Exhibit Shows Why Hitler Claimed His Ideas Came From USA

"Our starting point is not the individual, and we do not subscribe to the view that one should feed the
hungry, give drink to the thirsty, or clothe the naked. ... Our objectives are entirely different: we
must have a healthy people in order to prevail in the world."

Joseph Goebbels
Nazi Minister of Propaganda, 1938

Remembering the Nazis' War on the `Genetically Unfit'.


"BEFORE the Nazis began the mass murder of Jews, they started to sterilize or kill hundreds of thousands of their own -- non-Jewish Germans, including children, who were considered mentally or physically defective. They even issued a "Ten Commandments for Choosing a Mate" that advised against marrying a person with an undesirable characteristic, or the possibility of inheriting one: "Never marry the one good person from a bad family."

This intensive war against the "genetically unfit" is one of the areas explored in "Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race," a handsome and harrowing exhibition about the Nazis' use of science, at Charles B. Wang Center at Stony Brook University through June 12. The exhibition, a traveling version of one that opened at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington in April 2004, will be accompanied by 10 public events and lectures by experts in fields like medicine, history and philosophy."

Its worth seeing, because the nightmares of the past need to be understood so that they should not be repeated in health policy.

Social Darwinism still has a very strong hold on the American mainstream and American health policy.

"Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race," Charles B. Wang Center, Stony Brook University, through June 12. Information: http://stonybrook.edu/sb/deadlymedicine/.

Update: You can read more about another even more disturbing US-Nazi connection here. And here. (warning, disturbing.)

There's more...

Obama Warming Up To Mandated Healthcare If Sick Exempted Because Of Cost

Obama appears to be entertaining the idea of mandated healthcare for normal families, but only if those who are quoted high prices for insurance (usually the sick or their family members) are exempted from having to purchase insurance, "because it is too expensive".

This will address his goal of making healthcare more efficient, but it will leave the basic problems unaddressed, keeping the insurance industry profitable.

Ideas being floated are requiring businesses to foot the bill, (making older employees more expensive to hire and replacing employees with investments in technology-driven solutions more attractive) and increasing capital gains taxes on investment income.

The Obama administration has been holding a series of forums with hospital and insurance company executives and handpicked community members to guide the process of healthcare reform.

Q: What is Obama doing to address the problem of adverse selection?

A: This is why Obama is considering a mandate that requires healthy people to buy insurance. The original idea of a public option is a good one, but there is a huge risk that only the sickest 20% of people, people who need prescription drugs or care for ongoing chronic health conditions like hypertension, cancer or diabetes, would seek out the government alternative, given their difficulty in obtaining private insurance. This would make the government program much more expensive. By requiring everybody who was quoted a price under some line to buy insurance, or face a fine, Obama would slightly increase the size of the pool of healthy people buying insurance, the theory is that at least some of them, perhaps those with spouses or children with chronic illness, would purchase the government plan, enlarging the pool of healthy enrollees somewhat. This might lower the rate signficantly without forcing the government to pay more than a few billion dollars more to insure them because their premiums might exceed expenditures, especially if their chronically ill family members were not that sick.

Ultimately, though, the problem of cost is a significant one. How Obama will avoid the issue is a big question. He seems to be adamant against the government negotiating prices down as a bloc, and wedded to the idea of jobs being connected to healthcare access (perhaps to keep wages down)

Stay tuned as reality sets in for the Obama administration.

There's more...

White House Edits Single Payer Questions Out Of Iowa Forum Video!

Would you take a look at this video and tell me if you see the single payer advocates in the official video of the Des Moines forum?

You don't?

I don't either. Its because the single payer advocates questions were edited out! And the video was an official White House product! Is this legal? The United States is supposed to be a democracy AND recent polling has indicated that 70% of the people of this democracy feel that single payer healthcare is the only way out of this mess.

This kind of behavior was routine for Republicans like George Bush II. But from "our" OBAMA?  What gives?

The truth of the matter is that stress over healthcare and bankruptcy s killing us. This issue is too important to be left to the masses, because they might make the right decision.

The people who own this country have already decided that we are not to have single payer in our lifetimes.

Please call or write your Congresspeople and Senators and protest the suppression of single payer and the whoring out of American politics "buy" the Obama Administration and its pals in the health "insurance" industry!

The stress is killing us! (follow link to science)

If we don't have change soon, millions more people will be destroyed by the stress of being bankrupted by medical bills that are not covered by their only choices.

Obama's choices.

We need to know the effects this stress will have on us.

There's more...

America's Lost Future: The Effects of Medical Fear Stress Over Time

Americans have gradually seen the edge that existed in the past vanish. Other countries are taking up the slack in creativity and the generation of innovation. One of the reasons is the huge amount of psychosocial stress that many Americans are being subjected to by the impossible situation of medical costs. This situation can only get worse as the third wave of technological innovation increases productivity and more low-skilled and midlevel workers lose their jobs or benefits or more frequently, both. Universal healthcare could prevent some of the worst kinds of stress if people lose their jobs, and then homes or social or family lives due to loss of income.

The effects of continuous, life threatening stress on the brain, working memory, and the immune system are permanently  life-changing. Deficits caused by extreme stress even appear to then become hereditary due to epigenetic mechanisms. In young people, it is theorized that this so called "allostatic load" is the primary reason for the huge gap in scholastic achievement between the rich and poor in societies like ours in which the gap between rich and poor is growing.

An easy fix for a great many of these problems appears to be universal healthcare. Universal healthcare could stop America from rapidly becoming a Third World nation.

There's more...

Protests At White House's Iowa Health Care Forum

It appears that the White House's semi-scripted Des Moines, Iowa pep rally on healthcare "change" was interrupted on the 24th by Iowa citizens outraged that the White House seems unwilling to even discuss the workable, pragmatic solution that 70% of all Americans want- Single payer healthcare.

"Why are we having this shameful event?" said Mona Shaw, a political activist, at the start of the session.  "People are dying," she said

People have been outraged that despite the pre-election claim that Obama wants to "change" healthcare, and now forgotten promises near the end of the tight primary races that Obama wanted to bring universal coverage to the US, the White House now does not want to even discuss government run/single payer solutions to the healthcare affordability crisis. Meanwhile, billions are being budgeted to bankroll purchase banks toxic assets, a move guaranteed to lose huge amounts of taxpayer money.

"Obama plans to make sweeping changes to the system this year to "try to cut the number of uninsured" while improving the quality of care and controlling costs that are forecast to reach $2.5 trillion dollars this year."

However, many say that that goal is woefully timid as many people are being bankrupted by medical costs.

(The US is one of only three developed countries - the others are Turkey and Mexico- without affordable, universal healthcare.)

"Dr. Jess Fiedorowicz, a psychiatrist at the University of Iowa Hospitals who was with the protest group, told the meeting a majority of Americans support a "single payer" or government-run national health insurance program."

"Can we put it on the table for discussion?" Fiedorowicz asked Nancy-Ann De Parle, director of the White House Office on Health Reform.

"Can we study costing?  Can we study feasibility of this truly universal, socially just and fiscally responsible alternate to our currently unjust and woefully inefficient system?" Fiedorowicz asked.  Many in the crowd applauded.

"Chris Peterson, 53, who farms near Clear Lake, Iowa, said he cannot buy private health insurance for his wife or himself two years after his insurance carrier dropped them.  They now have $14,000 in medical debts."

The stress is killing us.

Nurses Blast "Cruel Ruse" by Insurance Giants

This looks interesting. The Calif. Nurses Assn

"Nurses Blast "Cruel Ruse" by Insurance Giants to Cover Patients As Deal for Forcing Americans to Buy Insurance"

Basically, they are repeating the criticisms that many other healthcare providers have been bringing up about the private insurance mandates and private insurance based health proposals from Obama and the health insurance industry.

They are true. For example, access to care and affordability has worsened in Massachusetts.

Additionally, the devil is in the details. Read this closely:
"On Tuesday, the insurance trade lobby America's Health Insurance Plans and Blue Cross and Blue Shield offered to stop denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions – but only if the healthcare reform plan under consideration in Congress contains a requirement forcing all Americans to buy private insurance – and if Congress rejects a proposal to include a public plan alternative for people not wanting private insurance."

But at what price? Its not at all useful if insurers offer to turn away nobody ONLY IF THAT PERSON PAYS WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE A "FAIR PRICE". Or if they offer, like the drug companies, to cover "people who can't afford it" but those subsidies are limited, like they are in many states, to people with arbitrarily low incomes. Excluding the middle class and even, most of the working poor.

And all others are asked to pay a price based on risk plus profit. or simply, "what they can get away with".

For example,three times the Federal poverty level works out to something like $35,000 a year FOR A FAMILY WITH SEVERAL CHILDREN.

We don't see millionaires without health insurance, even people who have had cancer. They pay huge amounts of money for it.

There's more...

Real-world Healthcare Dilemmas for Working Americans: Test or Pray?

Well, its looking as if it will be 2012 or 2016 at the very least before Americans have a political candidate or progressive party on a national level who makes universal healthcare that also makes healthcare affordable for those who really need it a priority enough to actually make it happen.

To his credit Obama has committed to make US healthcare more efficient by 2019, by embracing the troubled Massachusetts model which dodges the question of affordability and leaves many sick either "insured" but still unable to afford actual care or needed drugs, or uninsured and facing either a fine, or needing an exemption from the law because they could not find a plan- and still uninsured.

That's a problem. Here is another real world example of another major problem with the risk pricing model. It scares people away from preventative and diagnostic care. What about the person who may be healthy on paper now, say they have insurance now, but who is presented with a symptom which may be of a new condition? One that would increase an insurance company's exposure to risk. (Making them not a desirable customer. Insurance companies would prefer not to cover them or perhaps cover them, take their money, but later dump them if they make claims.)

So, (this being the United States, home of the barbaric healthcare system) should they test for it, with the knowledge that some test results may make them "uninsurable", if they lose their job with its group plan that spreads the risk around, OR should they "wait and pray" for real "change" and hope that they do not die before it comes? (Meanwhile, avoiding contact with the medical system.)

The reason I ask is that I have a friend who lives in another state. He has symptoms that he thinks could be cancer.

He is a blue collar employee, almost 40, and could easily end up out of work for a year or so if his company folds.

If he gets diagnosed with something serious, whenever, he can't have a period of noninsurance, because he may never be able to purchase nongroup insurance. If he lived in MA. he would be one of those who could not afford a policy within his income, so he would be exempt or perhaps less likely, fined for not having insurance.

He wants purchasing affordable insurance on the private market to be an option for his family as he has three children and a wife who currently get their insurance through his threatened job. (His wife works in a coffee shop and does not get insurance.)

Obama's risk pricing model would price insurance "fairly for both insurer and insuree", based on cost times some calculated risk plus profit, I would guess, but for a formerly middle class person with a medical condition, that fair price could be so far out of reach that it might as well be millions of dollars a year. Many people are just getting by. (The devil is in the details.)

(Moving to Canada, Europe or Australia isn't an option for them. They are Americans, and this is their home.)

What should he do? Wait and pray? Or test and pray?

Another consideration. Drugs to treat cancer can cost as much as $1000 a month or more, but his current insurance policy has a $1000 YEARLY cap on prescription costs.

Obama seems to like the Massachusetts model. It elimiantes the "free riders" who were being subsidized by the providers as writeoffs. Its also hurt many free clinics in urban areas. Money that used to go to them is now going to the insurance companies and drug companies, who charge more in MA. now. (more demand)

Massachusetts's basic minimal healthcare policies for the healthy, as well as for the ill, often don't include prescription drugs at all. They seem perhaps designed to insure the government more than the people.

The consumer driven healthcare model ("choice") saves money by making the patient pay more out of pocket through exemptions and cost shifting.

Earth to Obama, we have a problem here. People can't afford this path you have placed us on.

There's more...

Are US IMF Austerity Measures The Real Goal For Corporatists?

Why are the real rulers of America pushing so hard for the US government to assume the banks private gambling debts?

Experts agree that the banks real losses dwarf any estimates seen so far, and that the eventual bill will be huge.

But, most Americans didn't create those debts! WHY should we pay? Because the looting of America demands it! Because the bankers have so much power, thats why! The obvious endgame is that after assuming so much debt, not only would all social programs be put on hold indefinitely, eventually the US would eventually default on the deficit, forcing the US into IMF austerity programs.

Programs like Social Security and Medicare typically are eliminated in these national default situations.

Is the goal to force the US into the same kinds of IMF austerity programs that have caused riots in so many other nations?

Certainly, the US, which has been at the lead in pushing for these measures elsewhere, would not be able to escape having its own medicine applied to it.

Inquiring minds want to know.


"In economics, austerity is when a national government reduces its spending in order to pay back creditors. Austerity is usually required when a government's fiscal deficit spending is felt to be unsustainable.

Development projects, welfare programs and other social spending are common areas of spending for cuts. In many countries, austerity measures have been associated with short-term standard of living declines until economic conditions improved once fiscal balance was achieved (such as in the United Kingdom under Margaret Thatcher, Canada under Jean Chrétien, and Spain under González).

Private banks, or institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), may require that a country pursues an 'austerity policy' if it wants to re-finance loans that are about to come due. The government may be asked to stop issuing subsidies or to otherwise reduce public spending. When the IMF requires such a policy, the terms are known as 'IMF conditionalities'.

Austerity programs are frequently controversial, as they impact the poorest segments of the population and often lead to a wider separation between the rich and poor. In many situations, austerity programs are imposed on countries that were previously under dictatorial regimes, leading to criticism that populations are forced to repay the debts of their oppressors.[1][2][3]"

There's more...

Toxic Scam Alert: New Bailout Plan Worse Than Old In Trading Cash for Trash

Well, one thing you have to give the Obama non-lobbyists, (or so they say) they are very good at spin. One would have to read between the lines to see that they are STILL FORCING taxpayers to buy in to the big Ponzi scheme even as the suave master salesman Obama himself admitted (on Jay Leno) that the bailouts are not working!

No teleprompters, huh?

The banks are taking the money and not issuing loans, instead, padding their balance books (hopefully with the aim of selling their stock?)

Its a basic of fraud that those who are holding the bag at the end of a Ponzi scheme are the BIG LOSERS.

We all knew (even we non-insiders knew) that many of the mortgage loans, especially the many of those no-income no asset loans were never going to get repaid at face value. That is WHY they charged the folks who responded to those quintillions of robo-calls extra points! They went looking for people with no credit or bad credit too. The banks already got their profits in the extra points. They gambled and lost. They knew this years ago. Why resurrect the dead? let sleeping dogs lie.

What business is that that expects the taxpayer to wipe their butt for them? American banking, that is what business. Its also an exercise in showing the American public who is really the boss.

Why have the government assume this debt? So the government can pay and pay and eventually, default on it, saddling the taxpayers with IMF austerity measures like devaluation of bank accounts and giving up pensions and privatizing utilities like water and perhaps, eventually, clean air?

The real owners of American politicians-

SO, Obama seems determined to make the taxpayers the losers.

Crafty how he includes the auction idea but the devil in the details shows that the auction is not significant in reducing the exposure of the taxpayer.

Kind of like Obama's healthcare plan, in that devil in the details aspect.

There's more...

Did Obama Admit Bailout Was A Failure- On Jay Leno?


So, we just flushed that billions of dollars in money, (enough for six universal healthcares, if I read it correctly) down the drain so that the execs could cash out of the Ponzi scheme in style leaving the taxpayer covering their gambling losses???

Obama on Jay Leno:

"LENO: Well, when will the money -- this money was given out to the banks. I would have thought by this time it would have sort of trickled down to Main Street, to people wanting to get loans -- I mean, it all went out there months and months ago. Where is it?

OBAMA: Well, what's happening is a lot of these banks are keeping it in the bank because their balance sheets had gotten so bad that they decided, you know what, for us to stay solvent we need to maintain certain capital ratios; we've got to have a certain amount of capital in the bank -- and they haven't started lending it yet. And that's why what we've got to do -- right now what we're doing is essentially doing a diagnostic test -- trying to use some auto language here so you -- (laughter) -- we're doing a diagnostic on each of the banks, figuring out what are their capital levels? Can they sustain lending? And then I think we're going to separate out -- those banks that are in good shape, we're going to say to them, all right, you're on your own; go start lending again. Those banks that still have problems, we'll do a little more intervention to try to clean some of those toxic assets off their books.

But I actually have confidence that we'll get that done. In the meantime, we're taking a lot of steps to, for example, opening up -- open up separate credit lines <u>outside of banks</u> for small businesses so that they can get credit -- because there are a lot of small businesses out here who are just barely hanging on. Their credit lines are starting to be cut. We're trying to set up a securitized market for student loans and auto loans <u>outside of the banking system</u>. So there are other ways of getting credit flowing again. "

There's more...


Advertise Blogads