***THE MAIN BOARDS - Welcome to the Prison Planet Educational Forum and Library*** > PhD Investigative Reports (only for the hardcore)

"Obama Health Care Reform Re-Enacting Hitler's T4 Extermination Program"

<< < (5/8) > >>

Obama's Ezekiel Emanuel "Reinterprets" Hippocratic Oath Like the Original Nazi Doctors

May 31, 2008 (LPAC)—Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, called for a reinterpretation of the physician's Hippocratic Oath to take account of "costs" and "effect on others" (like HMOs), in an article in JAMA of June 18, 2008. The brother of Obama's chief of staff, Ezekiel Emanuel is a top designer of Obama's Hitlerian medical-care "reform," as health-care advisor to Peter Orszag's OMB and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness research. He wrote:       

"At least 7 factors drive overuse [of medical care], 4 related to physicians and 3 related to patients. First, there is the matter of physician culture. Medical school education and postgraduate training emphasize thoroughness. When evaluating a patient, students, interns, and residents are trained to identify and praised for and graded on enumerating all possible diagnoses and tests that would confirm or exclude them.  The thought is that the more thorough the evaluation, the more intelligent the student or house officer.  Trainees who ignore the improbable 'zebra' diagnoses are not deemed insightful. In medical training, meticulousness, not effectiveness, is rewarded.       

"This mentality carries over into practice.  Peer recognition goes to the most thorough and aggressive physicians. The prudent physician is not deemed particularly competent, but rather inadequate. This culture is further reinforced by A UNIQUE UNDERSTANDING OF PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS, SPECIFICALLY, THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH'S ADMONITION TO 'USE MY POWER TO HELP THE SICK TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND JUDGMENT' AS AN IMPERATIVE TO DO EVERYTHING FOR THE PATIENT REGARDLESS OF COST OR EFFECT ON OTHERS." [emphasis added].       

Compare the account in Robert Jay Lifton's book "The Nazi Doctors."  The anti-Nazi physician Ella Lingens-Reiner pointed to the chimneys in the distance, and asked Nazi doctor Fritz Klein, "How can you reconcile that with your [Hippocratic] oath as a doctor?"  His answer was, "Of course I am a doctor and I want to preserve life. And out of respect for human life, I would remove a gangrenous appendix from a diseased body. The Jew is the gangrenous appendix in the body of mankind."

First Victim of Nazi Law in Washington State

May 23, 2009 (LPAC)—On Thursday, Linda Fleming, a 66-year-old woman with pancreatic cancer, committed suicide under the new assisted suicide law which was approved in Washington State in November. The announcement of her death was made by the group, Compassion & Choices of Washington, which had campaigned for the law, which is modelled on a 1997 law which went into effect in Oregon. The law in Washington went into effect on March 5, 2009.

Compassion and Choices was in the coalition of groups led by the Death With Dignity National Center that pushed for passage of the Washington State law. The Death With Dignity National Center has received grants directly from the Open Society Institute of Nazi collaborator George Soros.

Under the Obama Administration Nazi health-cost reduction plan, more such deaths can be anticipated, as assisted suicide is far less costly than adequate medical treatment. In fact, as documented by the LaRouche PAC, in 1998 Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Obama's chief of staff and currently tasked by Peter Orszag to draw up a list of permitted cost-cutting medical procedures, co-authroed with Margaret Battin, an article entitled "What are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?" In 1992, Battin had written another article entitled "Assisted Suicide: Can We Learn From Germany?"

Under the Death with Dignity Act in Washington State, the state Department of Health is required to run a website to track the number of patients who request and use the medication. This morning, the website reported that at least five people in the state have requested the medication, and that the medication has been dispensed at least six times. In Oregon state, about 400 people have used the law passed there 12 years ago to commit suicide.

If Obama's Nazi medical policy is not defeated, such laws will proliferate throughout the nation, and the pressure to use such laws will accelerate for the stated purpose of saving trillions of dollars under conditions of financial and economic breakdown.

Orszag's British Nazi Model: Who Will Die First?

May 21, 2009 (LPAC)--The multi-trillion-dollar health-care cuts demanded by President Obama and Budget Director Peter Orszag will kill masses of people -- but not all people equally. A recent book by a Nazi economist close to Orszag reveals that in the British system on which the Orszag program is based, the aged, the poor, and the non-whites are killed; the rich are protected, outside the system.

Behavioral economist Henry J. Aaron wrote Can We Say No? The Challenge of Rationing Health Care in 2005. Aaron and Orszag were then colleagues at the Brookings Institution, working on ways to take down U.S. health care and Social Security. The book's production was financed by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the death-lobby agency that hijacked the Johnson and Johnson band-aid company and its billions of dollars.

Can We Say No? explains the medical rationing system in Britain, as the model for the U.S.A. -- a system of euthanasia to be imposed top-down against the wishes of Americans, to save the bankrupt imperial financiers.

The reality of British rationing is put coldly before the reader in chapter 3, "Matters of Life and Death":

The rate of treatment for life-threatening renal (kidney) failure "in the United States is roughly three times higher than in the United Kingdom among patients 25 to 44, but roughly five times higher among patients aged 45 to 84, and nine times higher among patients aged 85 or older. One expert put the matter unequivocally: `I think there is clearly bedside rationing of new patients presenting with end-stage renal failure.... And some of the sickest people never get treated.'"


The British National Health System (NHS) is lethal. But government doctors can privately treat patients wealthy enough to pay.

"[N]ephrologists have found that they must depend ... `on the grace and favor of willing general surgeons and willing vascular surgeons who were prepared to spend a little bit of time helping out the renal unit.... And you can't get vascular surgeons in the NHS to ...  spend a lot of time with renal patients.... Our surgeons work for the National Health Service. But the main part of their salary is in private practice. And ... surgeons are tied up and busy people.... You don't see many poor surgeons in England.... They all drive extremely nice cars, but it's not earned from the National Health Service. It's earned from private practice.... We've got a rotten vascular surgery service, and half our patients are on [outmoded] dialysis catheters, where we know that three quarters at least should be having [effective, costly treatment referred to as] fistulas.'"


The book promotes a change of American culture to quietly accept a killing program, so as to avoid the embarrassing scenes common in England.

"....Asked how he would explain to her family the prospects of a 65-year-old woman with kidney failure, one general practitioner first said that he did not think it was up to him to decide whether she should be dialyzed and that he would leave the decision to the consultant. But then he added, `Obviously the patient is 65 and therefore does not come within the regional dialysis program.' When pressed on whether he might save everyone time and anguish by discouraging referral, he described how he would talk to the family. `I would say that mother's or aunt's kidneys have failed or are failing and there is very little that anybody can do about it because of her age and general physical state, and that it would be my suggestion or my advice that we spare her any further investigation, any further painful procedure, and we would just make her as comfortable as we can for what remains of her life.'

"The task of denying care fell largely to general practitioners and consultants in fields other than nephrology [kidney specialty]. [But when] physicians ... flouted these norms and referred unsuitable [!] patients [they] forced nephrologists to tell patients and their families that treatment was unavailable or defined space where none really existed...."


In the mass starvation of Britain's Indian Empire, as in Hitler's death camps, race decided who was to die first.

Can We Say No? reassures those of the right race that they are relatively safe. "In the past some British physicians persuaded themselves that decisions forced upon them by lack of resources were actually medically optimal. When asked to explain why 60-year-old patients with renal failure but no other complicating conditions, in full possession of their faculties, and productive at work or home should be denied care, one nephrologist reported that he heard that a basis for rejection was that `the patient spoke no English.'

"A contemporary nephrologist [tried to explain this racially-based euthanasia, by saying that foreign colored people do not value life as much as our white people do]. Whether [he] was accurately commenting on cultural differences or repeating the earlier bias was not clear when he told us,

"`I think there is no doubt that ... in different ... cultural groups ... there are very major differences in attitudes toward death and illness ...  Roughly 40% of patients [in London] on our end-stage renal failure programs ... came from the Indian subcontinent. And many people from that culture ... feel that it was inappropriate to, if you like, move against the forces of-- greater forces, shall we say. Now that obviously doesn't happen to the fully westernized people. But it illustrates that many people, [if you] tell them that they have end-stage renal failure, fine. If you can do something, [they are] not interested.


Under the British-Orszag system, becoming a middle-aged person is a capital crime.

"One English consultant in 1980 justified failure to treat the elderly because everyone over 55 is "a bit crumbly" and therefore not really a suitable candidate for therapy. In 2004 another nephrologist, who had just said that age would never by itself justify denial of therapy and who had just been told of the remark that people over age 50 [sic] were a bit crumbly, said, "Well, actually that is factually correct."

"Do they mean they're going to kill the Baby Boomers?" Lyndon LaRouche asked.  "I think the Baby Boomers should be told, so they can save themselves."

American resistance to enforced euthanasia is a dangerous political problem the British-instructed Orszag gang have to overcome. A population frightened by economic catastrophe must be induced to submit to peaceful death, as a financial necessity.

"U.S. nephrologists would probably treat renal failure more aggressively than their British colleagues, even if resources were suddenly equalized. Conversely, conservative physician attitudes in Britain, based on years of practice under stringent conditions, would not suddenly turn aggressive if resource limits vanished. Nor would U.S. physicians placidly accept constraints that British physicians regard as part of the medical climate. As one British physician put the matter,

"`If physicians over here had infinite resources, they would treat person-for-person less people here than you would treat in the United States or in mainland Europe .... I'd put much more resources into end-of-life management, into palliative care, skilled palliative care facilities, proper facilities for care of the dying, and proper relationships with the holistic care that hospices can buy. In other words, I'd recognize end-stage renal failure as a legitimate cause of death and it's got to be managed as such, not complicated by an uncritical application of dialysis."

Lyndon LaRouche commented: "We should ration medical health-care to everyone who has that opinion.  Have a voluntary program: if you want this kind of care, you'll get it, but don't impose your opinion on other people.  If you want this, we'll give it to you.  We'll really give it to you!" 

Alabama Legislator Drafts Resolution Condemning Administration Health Care Policy

May 20, 2009 (LPAC)—On May 15, Alabama State Rep. Thomas Jackson (D-Thomasville) drafted a resolution condemning the entire scheme of health care "reform" emanating from the Obama Administration. Jackson, chair of the Agriculture Committee of the Alabama House of Representatives, and member of the Health Care Committee of the legislature, drafted his resolution for introduction into either a special session of the legislature, or the scheduled 2010 regular session. It is being circulated for discussion among legislators around the nation.

The resolution (appended below) is a blunt attack on the proposed policy coming out of Peter Orszag, Chairman of the Office of Management and Budget, Larry Summers, the chief economic advisor to the President, and President Obama himself, and likens the direction of the policy of cost-cutting and health care rationing to the very same policies that were implemented by Nazi Germany. Jackson condemns this entire approach and calls for repeal of the murderous HMO bill enacted by President Richard Nixon in 1973, and replacing it with a return to the Hill-Burton legislation that is still on the books as propounded by Alabama Senator Lister Hill and Ohio Senator Harold Burton in 1946.

Jackson also cites economist Lyndon LaRouche as the leading spokesman against the Obama administration plan.


WHEREAS, the current health care system dominated by managed care HMOs is systematically cutting care and services to the entire nation; and

WHEREAS, the overhead costs under the HMO system now constitute 30-35% of all costs, as against 2% of costs of the government-run Medicare Program; and

WHEREAS, health care infrastructure has been taken down at a shocking rate, including a 25% drop in community hospitals over the past thirty years, and a 40% drop in hospital beds nationally in the same period; and

WHEREAS, the same banks and insurance companies which run managed care HMOs are also recipients of federal bailout money and are profiting from the misery of the pouplation; and

WHEREAS, Peter Orszag, Chairman of the Office of Management and Budget, is on record May 3 stating that $700 billion can be carved out of the health care system by down-sizing care, especially in the last two years of life, by implementing comparative effectiveness research methods and other brutal cost cutting; and

WHEREAS, President Obama and the administration convened a conference of the HMOs, the pharmaceutical companies, the AMA, and other for-profit health care groups on May 11 who announced they would cut health care costs by $2 trillion over ten years, which will include curtailing treatments and procedures; and

WHEREAS, precisely these methods were used under the Hitler Regime to initiate the process of killing "Useless Eaters," for which the Nazis were sentenced to death at the Nuremberg Tribunals conducted at the end of WWII; and

WHEREAS, economist Lyndon LaRouche and many opponents of managed care, including the Physicians for a National Health Policy, have condemned these policies; now therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA, That the Alabama House of Representataives hereby condemns the stated policy of President Obama, Peter Orszag, Economic Advisor Larry Summers, and others to enact murderous cuts in services through their health care reform program; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we call upon the Congress of the United States to repeal the Health Maintenance and Resource Development Act (HMO Bill) of 1973, and return instead to the successful Hill-Burton Act of 1964, as passed in the U.S. Congress by Senator Lister Hill of Alabama. Hill-Burton in combination with extended and upgraded medicare coverage for the population will guarantee health care for all our citizens.

You're Bailing Out the Fascist Bastards That Are Killing You!

May 13, 2009 (LPAC)—Who owns the HMOs that are destroying your health care? In part, the very same financial institutions that are stealing your tax money through the bailout swindle! A preliminary investigation by LPAC shows a significant overlap between the recipients of Federal bailout funds and the owners of the HMOs. For example, six U.S. banks that have received billions—and most of them tens of billions—of dollars in money from the TARP, also show up as being among the top institutional owners of the HMOs in our sample. These banks are: Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and State Street. Also on the list is Barclays, the British giant which received U.S. bailout money via the AIG backdoor-bailout scheme. The list of owners also includes the major money management firms: FMR/Fidelity, Vanguard. Wellington, T. Rowe Price, Janus and others, the giant TIAA-CREF teachers' retirement fund, and AXA, the big French insurance company.

While these institutions individually typically own less than 15% of an HMO, and sometimes as little as 1%-2%, in the aggregate they dominate. Take the case of WellPoint, which bills itself as "the nation's leading health benefits company serving the needs of approximately 35 million medical members." As of the end of 2008, 638 institutions owned 88% of its outstanding shares. The top ten owners included: Dodge & Cox, 15%; Vanguard, 8%; T. Rowe Price, 7%; Barclays, 4.5%; Fairholme, 4.3%; State Street, 3.9%; Barrow, Hanley, Mewhinney & Strauss, 3.9%; Capital Research, 2.6%; Fairholme Capital, 2.5%; FMR, 2.3%; and Goldman Sachs, 2.1%.

WellPoint has a decidedly political board, to go with its financial ownership. The directors include: William "Bucky" Bush, the younger brother of George H.W. Bush; former U.S. Senator and Banking Committee chairman Don Riegle (R-Mich.); Susan Bayh, the wife of Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind); and Sheila Burke, the former chief of staff to then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.).


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version