UPROAR OVER OBAMACARE‘S ’RATIONING PANELS’ INTENSIFIES

So long death panels. Hello “rationing” board.

An independent panel authorized by President Barack Obama’s health care law to control excessive Medicare cost increases is drawing heavy fire from Republicans. The Independent Payment Advisory Board may not be appointed for another couple of years, and remains in suspended animation to see if the brouhaha dies down. Nearly every health industry lobbying group is pushing for an Obamacare repeal, as are some consumer advocates. GOP lawmakers call it a rationing panel, and at least one has suggested seniors will die from its decisions.

IPAB has the power to force Medicare cuts if costs go up beyond certain levels and Congress fails to act. Although Medicare’s long-term finances are troubled, it’s unclear if short-run costs will rise enough over the next decade to trigger the board’s intervention. If that happens, the law explicitly forbids IPAB from rationing care, shifting costs to retirees or restricting benefits.

Yet the uproar is getting louder.

“Senior citizens will lose control over what they actually get in Medicare,” GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann told conservative bloggers in Minneapolis last month, “because a politically appointed 15-member board that‘s unelected and unresponsive to the will of the people called IPAB will make the decisions about what care we get and what care we don’t.”

After their own plan to essentially privatize Medicare for future retirees ran into trouble, Republicans became more vocal about IPAB. At a press conference of the GOP Doctors Caucus, Georgia Rep. Phil Gingrey suggested the board could leave a trail of bodies.

“Under this IPAB … a bunch of bureaucrats decide whether or not you get care, such as continuing on dialysis or cancer chemotherapy,” said Gingrey, an ob-gyn physician. “I’ll guarantee you, when you withdraw that, the patient is going to die.”

But IPAB — an unusual delegation of power by Congress — may exist only on paper for a long while. The administration seems in no rush to set it up.

Just this spring, Obama had proposed beefing up IPAB to squeeze more out of Medicare. But as opposition grew, and prominent House liberals and AARP voiced their own objections, the administration downplayed that idea. In recent testimony before two House committees, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius described IPAB as just a “backstop” and a “failsafe.”

“If Congress is actually paying attention to the bottom line of Medicare, IPAB is irrelevant … and it never triggers in,” she said.

Obama hasn’t made any moves to set up the new agency, said Sebelius, but has only consulted about possible board candidates. Those members would have to be confirmed by the Senate, a fight the administration may be unwilling to pick when it can’t even get Medicare chief Don Berwick approved.

“The more interesting question is whether it will ever get off the runway,” said economist Robert Reischauer, one of the public trustees overseeing Medicare finances. “Can they find 15 people willing to serve under the conditions laid out in the legislation? Will the Senate confirm them?”

It wouldn’t be the first time cries of rationing forced Democrats to pull back. During the congressional health care debate, Sarah Palin denounced a plan to have Medicare pay for voluntary end-of-life consultations between patients and their doctors. Although the “death panels” accusation was discredited, the idea got dropped.

Rationing is a criticism Americans respond to, said Reischauer. “They are fearful that health reform might include limitations on their ability to access any care they consider worthwhile.”

HHS spokeswoman Erin Shields said comments such as Gingrey’s amount to “scare tactics” and IPAB is “absolutely prohibited” from rationing. It could recommend savings that don’t involve cuts, she said.

Backers say the board is meant to counterbalance a Congress addicted to spending, unable to turn down lobbyists for hospitals, doctors, drug companies, nursing homes, power wheelchair companies and other businesses that depend on Medicare, and whose executives and employees make political contributions.

“The system now is that people come up here that work the Congress like crazy, lobbyists making millions of dollars,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., one of IPAB’s biggest supporters. “The Congress often doesn’t know how to say no. And the Congress has the practice of never saying no. And costs go up.”

Dispassionate experts can do a better job, Rockefeller contends. Some of his colleagues don’t like IPAB “because they don’t get to … do the big connection with the lobbyist,” he added. Under the law, Congress can override the board’s recommendations with its own savings, as long they add up to the same total.

Critics say their concerns can’t be dismissed as easily as that, because IPAB is an attempt to cap Medicare spending. A stingy approach could stifle promising new medical innovations. And if IPAB leads to steep payment cuts, doctors and other providers will be reluctant to take Medicare patients, limiting access even without explicit rationing.

The early evidence is not particularly alarming.

For example, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service tried last fall to estimate the impact of projected IPAB cuts and came up with about $60 per year, per beneficiary from 2015-2019. Annual Medicare spending during that period was estimated to increase from an average of $13,374 per enrollee in 2015 to $15,749 in 2019.

Updated cost projections from other government offices differ on whether IPAB cuts will be required in the short run. The Congressional Budget Office says no. But Medicare’s Office of the Actuary says yes, in 2018 and 2019. Under the law, it’s the actuary who makes the call.

That’s keeping critics on edge.

The Associated Press contributed to this article.

Related:

Review:  The New World of ObamaCare

Review: The New World of ObamaCare

Originally Posted 0n August 5th 2010

By now most Americans are familiar with the broad outline of ObamaCare: Everyone is required by law to purchase health insurance, with a tax penalty assessed upon those who fail to comply. Insurers may not refuse to cover those with pre-existing conditions nor charge them higher rates. The federal government is expanding its role in providing health insurance. And did I mention that all of this is supposedly going to reduce both healthcare costs and the federal deficit?

Of course, with a law that is over 1900 pages long and contains hundreds of mandates, it may be months or even years before all the ramifications of the law are understood. Some of the mandates are already widely known, such as the requirement that chain restaurants post nutrition information about their menu items or the 10-percent tax on tanning salon services. However, it may very well be that the less widely known portions of the law are also the most dangerous, which may explain why they were kept out of public view in contravention of candidate Barack Obama’s repeated assurances that the entire healthcare debate would be conducted in public and broadcast on C-Span. (19-months later people are still finding out what is in that bill.)

Among the obscure but dangerous provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the official — and disingenuous — name for ObamaCare) are numerous provisions that, said Art Thompson, CEO of the JBS, “will intrude on every aspect of life in America, from cradle to grave.” They include everything from a national healthcare strategy to home visitations by government agents, possibly including forced immunizations, to “Community Transformation Grants” — all designed to alter Americans’ lifestyles to conform to the whims of bureaucrats in Washington.

The law itself is (probably intentionally) vague about how all these mandates are to be carried out; the details are left mostly to federal agencies that are much less accountable to the voters than Congress. Therefore, many of the suggestions in the following paragraphs as to how these mandates will play out are based not on explicit language in the legislation itself, or (obviously) the yet-to-be-issued regulations, but on an informed understanding of how governments can turn seemingly beneficent laws into tools of oppression. If anything, much of what is suggested in this article is actually less radical than what President Obama and fellow Democrats have said they wish to accomplish, namely a single-payer* health insurance scheme at the federal level.

Obama himself, in a 2003 speech, said that he’d “like to see” the United States adopt a “single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan.”

His Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, of course, attempted to foist a single-payer government healthcare system on Americans back in 1993 and ’94. Many other Clinton administration figures are prominent members of the Obama -administration.

Revolutionary Appointee

Obama’s recently appointed head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Donald Berwick, who Obama snuck in as a recess appointment after even the Dems abandoned his appointment, has openly praised the British National Health Service for not leaving healthcare to “play out in the darkness of private enterprise.” Berwick added that “any healthcare that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent healthcare is by definition redistributional.”

Berwick is also a proponent of government rationing† of healthcare, saying, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” Tellingly, Obama took the occasion of a Senate recess to appoint Berwick, bypassing Senate confirmation hearings that would surely have publicized Berwick’s socialized-medicine bona fides and possibly have sunk his nomination.

Thus, it is almost impossible to be too alarmist about the intentions of Obama-Care and its proponents. When government controls the healthcare system from top to bottom, it is naturally going to attempt to manipulate every aspect of people’s lives in order to keep costs down; and for those who become ill despite the state’s best efforts to force them to be healthy, care can — and will — be denied. This is already happening in Berwick’s beloved British healthcare system, where, for example, life-saving drugs are withheld from patients because the government deems them too costly — and then threatens patients who try to purchase the drugs out of their own pockets with the loss of all their healthcare benefits (see “Paying Patients Test British Health Care System,” the New York Times, Feb. 21, 2008).

Massive New Bureaucracy

Perhaps the most ominous of the obscure-but-dangerous provisions in Obama-Care is found in Sections 3011 through 3015. This portion of the law instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “establish a national strategy to improve the delivery of health care services, patient health outcomes, and population health.” Along with the strategy, the law requires “a comprehensive strategic plan to achieve the priorities” established by Congress. The strategic plan includes “agency-specific strategic plans to achieve national priorities,” “annual benchmarks for each relevant agency,” and “strategies to align public and private payers with regard to quality and patient safety efforts.” In short, the federal government is going to micromanage the healthcare sector in an effort to achieve its desired outcomes, and it is going to force private insurers to participate in this micromanagement — part of the price they will pay for having Uncle Sam hand them a captive market.

In order to implement the national strategy, the law instructs the President to “convene a working group to be known as the Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality.” This new bureaucracy includes senior-level representatives from 23 named federal agencies “and any other Federal agencies and departments … as determined by the President.” Among the agencies included in the working group are the Department of Commerce, the Coast Guard, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Labor, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Education — a strong indication that this is concerned with far more than simply ensuring that patients are treated well.

Likewise, Section 4001 of the act instructs the President to “establish, within the Department of Health and Human Services, a council to be known as the ‘National Prevention, Health Promotion and Public Health Council.’” President Obama issued an executive order to carry out this provision on June 10.

The council is chaired by the Surgeon General and consists of senior-level representatives from 12 named federal agencies and “the head of any other Federal agency that the chairperson determines is appropriate.”

The purposes of the council include: (1) to coordinate “prevention, wellness and health promotion practices”; (2) to “develop a national prevention, health promotion, public health, and integrative health care strategy”; (3) to “provide recommendations to the President and Congress concerning … changes in Federal policy to achieve national wellness, health promotion, and public health goals, including the reduction of tobacco use, sedentary behavior, and poor nutrition”; and (4) to propose policies “for the promotion of transformative models of prevention, integrative health, and public health on individual and community levels across the United States.” There will be “a list of national priorities” and “specific science-based initiatives” to “address lifestyle behavior modification” with regard to “smoking cessation, proper nutrition, appropriate exercise, mental health, behavioral health, substance use disorder, and domestic violence screenings.”

“It’s a horror even to think that they would put that in there, that they are going to start regulating personal behavior,” Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), himself a physician, told The New American. “But these people believe in it, and this is why it’s so bad to allow government to get inside the door.... They get their foot in the door, and then they say, ‘Oh, we’re paying for it, so we’re going to tell you how to live.’”

In other words, ObamaCare has just turned the United States into one giant psychiatric laboratory, and Americans are the rats stuck inside and subjected to “behavior modification” until we stop smoking (wonder if this applies to the President, who still hasn’t kicked the habit), take our vaccines and stop eating Twinkies, take up jogging, quit ingesting substances that the big pharmaceutical companies can’t patent, and tell Uncle Sam when we stopped beating our wives. Is this really what all those folks clamoring for healthcare reform wanted? If so, it serves as further proof of H.L. Mencken’s maxim that “democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

Section 4101 provides for grants for school-based health centers, which will offer “comprehensive health assessments, diagnosis, and treatment of minor, acute, and chronic medical conditions” and “mental health and substance use disorder assessments, crisis intervention, counseling, treatment, and referral to a continuum of services including emergency psychiatric care, community support programs, inpatient care, and outpatient programs.”
Will parents’ rights be respected in all this? Will their children be treated without their knowledge?

The “primary function” of existing school-based health centers “is to circumvent parental involvement in the important area of directing a child’s healthcare,” Gregory Hession, a Massachusetts attorney specializing in family and juvenile law, said in an e-mail. The programs “sexualize children with condom giveaways, homosexual advocacy programs, and age-inappropriate instruction to children, even very young ones, about sexual activity,” said Hession. “These clinics even allow and promote statutory rape” and refer students to abortion clinics and provide transportation to the clinics, Hession added, pointing out that all of this is done “in complete secrecy.”

And what of mental health assessments? Hession stated that much of the mental health screening that already takes place in schools appears to be “fostered by psychiatrists with financial ties to large drug companies that offer psychotropic drugs which are almost invariably prescribed for any small perceived personality problem,” the result being “that many children are now required, as a contingency for attending school, to take powerful psychotropic drugs for such invented maladies as attention deficit disorder.”

With school-based health clinics already engaged in such unsavory practices, federal funding and mandates can only lead to even worse, and more widespread, abuses.

Government Into Almost Everything

Nothing less than the “transformation” of communities is the modest goal of Section 4201, which creates a grant program for state and local governments and nonprofit organizations “to reduce chronic disease rates, prevent the development of secondary conditions, address health disparities, and develop a stronger evidence-base of effective prevention programming.” Each grantee must develop a “community transformation plan” which may include such things as:

1. creating healthier school environments, including increasing healthy food options, physical activity opportunities, promotion of healthy lifestyle, emotional wellness, and prevention curricula, and activities to prevent chronic diseases;
2. creating the infrastructure to support active living and access to nutritious foods in a safe environment;
3. developing and promoting programs targeting a variety of age levels to increase access to nutrition, physical activity and smoking cessation, improve social and emotional wellness, enhance safety in a community, or address any other chronic disease priority area identified by the grantee;
4. assessing and implementing worksite wellness programming and incentives;
5. working to highlight healthy options at restaurants and other food venues;
6. prioritizing strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities, including social, economic, and geographic determinants of health; and
7. addressing special populations needs, including all age groups and individuals with disabilities, and individuals in both urban and rural areas.

Imagine telling the Founding Fathers that the federal government would someday be concerning itself with restaurant menus and workplace stress! They would have laughed you right out of Philadelphia. Yet here we are, with the feds doing just that and much, much more.

Just what is “emotional wellness,” and how is the government going to see to it that people attain it? Surely it isn’t by cutting bureaucracy and spending, bringing the troops home, and reducing taxes, though those are the surest ways to make (almost) everyone happier.

President Obama, in a 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College, stated his support for a national smoking ban if local bans fail to snuff out the habit. It makes sense, then, that his signature achievement would include language plainly calling for “smoking cessation.” When Uncle Sam is footing the bill for Americans’ healthcare, they’d better do as he says or else. Indeed, the British Health Secretary, in charge of that single-payer system that Berwick so adores, ruled in 2007 that smokers would henceforth “be denied operations unless they give up cigarettes for at least four weeks beforehand,” according to the Daily Mail; their doctors would be in charge of enforcing the rule by making them take blood tests to prove they’ve not lit up for the last month. Surely the ObamaCare administrators can come up with some similarly clever ways of coercing Americans to can their Camels.

Then there’s that business about “reducing disparities.” The intention, undoubtedly, is to see to it that those who do not have health insurance receive it — and that those who have too much of it, as Washington sees it, are forced to make do with less; hence the tax penalties applied to so-called Cadillac plans. Subsidizing insurance for some will only encourage them to make more use of the healthcare system, putting upward pressure on prices and hastening the day that Berwick and others of his ilk begin rationing care for them. Punishing those with the best insurance plans will ensure that some of those individuals are unable to afford the care they need, which is just rationing by other means. The result: We all end up in the mushy middle, with just as much care as the government deems necessary to keep us from being too much of a strain on the system. For those who do become too ill and therefore too expensive for the government to keep, denial of treatment is an easy fix.

Individuals who use community health centers funded by the government may also be given a government-sanctioned “individualized wellness plan” under Section 4206, which establishes a demonstration project for this purpose. Undoubtedly this will be declared a success, and soon all Americans can expect a Washington-mandated plan for their lives, to control such things as alcohol and tobacco use, weight, blood pressure, nutritional supplement usage (but only those supplements “that have health claims approved by the Secretary”), stress, and exercise.

Invading Homes and Schools

One need not go to a health clinic to be subjected to federal healthcare intrusions, either. At least two portions of the act actually provide for government agents to come into individuals’ homes to see to it that they are obeying Washington’s directives.
The first of these is Section 2951, entitled “Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Programs.” This section requires all states to perform a needs assessment that identifies at-risk communities and “the quality and capacity of existing programs or initiatives for early childhood home visitation.” States can then apply for grants to establish early childhood home visitation programs.
The programs will target high-risk communities first, with “high-risk” defined as “eligible families who reside in communities in need of such services,” followed by eligible families with low incomes, pregnant women under 21 years old, “a history of child abuse or neglect … or interactions with child welfare services” (not evidence of actual abuse, mind you; just a visit from government agents on an anonymous tip will suffice), “a history of substance abuse,” “users of tobacco products” (light up and expect a visit from your friendly neighborhood G-man), “children with low student achievement,” “children with developmental delays or disabilities,” or “individuals who are serving or formerly served in the Armed Forces.” That just about covers everyone.

“This section of the law is designed to circumvent the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and give government agents a plausible excuse to enter homes without a warrant, with the ultimate goal of reporting the family to child protective services,” said Hession. The child-protection agents then have every incentive to take children from their families, as evidenced by the fact that over half a million children are now in child protection agency custody in the United States.

The law lays out specific desired outcomes for individual families, many of which sound good. Who could oppose improvements in mothers’ and babies’ health, children’s development, parenting skills, school readiness and academic achievement, crime and domestic violence rates, and family economic self-sufficiency? The detailed regulations established by federal and state bureaucrats to accomplish these general outcomes, however, may not be so benign.
For example, what specific “improvements in parenting skills” might government agents wish to impose on those they visit? Will spanking children or even speaking sharply to them be permitted? What if parents try to inculcate specific moral or religious precepts in their children? Hession noted that homeschoolers and parents who believe in corporal punishment are already among the most targeted by state child protection agencies.

It is already known that government programs to improve school readiness are of little benefit. Gains made in Head Start, the most famous of these programs, do not last much beyond first grade. Why, then, would anyone expect the government to be able to offer parents expert advice on how to prepare their children for school?
Worse yet, how will “school readiness” and “child academic achievement” be measured? What will happen to families whose children fail to meet the government’s arbitrary standards? As the Birch Society’s Art Thompson perceptively pointed out,

The idea of school readiness and academic achievement provides the excuse for government agents to nullify parental prerogatives for private and home schooling. Since they can test the preschool children, mold the tests of how and what the children should be taught, they can use this information to try and force you to send your children to government institutions.

In fact, school readiness is one of the key reasons boosters of universal pre-kindergarten cite for their support of extending government schooling to an earlier age. Among those who favor universal pre-kindergarten are Hillary Clinton — she of “It Takes a Village to Raise a Child” and the anti-parental-rights Children’s Defense Fund — and President Obama. Prima facie evidence that it’s a bad idea.

Government has been the greatest enemy of “family economic self-sufficiency,” having replaced fathers with welfare checks and having taxed Americans to the point that both parents frequently must work outside the home just to make ends meet. Government benefits from families who are dependent on it because those same people will almost always vote for even bigger government, as inner-city voting patterns demonstrate.

It is of little comfort that the law requires that states provide assurances that “the participation of each eligible family in the program is voluntary.” As Hession said, existing “family visitation programs are about as voluntary as the current IRS tax system, which continues to assert that it is based on voluntary compliance.”
Even if it were the case, at least for now, that families are not required to admit government agents into their homes under this program, given that the target families at the beginning (most likely single mothers, according to Hession) are likely to have less education and fewer resources to fight back, how likely are they to resist a bureaucrat who offers them a check or other assistance just for answering a few questions? Once they are caught in the state’s web, how easily will they be able to extricate themselves? After all, one of the desired outcomes for individual families is that they be more easily referred to “other community resources and supports … consistent with State child welfare agency training.” Then how long will it be until the program is expanded to other families and made mandatory? The dangers here are immense.

As if that weren’t bad enough, Section 4204 actually provides for home visits from government functionaries for the purpose of providing immunizations (a demonstration program for the time being but with the intent “to continue and expand such program”).
The recent H1N1 hoopla demonstrates how the government, with the enthusiastic backing of vaccine manufacturers, can manufacture a health crisis and then use it to encourage or even force people to be vaccinated. The Washington Post reported on June 4 that two separate reports from Europe “accused the [World Health Organization] of exaggerating the threat posed by the virus and failing to disclose possible influence by the pharmaceutical industry on its recommendations for how countries should respond.” That exaggeration of the so-called pandemic and the WHO’s accompanying recommendations led many Americans to be vaccinated needlessly, including some who were coerced by the government, such as healthcare workers in New York.

Now imagine that same scenario playing out under a program in which the federal government gives grants to states to (1) provide “immunization reminders or recalls for target populations,” (2) educate “targeted populations and health care providers concerning immunizations in combination with one or more other interventions,” (3) subsidize immunizations, (4) promote immunizations, (5) provide for “home visits” that may include “provision of immunization,” and (6) create an electronic database for all states to access immunization records — all provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. How easy it would be for governments to find out who hasn’t volunteered to be vaccinated and to show up at the recalcitrant citizens’ homes to give them their shots right then and there! How profitable it would be for vaccine manufacturers!

Indeed, Dr. Paul said that “one thing that we have found in the past is some of the strongest proponents of massive inoculations” have been funded by pharmaceutical companies. The decision to immunize or not to immunize, he said, “should be strictly a decision made by the doctor and the patient, and never by public health officials.”
Paul expressed particular concern that ObamaCare will come between doctors and patients. Decisions about treatment, he said, “will be made not by other M.D.’s, but they will be made by people who are pushing a pencil.... And there will be rationing of care … by those people in Washington, the bureaucrats who are looking at a bottom line and not understanding the situation.”

People Control, Not Healthcare

From page 1 to page 906, ObamaCare is chock full of expensive, intrusive, and downright scary programs such as these. The law gives the federal and state governments virtually unlimited power to interfere in Americans’ lives, even within the confines of our own homes. (Hession noted that the act “is marbled with requirements that can be accomplished only by entry into private family homes.”) It destroys individual self-reliance and, through a variety of provisions such as school-based health clinics and home visitation programs, the family unit. These are the foundations of the American Republic; without them the United States will become a society of helpless, dependent sheep with neither the desire nor the will to resist the state’s relentless encroachments on our liberties.
These problems cannot be fixed merely by modifying a clause here and a proviso there. ObamaCare needs to be repealed in full before it can metastasize into a full-blown single-payer system. State-by-state nullification should also be undertaken. Then we can work on dismantling the rest of the federal healthcare behemoth. These are the only cures for what ails the American healthcare system.

* “Single payer” is the innocuous code for government-run, bureaucrat-controlled, nationalized, socialized medicine.
† Although “rationing” may have a more negative connotation than “single payer,” it is nonetheless euphemistic. What it means in healthcare is that treatment will be determined not by the physician according to the needs of the patient, but according to formulas and edicts issued by the government and carried out by administrators and bureaucrats.  And now matter how you want to look at it that means death panels.

*Muslims are exempt from ObamaCare and therefor the home visits and parental oversight because of a practice called “Dhimmitude” on page 107 of the ObamaCare Bill.  Do you know what that means?  Please check it our if you don’t.

Originally Posted at the New American  -  WRITTEN BY MICHAEL TENNANT

Check out H.R. 3962 yourself:  ObamaCare

Bill Gates Confirms Population Reduction Through Vaccination on CNN

Bilderberger Bill Gates Confirms Population Reduction Through Vaccination on CNN… a Concept He Has Been Found to Promote Many Times Before…

Written by RC Christian  -  Monday, 07 March 2011 06:17

When it comes to philanthropy, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation surely leads the pack.

In an Interview last week on CNN, Bill Gates was proud and excited to tell the world about the benefits of vaccination.

This particular writer can not argue that is quite possible that world population may be getting quite close to the tipping point, but what Bill Gates actually says to in this interview with Dr. Sanjay Gupta on CNN March 5th 2011 might be just a little bit too much information for the conventional Main Stream Media audience.

In this 5 minute interview, Bill Gates clearly states that the child deaths and sickness are not the only benefits of an extensive vaccination program, and "population control" is an equally beneficial affect of a well funded vaccination program, but "population control" is an equally beneficial affect.  (It is an elitist concept promoted and believed in by much or the Ruling Elite around the World… the Progressives, the Fabians, the Bilderbergers  (Melinda Gates, Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama was spotted where Microchips Were Discussed at Bilderberg 2008 Jones ...), etc and my many others who are in the White House Administration today.  Those that consider themselves better, more worthy and definitely superior to the average man and woman, the ‘sheeple’, that just take up room and use up resources in their elite point of view.  Do a little research on John Holdren, Cass Sunstein (the man who believes we all have Homer Simpson in us and all he has to do is us into what is good for us - Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness), Don Berwick, and Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm’s brother) and promoter of his Complete Lives System just to begin with and there is always Jay Rockefeller. ) 

Video:  Bill gates promotes population control on CNN

The Gates Foundation has quickly become a major influence upon global health; the approximately US$800 million that the foundation gives every year for global health approaches the annual budget of the United Nations World Health Organization (193 nations) and is comparable to the funds given to fight infectious disease by the United States Agency for International Development.

The Foundation currently provides 17% (US$86 million in 2006) of the world budget for the attempted eradication of poliomyelitis (polio).

You can watch the Full Video Here

The Global Health Program's other significant grants include:

The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization

The foundation gave The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization a donation of US$750 million on January 25, 2005.

Children's Vaccine Program

The Children's Vaccine Program, run by the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), received a donation of US$27 million to help vaccinate against Japanese encephalitis on December 9, 2003. (Our daughter received this vaccine onboard ship while she was participating in the Semester at Sea program and there was an outbreak.  A year later she had developed colitis to such an extreme state that she had to have her entire colon taken out at age 21?  coincidental??  One of side affects is sterility.)

University of Washington Department of Global Health

The foundation provided approximately US$30 million for the foundation of the new Department of Global Health at the University of Washington in Seattle. The donation promoted three of the Foundation's target areas: education, Pacific Northwest and global health. The foundation also lead a study to increase access to high education globally.

HIV Research

The foundation has donated a grand total of US$287 million to various HIV/AIDS researchers. The money was split between sixteen different research teams across the world, on the condition that they share their findings with one another.

Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation

The foundation gave the Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation more than US$280 million to develop and license an improved vaccine against tuberculosis for use in high burden countries.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates was recently interviewed by CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Sanjay Gupta. Gates was attending the World Economic Forum to push his mission of eradicating polio by 2012. Gates, through his foundation, has pledged $10 billion to provide vaccinations to children around the world .

In the course of the interview, in regards to the vaccine-autism connection, Gates said:

"... [I]t's an absolute lie that has killed thousands of kids. Because the mothers who heard that lie, many of them didn't have their kids take either pertussis or measles vaccine, and their children are dead today. And so the people who go and engage in those anti-vaccine efforts -- you know, they, they kill children. It's a very sad thing, because these vaccines are important."

How can someone so smart also be so confused about this issue? Unfortunately, that may actually be part of the problem.

Bill Gates may be one of the most destructive "do-gooders" on the planet because he is rich enough to get what he wants and he has a high opinion of his own intelligence. It is hard enough fighting Big Pharma, Big Government and Big Medicine on vaccines, but when another opponent is one of the wealthiest and most influential philanthropists in the world, it is even harder.

Fortunately, truth is more powerful than money. It is the only reason that the voices of parents and vaccine injured children continue to be heard above the relentless promotion of lies by the wealthy and powerful.

In this video below, Bill Gates makes more statements regarding the need for a population control program at the TED conference in Long Beach California in 2010.  Wait till he gets to 4 Minutes and 40 seconds into his speech.  Bill lets it slip again that if we do a really good job vaccinating people, we could lower population by 15%.

Video:  Bill Gates on Energy:  Innovating Zero!

All of a sudden the worries over the H1N1 vaccine seem a little more serious to a lot of people.  And one thing you can be sure of, the people who will receive the vaccines with the little depopulation additive won’t be any of the elites or the children of the elites just like the people who will get the end of life death panel nod won’t be any of them either. They will be you and I, your children and mine, the poor of the world and the physically and mentally challenged or undesirables.  All of a sudden Sarah Palin and Dick Morris’s warnings of death panels seem a lot more real as well.  The Bill Gates of this world and his friends are the same that supports Planned Parenthood and its founder Margaret Sanger, who believed in eugenics and created Planned Parenthood with that goal.  Let us also give a little thought to the fact that as the White House administration and liberal doctors were promoting that everyone get the H1N1 vaccines neither the Obama girls nor the wife and daughters of Dr. Oz, good buddy of Obama-ite Oprah Winfrey, were vaccinated.

Please watch the other hand and to your homework and remember… just because it is a so-called conspiracy does not mean it is a theory nor does it mean that it is untrue.  And when it starts coming from the perpetrator,s own mouths it is ‘almost’ past time to pay attention and change it.~~

Vaccines ARE (In Many Cases) Germ Warfare

Vaccines:  Cooking Up a Witches Brew of Death and Deceit

Dumbing Down Society Part I:  Foods. Beverages and Meds

Anyone Recall Jane Bergermeister and the Lethal Vaccines???

Sterilization of Children…  -  See links at bottom of article as well

Hawaii (Obama’s Home State) passes Resolution Against Forced Vaccination

Research Firm Blows Hole in Big Pharma Vaccination Lie

Bill Gates:  Register Every Birth by Cellphone To Ensure Vaccination, Control Population Growth

Hillary Clinton:  Population Control Will Now Become the Centerpiece of U.S. Foreign Policy

Council on Foreign Relations – Please Read

A Cornucopia of Corruption and Treason…  *Multiple Articles Within*

America’s Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution  -  Long But an Important Read

Democrats Abandon Donald Berwick's Nomination to Top Medicare and Medicaid Post

According to Politico, President Obama will be forced to abandon his controversial nomination of Donald Berwick as the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Politico reports that “Senate Democrats have given up on confirming Don Berwick as CMS administrator in the wake of a letter from 42 Republican senators opposing the nomination,” as “there's no way for Berwick to get the 60 votes needed to clear the Senate.”

As with his various “czars,” President Obama had previously circumvented the Senate confirmation process (despite having a Democratically controlled Senate) to install Berwick in his post. He had done so by issuing a “recess appointment,” but that appointment expires at the end of this year.

As I wrote last spring, the Berwick nomination is one of the clearest indicators of where we are headed if ObamaCare is not repealed:

As everyone knows by now, Obamacare would raise, not lower, health costs. This is the consensus view of the CBO, Medicare’s chief actuary, and the American people. However, another consensus view — shared by nearly everyone outside of the Obama White House and the Democratic Congress — is that the number one goal of health policy should be to cut costs. So, if you combine a health care overhaul that won’t cut costs, with a pressing need to cut costs, where are we headed?

President Obama’s pick to fill the top post at Medicare and Medicaid provides a strong indication. We’re going down the only cost cutting road that government can travel. More exactly, we’re heading toward a nation-defining fork in the road. In one direction lies repeal; in the other, rationed care. In one direction, liberty; in the other, consolidated power.

President Obama’s pick to head the massive Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Donald Berwick, is a Harvard doctor with a stated fondness for nationalized medicine. He plainly wasn’t picked for his large-scale executive or managerial experience. He’s currently a professor, a pediatrician, and the CEO of a nonprofit whose website reports it has “a staff of over 100 dedicated and talented people.” No, he was presumably picked because he and President Obama see eye-to-eye: Both share the same academic approach to problem-solving, both think our health-care system should be run through Washington, and both support a strong degree of bureaucratic control over questions of life and death. If confirmed by the Senate, he would become head of an agency with a budget larger than that of the Department of Defense.”

Lest anyone think I was exaggerating, Berwick has written that the British health-care system is “more likely to succeed” than the American one; that he feels “an optimism about the [British] NHS [National Health System] that is hard to find in the UK nowadays”; that he thinks “nationalized health care was a wise choice in 1948 and that it remains so now”; that “the social budget” — the social budget! — “is limited”; and that “[t]he decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” This is who President Obama wants to have running Medicare, Medicaid, and significant portions of ObamaCare.

It looks like the Constitution’s confirmation process will serve as a bulwark against President Obama’s desires in this instance, although it’s unlikely that his next nominee will hold views that are radically different from Berwick’s or his own. (That new nominee almost certainly will, however, have been more careful about publicly expressing those views). But Obama’s failure to get his Berwick nomination through the Democratic Senate doesn’t change the fact that Obama chose someone like Berwick in the first place, or the fact that he circumvented the usual process to install him in the short-term. Nor does it change what the Berwick nomination tells us about the direction in which Obama thinks ObamaCare would and should take American health care.

Related:

Berwick – Another Radical