ayurvedic home remedies

Scary Consequences of Government Healthcare

There is a dangerous convergence of events and people at the top of the American political echelon that presents a frightening prospect. Consider:

  • We have a President who is committed to leveling personal economic standing; and controlling access to energy, and healthcare

  • Mr. Obama has appointed John P. Holdren as his Science Advisor.  Mr. Holdren is committed to population control, energy control, planetary government, and an international police force 

  • We have Democrat-controlled Senate and House of Representatives promoting government healthcare, control of your income, and the distribution of all uses of electricity, gas, coal, wind, sun energy, gasoline, and oil

 Presently this group is attempting to create the largest set of tax increases in the history of the world through ‘global warming’ legislation I have written about here; and at the same time, push through a government takeover of virtually all healthcare delivered in America.  

Democrat proposal puts most Americans on government healthcare

It is clear that the Democrat healthcare legislation is designed to put most Americans on government healthcare, and is not designed to provide “competition” or coverage for those people in a gap without insurance.  We know this, because on page 16, the bill says, “Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation is enacted.  This means that private, personal healthcare insurance policies cannot be issued anymore if the legislation passes. 

So yes, as the President says, you can keep your private coverage – so long as you don’t change it.  If you leave a place of work after January 1, 2009 (the year the legislation is adopted) and try to enroll individually for yourself, you will not be able to do so.  Individual policies are forbidden to be underwritten or offered by insurance companies after January 1, 2009 if this legislation passes this year.  So much for just providing competition.  

The Lewin Group (world’s leading consultants on healthcare) estimates that about 120 million Americans will probably lose their private health insurance coverage and end up in the government plan during the first 3 years of implementation and would lower the number of those uninsured by only about 50%. 

Democrat proposal will increase government costs for healthcare

On Thursday July 16, 2009, Douglas Elmendorf the Director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (appointed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) testified that the Democrat proposals under review in Congress will not bring down the cost of healthcare, in fact, these proposals will make government healthcare cost more both in the short and long term.  It is revealing that the Democrats in Congress and Mr. Obama have even increased their support for it in light of these revelations!  What are they not telling us? 

Their constant refrain is that we have to do this right now  – before the August recess – or we won’t be able to sustain the future cost of government healthcare.  Now we know what they are proposing will cause the cost to go up.  So what is the real reason for rushing blindly into this? 

  • Americans lose their private insurance

  • Government healthcare will increase costs, not limit them

  • Only about half of the uninsured will be covered

  • Higher taxes and denial of services will be how costs are contained. 

The kind of ‘science’ Mr. Obama approves

This brings us to John P. Holdren.  Shortly after the election in the fall of 2008, Mr. Obama announced that Mr. Holdren was his choice to be Science Advisor to the President.  Mr. Holdren has been well known for more than 30 years as somewhat of a crackpot (I elaborate below) and Mr. Obama knew fully well what kind of man Mr. Holdren is when he made the appointment. 

In his announcement of Dr. Holdren, Mr. Obama said, “The truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it’s about protecting free and open inquiry.  It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.  It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say – even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient.  Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth, and a greater understanding of the world around us.”  Remember these statements as I tell you who he chose to advise him on all matters related to science, because Dr. Holdren has gotten rich off twisting science by politics and ideology.

John Holdren, Mr. Obama’s Science Advisor

John Holdren is the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.  He received his bachelor degree from MIT in 1965, and a PhD in plasma physics from Stanford University in 1970.  Then he taught at UC Berkley for 20 years.  

Throughout his adult life, Dr. Holdren has been committed to the idea that the end is near.  In 1969, he wrote it was imperative “to convince society and its leaders that there is no alternative but the cessation of our irresponsible, all-demanding, and all-consuming population growth.”  In the same year, he said, “If…population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.”

He flirted briefly with “global cooling” as the means of the collapse of history, “Many observers have speculated that the cooling could be the beginning of a long and persistent trend in that direction – that is, an inevitable departure from an abnormally warm period in climatic history.”  Ecoscience, p. 686.   Notice the arrogance in Mr. Holdren’s writings; notice the finality of the statements – “no alternative, immediately, all the technology, misery to come, inevitable departure…”  

The global cooling thing didn’t work out too well, so he stuck with the population as the means of bringing about complete human disaster.  In fact, predicting disasters comprises most of what Dr. Holdren has done for over 30 years.  He just can’t seem to decide what exactly will bring about the disaster.  

In the book Ecoscience (W. H. Freeman, 1977) now out of print, and 1018 pages long – Holdren with his co-authors write about what will bring the end of the world.  I will quote somewhat extensively below because it is critical that we understand who Mr. Obama chose to advise him on scientific matters.  Since the book has been out of print for a long time, it is difficult to actually get a look at the book itself.  To verify the quotes below in this Post, please check out this link to see scanned pages from the book itself.

Mr. Holdren a “new-Malthusian”

In the book, (p. 954) the author states, “The neo-Malthusian view proposes…population limitation and redistribution of wealth,” and he concludes, “On these points, we find ourselves firmly in the new-Malthusian camp.”

Born in the middle 18th century, Thomas Malthus wrote extensively on the idea that social improvements would lead to more people surviving to maturity, more babies, more people, until the number of people could not be sustained, and the result would be massive death through starvation and disease.  Although he was an Anglican clergyman, Malthus had one of the most anti-human viewpoints of any writer in history.  (He said all this starvation was part of God’s plan so we would learn virtue and the value of hard work!) 

Malthus was not only wrong, he was 100% wrong.  Improvements in living standards are proven to be associated with lower birth rates, not higher ones.  Note here, and here

We also know that the poorest countries have the highest birth rates.  For those who forage for food, increasing the number of children is an economic issue.  Why anyone with a PhD would claim to be a neo-Malthusian is completely beyond me.  Thomas Malthus has never been right at any point in history. 

Malthus was also entirely wrong in his assertion that the number of humans on the earth is the problem.  On the contrary, throughout history the human population has become “unsustainable.”  Over and over again people have had to invent new ways of existing.  When humanity was engaged mostly in hunting and gathering, the populations stayed low because eating was only an occasional delight.  So we invented farming, began to produce lots of food, domesticated animals and produced lots of protein; developed draft animals to make the work of one person more effective.  We have done this over and over throughout human history.  As someone has said, hawks and humans both eat chickens; the more hawks the fewer chickens; the more humans, the more chickens.  Malthus and his followers never bother to either look at history; or have any respect for human invention and ingenuity.  For Malthusians, people are static.  If producing sufficient food is difficult, Malthusians think they will just go ahead and starve; cornucopians think people figure out a way to produce more food.

So John Holdren is a neo-Malthusian; this tells us a great deal about how he approaches economics, science, and the environment – it’s all static, not dynamic.  For Mr. Holdren as with Thomas Malthus, global collapse is the one absolute fate of humanity unless there is a top-down, coercive, global intervention in the personal life of everyone by elites to control the use of everything – your capacity to keep warm or cool, the space you live in, how or if you travel, how much and what you get to eat; even your exhalation of CO2.  In his head, Mr. Holdren always hears the sound of doom for humanity as if it were already reality.  Doom is his prior commitment – every other thought flows from that.  As a scientist, he thinks it is his responsibility to go see the direction he estimates the sound is coming from.  When you are a hammer, everything is a nail.  When you are a Malthusian, everything is moving toward a total collapse of humanity.  Neither history nor rational thought shows that this is true, but for Mr. Holdren, it is a tenet of faith; a central dogma.  In his view, your task is to see the direction history is going; and then stop it.  So Mr. Holdren thinks CO2 is destroying the earth: the answer – control its use; population is ruining the earth: the answer – control pregnancy.  That isn’t science.  He thinks people are the problem; those of us who believe in humanity think people are the answer. 

He may have done good science somewhere, but when it comes to predictions and estimations, he is no longer doing science.  True science must be reproducible, and what Mr. Holdren is engaged in is not reproducible besides not being factual.  He uses his scientific credentials to impress us, talk over our head, to prophesy about the future.  As I understand it, it’s the province of God to reveal the future to His prophets.  Since Mr. Holdren is an atheist, I assume he is making his prophesies up.  It’s a good thing for Mr. Holdren that false prophets are no longer stoned when their prophesies don’t come true. This, then, is Mr. Obama’s choice as Science Advisor.  But wait, there’s more!

John Holdren considers sterilizing women through drinking water

On pages 787-8 of the book Holdren theorizes about the possibility of adding sterilization substances to the water supply for “involuntary fertility control,” so long as it doesn’t damage livestock: 

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control.  Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems.  No such sterilant exists today [1977], nor does one appear to be under development.  To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

John Holdren proposes government forced sterilization through implantation

On pages 786-7 he theorizes about “coercive fertility control” carried out by the government through implantation: 

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, Herinomous Bosch painting 1despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.  The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control.  The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, (sic!) for a limited number of births.” 

John Holdren proposes forcing single women abort, or be forced to adopt their own children

On pages 786 he suggests that single moms should have their children taken away by the government, or they could be forced to have abortions prior to birth:

“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption – especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone.  If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it.  Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone.  It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”  (Quite the chauvinist, Mr. Holdren)

John Holdren thinks U.S. government has the authority to determine how many children you may have

On page 838, Mr. Holdren asserts that there is nothing wrong with the government controlling fertility: 

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern.  The law regulates other highly personal matters.  For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time.  Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

Remember what Mr. Obama said about this man; “It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics of ideology…the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us.  It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.”  I wish.  If Mr. Obama wanted real science to hold authority, he certainly would not have selected Mr. John Holdren.

John Holdren thinks a “Planetary Regime” will be required to enforce global population control 

It’s a global problem, so what about all those Christians who believe children are a gift from God?  What about all the Catholics who as a matter of faith refuse birth control?  What about all those Muslims who are making lots of babies?  Screw ‘em. 

On pages 942-3, Mr. Holdren suggests a “Planetary Regime” should control all economies, and determine the number of children people are permitted to have:

 Toward Planetary Regime 

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP [United Nations Environmental Program] and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime – sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment.  Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist.  Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans.  The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trace, perhaps including assistance from DC’s [developed countries] to LDC’s, [less developed countries] and including all food on the international market. 

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits.  Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

John Holdren’s idea of a “Planetary Regime” would require “surrender of sovereignty” by the U.S.

Of course a world government isn’t congruent with U.S. law, so on page 917 he writes: 

“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force.  Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing.  The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.” 

John Holdren thinks we must to this immediately to save humanity

We have to do this, because as he says on page 944: 

“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high.  This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe.  But is must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.” 

Well, we managed to “muddle through” the 20th century which, by the way, ended nine and a half years ago.

John Holdren, Mr. Obama’s ‘Science’ Advisor 

But “science” is about truth, Mr. Obama says.  

In a speech you can check here, and here, Mr. Holdren has used slides showing that sea levels would rise by 13 feet within the next 100 years; he showed slides that indicated the State of Florida would disappear altogether in the future; that sea level could rise by 70 meters (over 227 feet) because of “global warming.”  He morphs himself into a master marketer and makes proposals about how to influence the thinking of citizens to believe his predictions are scientific.  He wants to keep up the “drumbeat of climate science about pace & impacts,” bring up “people’s everyday experience (and news reports) of floods, droughts, heat, fires; Katrina; shifting position of labor & religious communities; bipartisan, multi-sectoral consensus on policy reflected in high-profile US reports; 5005 Sense of Senate resolution; 2006 elections – Congress changes hands;” “Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth,’ “2007 IPCC, UNSEG reports underscore science, urgency,” and more.  Ever the scaremonger and propagandist Mr. Holdren is urging the use of these approaches as a critical path for persuading people to go along with his apocalyptic vision of the world and support his global control of everything you do, everything you eat, everything you purchase, and whether or not you will be permitted to have children.

In 1973 he called for the “de-development” of the United States – “Lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.”  His recommendation is that for a period of about 10 years the United States use 20% of its GNP (Gross National Product – total economic output of the U.S.) to help other nations get their populations under control.  The total output of the U.S. in economic terms is about $14 trillion.  Twenty percent of our GNP is almost $3 trillion – almost the exact equivalent of the entire bloated federal budget – he wants to give it away to other nations.  Can you imagine the cost to the American way of life?

For him, as you can read for yourself, everything is an emergency; and anyone who disagrees with him is unworthy.  He speaks of people who doubt the “global warming threat” as people who “infest” public discourse; their ideas are “dangerous” and pose “a menace” to humanity.  So much for Mr. Obama’s suggestion that science “is about free and open inquiry.”

Conclusions

I have done this exercise because I want you to consider the implications.  Assume for now that the Democrats do what they want to do and move almost all Americans to a government healthcare system.  Government bureaucrats are in control of who gets what treatment; many treatments would be denied because they judge you to be too old to be worth the expense; and many drugs would be considered too expensive.  We have a scientific cadre advising the White House that people are way too numerous, and too many people presents a hazard to the planet.  So consider:

What will the government healthcare program choose to cover if they think there are too many people? 

Perhaps they will pay for your first; and maybe your second child, but they might refuse to pay for another baby.  If you are single and get pregnant, perhaps they will require you to give up your baby to a childless couple for adoption, or maybe they will require you to go through the adoption process in order to be approved to raise your own child. 

Perhaps if there are too many people, they will reduce the permitted number of children per couple to one.  (This could always be adjusted with permission granted to increase or decrease the number of children the bureaucrats think is appropriate.) Perhaps they will force abortions, or use “coercive” sterilization measures if the regulation of pregnancy and coercive sterilizations programs don’t work as well as predicted. 

All of these things are possibilities.  The one who pays the orchestra is the one who determines the music they play: the government collects the money, the federal government decides what gets treated and what doesn’t; bureaucrats will decide what services are provided and which aren’t.  

We know they will decide that some people can get certain services while others can’t – they already do this.  They will discriminate widely based on gender, age, and God knows what else.  We know the federal government’s commitment to grouping people into ethnic, age, income, gender, marital status, sexual habits, and other groups – what makes you think it will change?  

Perhaps they will decide that sex-change operations are important because transgender people have been discriminated against too long, but if you are over 65, you can’t get a by-pass – your life isn’t worth the cost.  They will discriminate right and left, protect this group but not that group, and it will be politically motivated the way everything else the government does is politically motivated.  A new administration comes in, and how healthcare is distributed changes just like everything else the government does changes.  Political campaigns may include promises about how a candidate will change the national healthcare program to give special benefits to a favored constituency.

With a “science” team like the one Mr. Obama chose, what do you think are the possibilities for prenatal care when you’re pregnant?  There are way too many kids already, why would we want to spend a bunch of money on another one?  The fact that it is your baby won’t matter.  Think of what care they might decide what care you and your baby would get in the case of premature birth? 

In the state of Oregon, the Oregon Health Plan uses state and federal dollars to pay for healthcare for those who can’t afford coverage any other way.  Here is a list of what they will cover from April 2009 until September of 2009. Here is the list of issues they would pay for previous to the present list.  And here are the changes the state made from last year’s list to the current one.  If you are in the healing profession you might want to check out these sources; they will prove that the state frequently decides to change what they will pay for according to economic and political pressures.  I will make a prophecy myself; the federal government healthcare you are likely to end up with will follow exactly the same path: Delay, Deny, Dilute.  Delay service to save money because some will die before you have to treat.  Deny services to people the physician thinks isn’t worth the expense.   Dilute the services rendered because that is cheaper than really treating the problem.  I got these words from a report investigating how the British Health Service controls costs by participating in the deaths of tens of thousands of its patients each year through Delay, Denial and Dilution.   

I think the possibilities for this or something similar are very real.  The consequences of what the Democrats propose coupled with Mr. Obama’s approach to ‘science’ are staggering.  If you don’t care whether or not you are free, do nothing so someone else can make all your choices for you.  If you love freedom even though at times it treats you unkindly, and is rather untidy; get in touch with your Senators and Representative immediately and tell them to not move forward with this healthcare plan – it will destroy freedoms, run up the cost, and give birth to unimaginable consequences. 

Throw the Jacobins out!