take responsibility for ourselves and our "needs." Arlen Spector stood in front of a crowd and actually said that government had a responsibility to provide insurance to the poor. The government does not have a "responsibility" to provide its citizens with its "needs."

When it does this it only leaves the discretionary income of its citizens to be used on what they "want." When the citizenry figures out that the nanny state will take care of all their needs, then they are left with the crumbs of discretionary income and they'll find out that their wants will not be met either, and their "needs" will be subject to dictate from some unknown, uncaring, incompetent bureaucrat.

The Congress will pretty much be useless because the Health Commissioner, appointed by the president, has all the power.

So, Congress will be fulfilling the role that they have pretty much filled for the last 60 years. Only, the citizens won't care which ones are elected because their "needs" are being fulfilled by the bureaucrats.

At this point, we will all have become nothing more than fat, lazy, slothlike slobs demanding that the tit of the government keep spewing out its
rich breast milk. But, the milk will have turned sour.

I wonder why we need Congress to have any discretionary spending. Maybe the end result should be three line items, military, social security and medicare.

Another thing - the expansion of government under Obama has been 15 times from what Bush or Clinton or Bush 1 did. The 36 czars and staff he has employed (for what reason, no one knows) is going to cost the taxpayers any where from $30,000,000 to $50,000,000.

Mr. Bush didn't do this. Mr. Clinton didn't do this; Mr. Bush 1 didn't do this.

Why are we letting him get away with this?
Where are the Petersons, Walkers, and Buffets now? Hiding their sorry heads up their sorry butts?

Here they are whining about entitlements, and the taxpayers are spending millions, no billions of dollars for a Congress that doesn't do its job, and millions more for a czarocracy for a president who doesn't know how to do his.

And these people want to lecture us "that the elderly" is such a big problem.

I say, "kiss my butt; when I see Congress and the president talk the talk and walk the line, then I'll listen to solutions.

They can eliminate the $500,000,000 for three jets too.

American Voter| 8.15.09 @ 9:46PM

Ok then lets set an example...lets get rid of the over 60 members of congress ......Pelosi, Reid....

I say anything they are trying to push on Americans, they should adopt first as stalwart examples of leadership that they are!!!
I repeat, let them sign up for their One payor system and stand in line with the rest of America, then and only then can they say its the right thing to do.. otherwise its a double standard, and by God, these do-gooders, know-what-good-for- you crowd will not stop until we all seniors are shipped to interment camps!

American Voter| 8.15.09 @ 9:47PM

Ok then lets set an example...lets get rid of the over 60 members of congress ......Pelosi, Reid....

I say anything they are trying to push on Americans, they should adopt first as stalwart examples of leadership that they are!!!
I repeat, let them sign up for their One payor system and stand in line with the rest of America, then and only then can they say its the right thing to do.. otherwise its a double standard, and by God, these do-gooders, know-what-good-for- you crowd will not stop until we all seniors are shipped to interment camps!

Shoshanna| 8.16.09 @ 12:06AM

While it's clear that the Thug-In-Chief and his congressional co-conspirators view as expendable (or perhaps a more Hitlerian word would be more appropriate) anyone over the age of 60, it doesn't appear that they've given much thought to the political consequences of their agenda of age-based "rationed" health care.

Very simply, they're telling the entire Baby Boomer generation to go to hell. Well, I have news for them: there are a LOT of us, we VOTE, and they aren't going to be able to kill us off quickly enough to protect their own political futures.

By 2010 we'll all have had plenty of time to examine in detail this obscene bill, and my guess is that any animal, vegetable, or mineral that runs against anyone who voted in favor of it will have a pretty good chance of winning.

Obama is out to destroy this country, make no mistake about it. He was trained by people who fully believed that communism would create a "better America" and that anyone opposed to this plan was guilty of treason. Keep that in mind whenever you find yourself puzzling over why he is taking America down such a dangerously destructive path-- it explains virtually everything.

Savant Noir| 8.16.09 @ 2:13AM

Shoshanna, you are absolutely correct!

Seems everyone is talking about the fallacies of the various proposed Bills. Obama is being judged on his merits or lack thereof in regards to his convoluted and contradictory economic/health plans. He is a Master of Obfuscation and Re-Direction.While people look at the veneer, the oblique seems to be overlooked: a coup d'etat of this country. The myriad of Bills being considered with breakneck speeds is dizzying...ON PURPOSE!

Consider that once one has accumulated wealth, all that is left to pursue is Power. When considering the actions of Obama & Co. through a paradigmatic perspective of 'power', things begin to look a bit different.

* He now has the Census Bureau under the control of the White House and it's duties carried forth by ACORN. In the 2010 Census he is including illegal aliens, stacking the population count in such a way as to create new Democratic Districts. In California alone he is creating an additional 9 Congressional Districts. He is manipulating the electoral college. This should have revolts in the streets, yet it seems to have quietly slipped away.
* He is allocating 647 billion to a centralized health care computing system, in which your medical records are no longer private. Another provision of the Health Care bill is access to all your banking information in order to qualify. This is an essential step in the process of eroding the 2nd Amendment. He is re-writing gun registration laws that will virtually disqualify anyone from being able to purchase a firearm, and with this computer system will be able to monitor and enforce compliancy.
* At the same time, he is pushing for a Youth Corp that "should be funded and equipped to act as any modern militia". He is raising the minimum wages to purposely create greater unemployment among the youth, so he can then in turn induct them into AmeriCorp and offer his 'salvation'.
* Although publically he has renounced the Fairness Doctrine, he is hellbent on pursuing this; albeit marketed under a different name. He also wishes to expand this to include the Internet. This erodes the 1st Amendment. As of this writing, he has threatened to revoke anyones broadcast license should they question his Birth Certificate.
* They are chomping at the bit to pass the EFCA, thus forcing every employee and company into Unionization, which will be arbitrated and enforced by the Feds. This will drive the prices of all goods and services thru the roof. At the same time, come 2011 tax increases; which will also carry many new taxes; will break the backs of everyone. Additionally, while increasing tax burdens in so many ways that one's head will spin, he is also eliminating many tax write-offs, such as a percentage of your mortgage interest payments, charitable contributions, etc etc.
* Via the EFCA, it is hoped to get 105 million disenfranchised workers into a Union and be "card carrying" members, issued by the Government. This introduces a Federal ID card to the American workforce.
* Socialized Medicine will further circulate this Federal ID chip (it is in the Bill itself). Government bail-outs of banking systems will introduce new laws of compliancy. Ultimately, all financial and medical information for the citizens will be contained on this chip. (not to be confused with the RF-ID chip of conspiracy theorists).
* Socialized Medicine, by necessisty, must have a cost/value risk assessment disclaimer attached to it. This will hasten the passage of the "baby-boomers". (for example, if you are 65 and need kidney dialysis, you will NOT get it, it being deemed too costly a procedure for one of such an age). When the baby-boomers are gone, so too will be the last voice of dissent.
* Via the Global Poverty Act and other insidious machinations, it should be readily apparent that 'globalization' is the aim of this administration. Already talks are underway for a 'one world currency'. In order to foist these hidden agenda, the back and the will of the people have to be broken, so they in turn will BEG for the "help". Soon I expect he will collapse the U.S. Dollar. Russia, India, China, Japan, and Brazil met in April of 2009 to discuss a new trade currency that is not steeped in the U.S.D.
* Monetizing debt at an alarming rate, ultimately creating hyper-inflation and ensuring the destruction of wealth.

In the final analysis, the people will beg for their own chains, as Obama & Co. set themselves up to be the world leaders that will be handing out the alms. The possibility for the accumulation of wealth is being destroyed, for the last thing any Dictator wants is to have a threat to power. There will be a 1 party ruling elite class, and the populace will be reduced to having to suck at the tit of Government in order to survive.

Day after day I hear about Obama and his socialization of America. This is obvious, but it is not the point. Nazi Germany had a Socialized economy. The problem was not what economic model they used, the problem was that a Dictator was in control of it. Truly Capitalism is at stake here, but more importantly...Freedom is.

Let's take a moment to look back at pre-President Obama and consider the rules for a successful coup.

All the Messiah's Men

To have a successful coup, you need a long-term plan that collects all the necessary elements and players to carry out a propaganda war that shifts public support in your favor. The people need to support your ascension to power, as if it was their own idea.

You need the following elements in place to accomplish this.

* A "messiah" - A charismatic golden tongued socialist empty suit, like Barack Hussein Obama
* Unknown origin and background - a blank slate...
* A king maker - Dr. Khalid Al Mansour (aka Donald Warden)
* A fixer - David Axelrod to lead the misinformation effort
* Support from domestic and international communists and socialists
* A Propaganda Corps - The American Press blackout on Obama past
* A ton of Money - more the $600 million thus far, over $200 million from undisclosed sources
* A Secret Agenda - Global Socialism
* A motivating manufactured crisis - the threat of economic collapse
* Mis-direction - A Moderate looking Campaign
* Vote rigging - 1.3 million suspect ACORN voters
* Judicial activist accomplices - ruling against legal voters rights over and over again
* Re-direction - All challenges played off as "racism"
* Suppression of opposition voters, like the military vote
* Unbridled character assassination of your opponents
* A cabal of known corrupt thugs to manhandle dissenters and incompliant members of the press
* The "messiah's" henchmen - Ayers, Alinsky, Wright, Farrakhan, Rezko, Chavez, Ahmadinejad and others...

Bob| 8.16.09 @ 8:00AM

Oh my God! Is it gonna be just like in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

... and I made no threat against EasyKill, I just warned him that the government may not let him live that long...

G. A. Kevis| 8.16.09 @ 10:17AM

What a revolting development.

What part will eugenics factor into
this characters' calculus - down the road
that's been traveled once before?

David Smith| 8.16.09 @ 4:50PM

Reiland’s opposition to government-imposed health-care rationing can be summed up in the following two sentences:

Granny, in short, should move on because she's had her chance. "Social justice" requires that a costly individual be sacrificed for the collective.
We should die, in short, if we're deemed by the authorities to be insufficiently participating.

The unspoken assumption behind this spurious attempt to seize the moral high ground is that the private system offers a morally superior alternative to government rationing. It does not.

Consider the following:

The present U.S. system, in which 72.2% of the American population is left to its own devices (the rest being attended to in various government-sponsored programs) results in 202 million being covered by health insurance and roughly 50 million are uninsured, many of them due to exclusion from coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions. The undesirable consequences of this arrangement include the following:

In 2002, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) estimated that 18,000 Americans died in 2000 because they were uninsured. Since then, the number of uninsured has grown. Based on the IOM’s methodology and subsequent Census Bureau estimates of insurance coverage, 137,000 people died from 2000 through 2006 because they lacked health insurance, including 22,000 people in 2006.
A clinical research study published in the American Journal of Medicine revealed the following results: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well-educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%.
The World Health Organization ranks the U.S. last in health care outcomes among the 19 advanced nations, virtually all of whom offer some form of universal, single-payer government health care. Compared with the French, who rank at the top, American males live 2 years less and females 4 years less than their French counterparts. The adult mortality rate in 2006 (probability of dying between 15 to 60 years) was 9.1% in France, 10.9% in the U.S. in 2006, a difference of nearly 20%. The infant mortality rate in France is 43 percent lower than in the United States, which has the highest rate of all developed countries. The U.S. has 26 physicians for every 10,000 people, France has 34, proportionately 30% more.

Consequently, if we transpose Morris’ statements to reflect the morality of the present private health care system we get the following:

Joe Blow, in short, should move on because he’s too poor to afford health insurance. The “free-enterprise system” requires that a low-income individual be sacrificed for corporate profits and outsized executive salaries and bonuses.

We should die, in short, if we’re deemed by insurance companies to be a poor risk due to pre-existing conditions, or if we can’t afford to pay what may amount to a half to a quarter of our income in health insurance premiums.

To his two sentences we can add a third:

We should undergo bankruptcy even if we have health insurance, in a majority of cases; or die 2-to-4 years sooner; or see our newborns die in greater numbers; or die between the ages of 15 to 60 years with a 20% greater probability in order to avoid having the government ration health care.

The ancient Greek rhetoricians must have had a name for the underhanded practice of knocking down an argument without submitting their own to the same standards of practical and moral judgment. Surely the erudite readership of the Spectator can tell us what that is.

Da French Troll| 8.17.09 @ 3:46AM

No David, you're just a dumb and dishonest liberal (double pleonasm by the way) and you got it backward. Don't sell me no french health care system because it really sucks. And I know it because I'm french! Whatever you think you know about government run health care is false because you don't know what it is. You don't know what it is to have to wait for months before getting an appointment with a designated doctor, watching your Mom die in hospital because government nurses don't give a s.hit, having to pay anyway although it's supposed to be free. Where would you take a crap? In a public restroom or in your own private restroom?

Senior| 8.17.09 @ 10:52PM

Excellent accounting principles vis-a-vis health care First in, first out (seniors) last in, first out (juniors, below 18 yrs old), other between ins, first out (inferms, etc.). No cooking of books here, just pragmatic moves by Orwellian wackos.

iwc watches| 8.21.09 @ 5:04AM

Sort of interesting . Thanks for sharing

wt dopico| 8.31.09 @ 5:18PM

You fail to mention that Ezekial Emanuel is talking about organ transplant recipients. These decisions are made every day, and in accordance with the considerations he mentions, plus many more. I know it's not fair- organs should go to the highest bidder. Right, mr. Reiland?

lay123| 4.15.10 @ 2:33AM

http://www.us-moncleroutlet.com

paulsmith| 4.15.10 @ 4:06AM

http://www.us-burberryoutlet.com

ghd| 4.15.10 @ 4:07AM

http://www.ghdmanufactoryoutlet.com