Obama's Healthcare Plan = Nazi Eugenics Plan?

reply to post by l_e_cox


Level headed and nicely written. Bravo!

Originally posted by JayinAR


I mean, what happened to that Bird Flu that Alex Jones was screaming about a little while back? Remember, how some company mixed the bird flu with a common flu strain and ignorantly told people they were out to kill them in spite of the fact that you can't just blend viruses together?

Sure, Alex made that up. Don't worry, these people only have your best interest at heart, everything's going to be fine. I'm sure it was an accident just like it says in the article.

www.bloomberg.com...

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
I don't know about this. Although Obama's healthcare plan is highly flawed, comparing all this to Nazi Germany is a bit EXTREME...IMO

The Nazi's didn't start off with gas chambers, ovens, and mass graves. They started off in a similar manner to what liberals/progressives are right now in the U.S. and throughout the rest of the west, including Britain. I've been pouring a lot of time into studying the Nazi's over the past year and am currently reading Mein Kampf. The similarities between the Nazi's and modern the liberals/progressives is chilling indeed!

The irony of this thread title is that the german national socialists got their Eugenics plan from the Americans, so really Obama is )ust = an older american plan

Here's an older article about Tom Daschele's plan (which Obama is using)

I'll post the entire link but just throw in some more salient points for discussion. . . .

www.reason.com...

now the relavent passages. . .

"We won't be able to make a significant dent in health-care spending without getting into the nitty-gritty of which treatments are the most clinically valuable and cost effective. That means taking a harder look at the real costs and benefits of new drugs and procedures."

Notice that Daschle is conflating two kinds of comparisons—clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness. Determining clinical effectiveness—that is, comparing different treatments to find out which ones work better—is certainly an appealing idea. After all, no patient would want an inferior treatment when a better one is available. However, determining cost-effectiveness is a much more fraught activity. How much is an extra few months of life worth? How much more should be spent on treatments that have fewer nasty side effects?

Daschle explicitly models his Fed Health on Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE evaluates treatments for both clinical and cost effectiveness. A treatment may be clinically beneficial, but patients may not get access to it through Britain's National Health Service (NHS) if NICE determines that it's too expensive.

But will comparative effectiveness research really reduce health care spending, as Daschle claims? Not by much and not soon, according to a 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), if the research is limited to comparative clinical effectiveness.

and. . .

But what about cost-effectiveness comparisons? That could indeed save the feds some money, but only at the price of limiting patients' access to medical treatments. Let's look again at how Britain's NICE operates. According an article in the November 6 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, "NICE considers treatments cost-effective if their cost-effectiveness ratio is £20,000 ($34,000) per QALY (quality adjusted life year)." If an action gives a person an extra year of healthy life expectancy, that counts as one QALY.

How does this work out in practice? Currently, NICE appears ready to rule out four new effective treatments for kidney cancer because they merely double patients' life expectancies from six months to a year. As Cambridge University oncologist Tim Eisen explained, "If an intervention which doubles progression-free and overall survival in a disease where nothing else works is deemed to be cost-ineffective, the chances of introducing any new cancer medication must be deemed remote."

If NICE rules against the new anti-cancer drugs, British kidney cancer patients will have access only to a treatment that is 20 years old and which works in 10 percent of patients. On the other hand, by paying only for the older treatment, the National Health Service will save British taxpayers some money. Basically, NICE determines when the good of society outweighs the benefits to individuals. The result is that British NHS patients don't have access to many treatments available in the U.S., including clinically effective drugs for Alzheimer's, colon cancer, and rheumatoid arthritis. NICE is a way to administer centralized bureaucratic rationing.

and. . .


Daschle avoids using the "R-word" in his book, and he expresses irritation when asked about it. According to the Black Hills Pioneer, Daschle recently said, "A myth is that we don't ration. We ration in the worst possible way, on the inability to pay." Of course, the converse formulation is that we "ration" based on the ability to pay. Most people don't think it's "rationing" when someone pays more for a bigger house, a faster car, or a fancy restaurant meal. In the health care context, it means that some fortunate people are still free to choose to pay for treatments they and their physicians think may benefit them.

The CBO report makes it clear that comparative clinical research won't significantly cut health care costs. The upshot is that Daschle's Fed Health would be able to cut costs only by limiting access to care. Daschle wants to apply Fed Health's cost-effectiveness recommendations to all federal health care programs (about 45 percent of all U.S. care expenditures). In addition, he suggests that the federal tax exclusion for health insurance would be retained only for insurance that complies with Fed Health's recommendations. Ultimately, Daschle's talk of comparative effectiveness research is just a smokescreen for a plan to establish bureaucratic centralized health care rationing.

People in this country just dont seem to get it. Obama IS A SOCIALIST! He is slowley but surely changing this governmet right before our eyes into a communism.

reply to post by Bullhorn


I never said that Jones made that story up.
What I said was that he trumped the story up playing on the ignorance of the people who listen to him who ACTUALLY BELIEVE that you can simply combine two viruses in a vile and create a super bug.

There is no greater blinders then those of the willingly self deceived; claiming those well aware of the implications of Obama’s health care programs minions of Fox News, they tread into the very dark that was followed in NAZI Germany in 1933:

"On the evening of January 20 (30) 2009 (1933), just about every member of the Democratic Party (SA and SS) turned out (in uniform) to celebrate the new President, Obama (Führer-Chancellor, Adolf Hitler)."

“Then they waited at the podium (chancellery) for President Elect Obama (Hitler) in a scene carefully staged by Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (Joseph Goebbels). A sea of hand held burning candles (torches) cast flickering light on blue and red (red and gold) Obama (Nazi) banners amid the slow beating of drums in anticipation of seeing the One (Führer). Men, women and children along with the political elite (SA and SS) waited. He kept them waiting, letting the tension rise. All over America (Germany), people listened to this on the TV (radio), waiting, and hearing the throngs calling for their new president (Führer).”

"It is almost like a dream - a fairytale. The new Reich has been born. Fourteen years of work have been crowned with victory. The German revolution has begun!" - Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary, January 30, 1933.

The very progressive & Fascist policies of the Nazi’s our President has prettied up and implemented – OF COURSE for the public good and with the best of intentions – while the willfully blind march to eugenic firing squads.

Cowards will die a million deaths in fear of Predator drones and high technology, the brave will fight and yes perhaps die, but for the time they live they will live as free men and women fighting for what is right and dying with honor. Give me the grave of one who has truly lived and found a cause worth struggling for even unto death, then the life of a blind fool or coward that lives only to lick the boots of those he begs for his next breath and meal.


[edit on 6/29/2009 by SGTChas]

What i do not get is why are people putting up with this. Why do people not just get together and march to the capitol and give these fools the boot. Citizens out number elected government officials by far. I believe its time to take our country back by force and restore the republic that once existed.

reply to post by ALOTOFBS


The large protests are coming I believe...

Interesting dynamic here.

So Barak Obama is the anti-christ and a socialist and a nazi and, well, I guess everything else bad. Not bad for less than 6 full months in office. I remember only just beginning to call Bushie an idiot about that time. Of course I am from texas, so I had a head start...

I do find it interesting, though... There seems to big quite a lot of hypocrisy here. People complaining about corporate greed and the conspiracy of the rich who then say that the government getting involved is bad and don't get in the way of private matters that aren't the domain of the government, but then those damn rich business owners are trying to turn us into slaves and someone should do something about it. I would understand if this were the classic supposed paradigm of left vs right, but it's ALL THE SAME PEOPLE! If you don't want people to be able to be wealthy and you don't want the government to be in control, what exactly do you want and how do you want it done, because I certainly don't see anyone here doing anything but complaining. Perhaps someone could come up with a solution for once?

So to eat my own dog food regarding this health care matter, I can agree that this is a very hard issue. I cannot keep my wife alive without a medicine that I cannot make in the comfort of my own home. I need raw ingredients and a rna synthesis machine, which is outt of my domain. Therefore I am at the mercy of sonafi-aventis to get me the meds I need at a highly inflated price. Luckily I have a solid job that allows me to get insurance. If I lose my job, my wife loses her life.

Solution? Simple. ALL medical research needs to be public domain. No profiteering from medical research. You can make money off of packaging it and delivering it, but not the R&D. Bingo, medicine bills go down. Course it has to be paid for, yeah? I guess we could license the patents on the meds. The US government could make, for example, $0.50 for every 10 pills of thyroid hormone that is produced or whatever.

Of course, this would never fly because of the rich people wanting to be richer and the paranoid public not wanting the government involved in eugenics, or controlled medical research, or scientific experiments, or whatever. Or maybe it's too socialist and we need to keep it in the hands of the corporate rich people so they can continue to plot to take away our freedoms.


*deep breath*

hell, I might as well post this, but I hope someone catches the cynicism here. All whine and no action... not even any ideas. Whoever is in charge is wrong and who ever isn't is even more wrong. It's enough to make one tune out.

reply to post by Hemisphere


I have now seen the famous German leader and also some of the great change that he has caused. Whatever you think of his methods, - and there are unquestionably not such as in a Parliamentary country - there is no doubt that he has accomplished a miraculous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude to each other and in their social and economic appearance. For the first time since the war, there is a general feeling of safety. The people are cheerful. It is because in the whole country is a general happiness noticeable. It is a happier Germany. I've seen it everywhere, and fellow country people I've met during my trip to Germany were well aware of the changes and were deeply impressed. One man has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic and dynamic personality with a sincere intention, a resolute will and a fearless heart.

(Lloyd George, former British Prime Minister about the German Reich Daily Express, September 17. 1936)

Hitler openly attacked the NWO, true National Socialism is the solution for a free and happy society.

reply to post by SGTChas


Talk about a stretch!!!! Wow, comparing the inauguration of Barack Obama to that of Hitler. I really just did laugh out loud just now...I'm sorry to say but when someone compares about anything to Hitler the writer looses 90% of all folks who otherwise might take what was stated seriously.

Um, people turned out in droves to the inauguration for many reasons. Some being that it was a historical moment in American history from slavery on up to women's suffrage now having elected a man of color. People turned out in droves to welcome in some much needed relief following 8 years of insanity with the single worst administration ever since the founding of the United States. They turned out in droves because Americans once again had a sence of hope that we might be able to restore lost trust and respect for our great nation around the world. Twelve years of Republican control of all branches of government and all of the corruption and madness is what many were saying good ridence to and welcoming in a new day.

Less people certainly isnt a bad thing.

The planet needs a depopulating event.