Time Magazine promotes Death Care Agenda

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JUNE 7, 2012

The new ‘pull the plug’ care system is now being celebrated by re-known writers and philanthropists as a way to cut down healthcare costs. Not a word about preventive care, though. In an article authored by writer Joe Klein, Time praises the goodness of austere medical care when it comes to keeping the elderly alive, and how doctors together with sons or daughters make the decision about whether a sick, old person should live or not.

The June 11 issue of Time Magazine sells the idea that is should be fine for anyone to decide on someone else’s health or death based on the premise that it will help save resources for others who remain alive, or as Bill Gates said, to hire more teachers. In a video interview, Joe Klein explains how the Geisinger medical system helped him during a time when he was not convinced what to do with his sick parents.

The phone call came on a cloudy morning in Iowa. I was interviewing Senator Chuck Grassley in his farm kitchen, surrounded by a sea of corn. Mom was back in the hospital again. She had pneumonia. She wasn’t eating. “If we don’t put in a feeding tube,” my mother’s internist told me, “she won’t survive on her own.”

Mom had always been vehement about how she wanted to go. “Just pull the plug. Let me die,” she would say, with more than a hint of melodrama. “I don’t want to be a vegetable.” But was she a vegetable now? She had…

See Klein’s video on Time Magazine’s page here. In the video, he sort of blames the traditional medical system for providing services or procedures that he says aren’t necessary, and that doctors usually request because most doctors are paid based on the number of services or procedures they ask patients to take. Klein says that the Geisinger model is better than the traditional one because it saves money as it rations care for patients under the doctor’s guidance and a son or a daughter’s decision not to feed a parent with a tube, but to let him or her die.

One of the biggest cheerleaders of the Geisinger model is US president Barack Obama, whose death panels ran by people who believe that saving a money in the government run healthcare system must come before providing care to an elderly or sick patient. During a September 9, 2009 speech in Congress, Obama spoke about how rationed medicine implemented by the Geisinger system was an example of high quality care at a lower cost. He did not mention, though, that the costs are reduced due to the denial of care, not because the services are somehow cheaper as provided by Geisinger medical centers.

Joe Klein himself admits that the Obama administration wants to change healthcare by moving it in the direction of the Geisinger system. He portrays doctors as bad people because “they do not want to be told what to do,” says Klein. He believes that this opposition stems from the fact that doctors income would be greatly reduced and not because doctors actually know better what services and procedures are needed in order to save the life of a patient, elderly or otherwise. “Fee for service medicine is more profitable for them”, adds Klein. For Mr. Klein just as for Mr. Obama and his advisers, the extra test or monitoring of a patient is often unnecessary even though those tests are the closest thing to preventive medicine. Meanwhile, the establishment of real preventive care is continuously denied by the corporate-controlled healthcare system that refuses to offer it to patients.

In the case of Klein’s father, he says the doctors at Geisinger advised him not to hydrate his dad because even if he did that, he would have to be back in the hospital in a few weeks due to his kidney problems. In his mind, keeping his father properly hydrated to have him around for a longer period of time was not worth the expense that the medical care system would have to endure. According to Klein, the doctors kindly convinced him that it was better to let his dad go. “That level of candor is the kind of thing that most people do not get from fee for service medical doctors,” said Mr. Klein. “That’s what made the death of my parents tolerable,” he concluded.

“For five months, I was my parents’ death panel. And where the costly chaos of Medicare failed, a team of salaried doctors and nurses offered a better way,” reads one of Joe Klein’s revealing comments about his experience. That is what the Obama administration and any other government that advocates for the unsustainable government-controlled socialized medicine model want everyone to have access to. Socialized medicine is not about providing medical care at a lower cost which makes it accessible to most people, but about reducing the costs of medical attention by letting people die when they are no longer profitable. Socialized medicine, for example, does not invest anything more than the current system into preventing disease, which most doctors do not even know how to do. An initiative to fund preventive medicine instead of providing resources to corporate-controlled healthcare systems or government managed Obamacare, would greatly reduce the costs of medical attention without having to choose between keeping a parent alive or hiring a new teacher.

The only thing more successful for big government than establishing death panels composed by bureaucrats who decide whether a person lives or not, is to actually convince people that death panels is the way to go and to turn them into their relatives’ own death panels, as Joe Klein confesses he was in the case of his parents. Under the new medical system that is taking root in the United States, quality care is synonymous with rationed care. To say that the current medical care system is bad because doctors issue requests for services and procedures that may or may not be necessary, but that people can trust other medical professional in hospices because for some reason they are more ethical about providing care, is simply preposterous. On the contrary, in a rationed care system, medical professionals are assured to receive a minimum compensation they are comfortable with, which might facilitate their decision not to provide care to patients if they believe it is not necessary or worthwhile and that it would lower the costs of the most likely government-controlled medical system.

A healthcare system that promotes austerity and rationing for patients is not one that will offer the best care for patients, especially for elderly people, but one that will look for every possible reason not to provide much needed medical attention. Its goal is to cut expenses, not to improve the life of the patient. It is naive to believe that doctors under the Geisinger or any other rationed system will have the interests of the patient at heart when they don’t have any incentive to do so. In fact, their incentive is mostly to cut costs and deny care while making the choice of death look kind and benevolent.

The way to solve the debacle of the medical care system anywhere is to prohibit the medical industry from writing the laws that govern such system, invest in preventive care and not in the perpetuation of the mass drugging of the population, to actually prepare doctors to treat patients as supposed to put them on pharmaceuticals — which by the way kill more people than they help — for the rest of their lives and to educate people about the the thousands of poisonous ingredients being put in the food and water, so that they can choose not to consume them. A good healthcare system is not mutually exclusive. It is possible to have great care without rationing.

Obama Tax Hikes will hit Retirees, Middle Class, Veterans, Medicare…

Associated Press
September 19, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — It’s not just millionaires who’d pay more under President Barack Obama’s latest plan to combat the deficit.

Air travelers, federal workers, military retirees, wealthier Medicare beneficiaries and people taking out new mortgages are among those who would pay more than $130 billion in government revenues raised through new or increased fees.

Airline passengers would see their federal security fees double from $5 to $10 for a nonstop round-trip flight and triple to $15 by 2017, raising $25 billion over the coming decade. Federal workers would face an additional 1.2 percentage point deduction from their paychecks to contribute $21 billion more for their pensions over the same period. Military retirees would pay a $200 fee upon turning 65 to have the government pay their out-of-pocket Medicare expenses. They’d also pay more for non-generic prescription drugs.

And it’ll cost corporate jet owners a new $100 fee for each flight.

The fees aren’t taxes. They’re charged to people who use government services or receive benefits such as taxpayer-subsidized health care, and they typically defray the government’s cost of providing a service. The fee on corporate jets and other private passenger planes, for example, would raise about $1 billion a year to help finance the cost of air traffic control. Recreational flyers won’t have to pay.

Many of Obama’s proposals are retreads from earlier budget proposals, including those submitted by his predecessors. Most have been rejected year after year. Some ideas, like requiring wealthier veterans to pay more for their health care, stir up opposition from powerful interest groups. Others, like the bigger security fee for flyers, seem too close to a ticket tax increase.

Administration budget documents describe the fees as savings.

But unlike Obama’s tax proposals, the new fees aren’t necessarily dead on arrival with Republicans. A group led by Vice President Joe Biden had tentatively agreed to increase the airline security fee before talks between the White House and Congress collapsed in June. The Biden-led group was also weighing an increase in pension contributions by federal workers, an idea that has riled organized labor and other Democratic-friendly interest groups.

“Why (would) the administration … propose a Social Security payroll tax holiday in its jobs bill, but simultaneously suggest a tax increase for middle-class federal workers?” asked Joseph Beaudoin, president of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association.

Another new fee would increase by one-tenth of a percentage point the fee that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charge lenders to guarantee repayment of new mortgage loans. The administration says the fee increase would add $15 a month to the monthly cost of an average new mortgage. Even without existing mortgages being affected, the fee increase would raise $28 billion over 10 years.

Some of the fees tilt toward the arcane. There’s a plan to save $3 million a year by developing an electronic records system for hazardous waste shipments. Another would produce $7 million more a year by giving the federal government a 50 percent share of receipts from geothermal leases on federal lands instead of 25 percent, with the remainder going to the states.

Another proposal would charge $4 an acre on non-producing oil and gas leases on federal lands, raising $1 billion over a decade. The idea is to prod energy companies to get their leases into production or give them up and allow others to develop them.

England Begins Rationing Health Services

The Independent
July 28, 2011

Hip replacements, cataract surgery and tonsil removal are among operations now being rationed in a bid to save the NHS money.

Two-thirds of health trusts in England are rationing treatments for “non-urgent” conditions as part of the drive to reduce costs in the NHS by £20bn over the next four years. One in three primary-care trusts (PCTs) has expanded the list of procedures it will restrict funding to in the past 12 months.

Examples of the rationing now being used include:

* Hip and knee replacements only being allowed where patients are in severe pain. Overweight patients will be made to lose weight before being considered for an operation.

* Cataract operations being withheld from patients until their sight problems “substantially” affect their ability to work.

* Patients with varicose veins only being operated on if they are suffering “chronic continuous pain”, ulceration or bleeding.

* Tonsillectomy (removing tonsils) only to be carried out in children if they have had seven bouts of tonsillitis in the previous year.

* Grommets to improve hearing in children only being inserted in “exceptional circumstances” and after monitoring for six months.

* Funding has also been cut in some areas for IVF treatment on the NHS.

The alarming figures emerged from a survey of 111 PCTs by the health-service magazine GP, using the Freedom of Information Act.

Doctors are known to be concerned about how the new rationing is working – and how it will affect their relationships with patients.

Birmingham is looking at reducing operations in gastroenterology, gynaecology, dermatology and orthopaedics. Parts of east London were among the first to introduce rationing, where some patients are being referred for homeopathic treatments instead of conventional treatment.

Medway had deferred treatment for non-urgent procedures this year while Dorset is “looking at reducing the levels of limited effectiveness procedures”.

Chris Naylor, a senior researcher at the health think tank the King’s Fund, said the rationing decisions being made by PCTs were a consequence of the savings the NHS was being asked to find.

Read Full Article…

Sustainable Development: Genocide turned into a Necessity

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | APRIL 30, 2011

Often times, we hear sustainable development and sustainability were originated in the early 70’s and strengthened through the 80’s and 90’s. During any given research effort, most publications allege that the concern to maintain natural resources as tools for current and future generations was born in 1972, when a United Nations Conference in Sweden brought forward three principles: the interdependence of human beings and the natural environment, the links between economic development, social development, and environmental protection and the need for a global vision and common principles. Credit for developing those principles is given to the World Commission on Environment and Development of 1987.

The United Nations is the main enactor of Eugenics, a policy initiated by the founders of the Nazi movement.

Common wisdom portrays the collectivist view that sustainability and sustainable development with policies and initiatives to protect the environment from humanity’s abuses and with this to promote the benefit of the masses. Nowadays, the protection of the environment has become the most luminous spear carried by anyone and everyone, independent of race, social status, age or religion. In fact, environmentalism has become in itself the religion of choice for many. The environmentalist support for sustainability is almost inherently rooted in our lives; more than we even think. It has been applied to economics, construction, community planning, agriculture, security, natality and so on.

Countless meetings were arranged in the past 50 years in order to convince the masses that no future was complete without a sustainable approach to human existence. First, the Club of Rome came up with documents like “Limits of Growth” and “A New Path for World Development” which have as their bastion the movement to globalize the planet and social engineer everything from social values to employment, trade, demographics, politics, economics and so on; all in an effort to deindustrialize the planet and turn it into what predecessor organizations -League of Nations- wanted. Along with think-tanks like the Club of Rome, other equally prominent organizations operate in order to bring a new social, economic and developmental order into place. The United Nations, a child of the globalists who founded the League of Nations with the intention of ‘ending conflict’, has its own list of pro-deindustrialization branches and documents. For example, the United Nations Environment Programme for Development (UNEP), preaches the principles of failed green policies and green economies. The United Nations Conference on Environmental Development of 1992, better known as the Earth Summit, promotes plans like Agenda 21, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity which intend and are slowly achieving Kurt Waldheim’s ecofacist dream to depopulate the planet.

Where did modern environmentalism originate?

Although there is plenty of documentation regarding how false environmentalism is linked to the so called “green wing” of the Nazi Party, no one gets into that history in depth. Main line historians and environmentalists usually decide to ignore it and the public that is bamboozled into believing the dogmas of modern genocidal ecology does not know about it. Pertinent questions to ask regarding the Nazi origins of the green movement is, What is its inspiration? What were the goals it wanted to achieve? How did the murdering ideology of the National Socialist Party gave in to what is in appearance an unheard love for nature?

Germany was not only the place where the genocidal policy of sustainability was born, but it was also the land where it became reality. The Nazi germans and its followers adopted many of the green policies we see in modern societies and brought them to prominence. Science and the study of creatures and their environments were first talked about in Germany during the years that preceded the Nazi rise to power. The genocidal nature of environmentalism originated from a demented love for nature. (1)

Nazi thinkers and some predecessors were sure humans had to be equaled to plants, animals and insects in order to have balance in the world. These train of thought has been seen in modern environmentalist minds such as Bolivian president Evo Morales and the promoter of the Gaia theory, James Lovelock, who believe that massive amounts of people must die in order to gain natural balance. Recently, author and environmentalist Keith Farnish used one of his books to call for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism like blowing up dams and destroying cities to return the planet to its form before the Industrial Revolution occurred. Along with Farnish, other highly respected so-called scientists like NASA’s Dr. James Hansen endorsed this line of thought.

Ernst Moritz Arndt

One of the fathers of what we call today environmentalism is Ernst Moritz Arndt. Together with Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, Arndt had infinite hatred for the Enlightenment. Both were well-known for their extreme nationalistic views which they used to advance the ideals of the welfare state. These two men, but mainly Arndt was identified as the first ecological thinker. Arndt wrote on an 1815 article that “When one sees nature in a necessary connectedness and interrelationship, then all things are equally important — shrub, worm, plant, human, stone, nothing first or last, but all one single unity.” (2) What separated Arndt’s environmentalist ideas from those of others was that he closely blended his thoughts on respecting nature with xenophobic discourses and entangled them with the very existence of the Germans and Germany. While he defended the environment in most of his writings, he also called for racial purity and damned other races such as the Jews and the French. It was that love for nature and hatred towards the Jews what would later guide the persecution and murder of those who were not Arians.

Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, a graduate from Arndt’s school of thought made sure his teacher’s work did not wastefully dissipate. In an article dated 1853, Riehl showed his strong opposition to industrialism and said: “We must save the forest, not only so that our ovens do not become cold in winter, but also so that the pulse of life of the people continues to beat warm and joyfully, so that Germany remains German.” (3) He opposed any type of urbanization while using anti-Semitism to approve of peasantry and its way of life. Both Riehl’s and Arndt’s ideas were later adopted by the völkisch movement, which was a mixture of nationalistic populism and mad love for nature. The leaders of the völkischs advocated a move back to the simplicity of living off the land while blaming urban living and rationalism for the environmental destruction. (4) At the core of the hatred was an old but meaningful element that had driven antisemitic groups like the völkischs for a long time: The Jewish people. Why? The Jews were the middle class of the time, and the apparent sick love for nature and the environment included an equally sickening hatred for anyone and anything that endangered that thought or way of life. (5)

After establishing their long sought relation between antisemitism and love towards nature, the völkischs extended their prejudice through the 19th and 20th centuries. The anti-industrialization, anti-jewish type of speech rooted itself along with racial purity and Arian superiority just in time for the rise of the Nazi Party’s trip to power.

Nazi ecology and the link to racism

In 1867, Ernst Haeckel, a German zoologist first used the term “ecology” and linked it to the study of creatures and their environments. Haeckel was heavily influenced by social Darwinism to a point that he became the father of a kind of social Darwinism known as “monism”. He founded the German Monist League, an organization guided by völkisch principles. Haeckel as well as Riehl and Arndt believed in racial superiority and were strongly opposed to social mixing. In addition, he also approved of racial eugenics. His thoughts were the base for what later would be known as the anti-semitic National Socialism in Germany. Indeed, Haeckel became a prominent speaker on racism, nationalism and the german model of imperialism. (6) Towards the end of his life, Haeckel became a member of the Thule Society, an organization that later served as the political base for the creation of the Nazi Party. (7) Haeckel, as the creator of ecology, Riehl and Arndt as his predecessors and other thinkers such as Willibald Hentschel, Wilhelm Bölsche and BrunoWille, get all the credit for tightly threading environmentalism to national socialism, racism, anti-Semitism and the political environmental that we all know took over Germany pre and post World War I.

One of the most revealing facts about ancient and current ecological authoritarianism is the belief by sponsors of this view that humans must be encapsulated in “biological categories” and “biological zones” over which an iron fist technocratic authority must rule. Haeckel said that civilizations and nature should be governed by the same laws. The origin of this way of thinking is a reactionary anti-humanist thought. The Monists, believed humans although not themselves- were insignificant when compared to the greatness of the environment. Similar ideas are seen in modern initiatives sponsored by the Club of Rome, The Carnegie Foundation, The United Nations, NASA, as well as some colleges and universities that are funded by globalists who endorse eugenics for the sake of cleansing the planet. Take for example the text of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversitywhich has been named as the politics and religion of modern environmentalism. Among other goals, the Convention intends to “reorganize” Western civilization by excluding all human activity from 50 percent of the American continent. It wants to divide the land into “bioregions” with “buffer zones” and “corridors”. Under this plan, humans will live in tightly guarded and heavily monitored areas, from which they can never leave. This green globalist agenda is promoted by the United Nations since 1992, when it was officially presented during the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The same policies will be implemented in Asia, Africa and Europe.

Ernst Haeckel

Writings from the Carnegie Foundation also commit treasure to the implementation of policies like Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biodiversity. The foundation has expressed pride on ancient practices that resembled mass murder by the powers that be in an effort to cleanse the lands from undesirable people. The Carnegie Institution touted the work of Emperor Ghengis Khan and “validated his work as a “green emperor” due to the fact his actions included the murder of 40 million people. According to its writings, this helped lower carbon emissions and keep the planet cool.

Monists used their anti-humanist sentiment together with the völkisch ideas to discriminate against progress, urbanism and those who thought differently. On his Lebensgesetze (Laws of Life),biologist Raoul Francé, wrote that natural order determines social order. He said racial mixing was unnatural. He is up until today an acclaimed founder of contemporary eco-fascism for “pioneering the ecological movement.” (8) Francé also promoted an alleged connection between environmental purity and ‘racial’ purity. Francé and his disciples claimed that a change from peasant life to modernism would mean the degradation of the race and that the cities were diabolical and inorganic. (9)

By the early years of the twentieth century an ‘ecological’ argumentation, saturated with right-wing political content, had become somehow respected within the culture of Germany. During the turbulent period surrounding World War I, the mixture of ethnocentric fanaticism, regressive rejection of modernity and genuine environmental concern proved to be a very deadly mixture.

The Nazi Environmentalism in Action

Some people see it as a contradiction that modern eugenicists although still pushing for Nazi-style environmentalism also belong to the technocratic corporate elites. This is not a surprise because the elites that supported the Third Reich were also industrialists who, as it usually happens, controlled many segments of the population and the thinking classes. This practice has always born fruits because it guarantees complete control, no matter what the outcome is. Men like Fritz Todt, a heavy weight of the National Socialist movement in Germany as well as Albert Speer, his successor after 1942, were involved in the construction of infrastructure such as the Autobahn, one of the largest projects in the history of engineering in Germany. Todt wanted to build the Autobahn in a way that benefited his class the most, but that at the same time promoted and maintained certain sensitivity towards nature. (10)

“Todt demanded of the completed work of technology a harmony with nature and with the landscape, thereby fulfilling modern ecological principles of engineering as well as the ‘organological’ principles of his own era along with their roots in völkisch ideology.” (11) Just as it happened with Arndt, Riehl and Darré, Todt and his partners had an endless and inseparable bond to völkisch nationalism. Todt said once: “The fulfillment of mere transportation purposes is not the final aim of German highway construction. The German highway must be an expression of its surrounding landscape and an expression of the German essence.” (12) One of Todt’s aides, Alwin Seifert, was the Reich’s advocate for the Landscape. In discharging his official duties Seifert stressed the importance of wilderness and energetically opposed monoculture, wetlands drainage and chemical agriculture. He criticized Darré as too moderate, and “called for an agricultural revolution towards ‘a more peasant-like, natural, simple’ method of farming, ‘independent of capital’.” (13)

The prominent place that nature had within the Nazi Party helped enact the massive industrial and military advancement that enabled Hitler to bully the rest of Europe for a while. The most radical initiatives were created and carried out as they always received the seal of approval by the highest officers of the Nazi state. Another influential member of the Reich was Chancellor Rudolph Hess, who was the green wing’s strong point within the party. Hess’s power in the governmental institutions of the National Socialist regime as he was Hitler’s personal assistant. Many even consider him the Führer’s most trusted man.Hess became a member of the Nazi party in 1920 and rapidly made his way up to the top. He was the second man in the waiting list to take power if Hitler and/or Göring were unable to take on the duty. Any and all new laws that were approved by the government were had to go through Hess’ hands first, before being enacted.

In the photo: Adolf Hitler, Göring and behind him, Rudolph Hess.

In the early thirties, a complete series of laws and ordinances were passed under Hess’ sponsorship. One of those ordinances which closely hits home today is the the foundation of the nature preserves. But perhaps the most successful accomplishment of Nazi environmentalism in Germany was the Reichsnaturschutzgesetz. This nature protecting law established guidelines for safeguarding flora, fauna, and “natural monuments” and restricted commercial access to remaining tracts of wilderness. Similar policies have been written now under United Nations Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biodiversity. Just as it happens with these two documents, the Nazi required local officials to ask for permission to higher authorities before making any alterations in the countryside.Along with the Reichsnaturschutzgesetz, the most important contribution that the Nazis made to modern eugenics and false environmentalism was to integrate mainstream environmentalism into the Nazi enterprise.

Sustainable Development Today

Page 350 of the Global Biodiversity Assessment Report says that livestock such as cows, sheep, goats and horses are not sustainable. People and organizations that support sustainable development claim that animals humans should stop eating meat, because animals pollute the environment. The complete program of sustainability is based on an effort to change human behavior to states that ordinarily humans would not approve or enjoy. This changes in human behavior are mostly brought upon by instigating fear. Fear of global warming, climate change, natural disasters, wars, famine, droughts and so on.

What kinds of things does sustainable development actually want to do? Sustainability and changes in human behavior are not only related to environment, agriculture and pollution. It is a complete package of reforms that will ultimately change societal behavior at a global scale. It is common to find educational programs that sponsor and teach children how to prepare in order to live in a sustainable world. But when the tactics do not work successfully, the globalists in charge of the sustainable agenda, the foundations and organizations financially supported by globalist corporations resort to fear tactics.

Along with the educational systems, the sustainable agenda also acts directly in the economies, health care systems, farming, social and cultural affairs as well as public safety. In the last 50 years we have seen a run to create alliances between corporations and the government, which has resulted in the corporate controlled governmental systems or corporate fascism we all live under. On private property, new ordinances and laws continue to end the right to buy and maintain any kind of land without the auspices of the authorities. That is why property taxes are charged to property owners even though money was paid when the purchase of such land occurred. Under the guidelines of Agenda 21 and the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity, the largest masses of lands, namely national parks, natural reserves and conservation areas have been signed to the United Nations.

The obesity pandemic that ravages the planet up until today, brought upon by massive propaganda campaigns paid for by the food industry was the tool to bring along laws and directives that basically allow the government to tell people what they can eat or drink. In the United States, school principals and boards now do not allow parents to pack their children’s lunches and snacks. In the meantime, new regulations introduced through Codex Alimentarius ban the sale and use of natural supplements and the plantation of food crops in small and medium sized farms, while allowing big agricultural corporations to pollute the environment with genetically modified plants and animals. These kind of policies have caused the suicide of hundreds if not thousands of Indian farmers who have gotten in debt to purchase Monsanto’s genetically engineered pesticide ready corn and cotton seed. Since farmers signed their lives away to Monsanto, crop yields have been significantly lower, and the soils have been completely depleted of all nutrients.

In the social and cultural aspects, political correctness has been massively adopted and dissent is seen as a form of racism and terrorism. Immigration policies have gone from mildly protecting private property and the rights of the individual to sponsoring open borders, fake free-trade agreements that destroy industry and production in the west costing the jobs of millions of people across the continents. Religious criticism of homosexuality and other practices or ways of living is labeled as homophobic, while deep religious beliefs are seen as extremist. Mobility in urban areas has also been touched by the fake environmentalist policies first thought out by the Nazis. Oil speculation and price manipulation by the OPEC cartel makes the cost of transportation to rise exponentially. The same has happened with food prices. Car pooling as well as bus and train commuting is encouraged in order to reduce CO2 pollution, while the elites that beg for the end of industrialization live in lavish palaces and fly around the planet in their fuel-guzzling private jets and yachts.

When it comes to societal safety, the governments, also under policies of sustainable development continue to work on laws to step over the constitutions of the sovereign states they claim to represent and defend. Freedom of speech, freedom of movement and the rights to privacy are continuously violated with the establishment of a techno-military industrial complex that monitors everyone’s moves, financial records, behaviours, health, habits, politics, religious beliefs and so on, all in the name of security.

What is the ultimate goal of the current sustainable development policies? Population reduction. Sustainable Development is indeed a plan to be applied for the length of human existence. It is a plan created by someone else to apply it to you, your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The belief behind the supposed need to massively reduce the planet’s population is Thomas Malthus’ mistaken idea that population growth outpaces food availability. He thought overpopulation occurred due to reductions in mortality rates and that the world would be out of food by 1890. He then recommended to kill the poor, the old and the sick, and leave the rest to die of hunger. Malthus’ ideas were picked up more recently by Paul Earlich in 1968. Earlich said that irresponsible reproductive behavior would leave the planet with no food in the 1970’s. This imaginary crisis has proven false every time the globalists schedule another date for it to happen. Calculations of the Population Research Institute reveal that today the world’s population can live comfortably with enough food in an area the size of the American state of Texas.

The truth is that at the current natal rate, many countries in Europe and Asia are experiencing the problems related to an aging population which is not being properly replaced by new citizens. In North, Central and South America, governments struggle to support their traditional welfare systems due to the fact that more people are retiring and less people are contributing to the coffers of the central governments, social security and health care programs. Ironically, population growth will become stable naturally -that is it will stop growing and begin to decrease- once the sum of all humans gets to about 9 billion. Learn more about the science of population growth here.

Well, so what if there is enough land mass to leave? Is there enough food for everyone? If you are a believer of only ‘official’ information an statistics, it so happens that the very own United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation as well as the World Food Programme agree that there is currently enough food on the planet to feed everyone. The problem is, not everyone has access to food. Why? Several reasons. Price speculation, using food such as corn and sugar cane to produce inefficient fuels and of course artificially created food scarcity. Modern cultivation techniques would even allow to plant crops in the most arid areas of Africa. Many believe that the giant continent may be able to feed the whole world if such techniques are applied with due diligence. So, why are more people going hungry everyday? Simply put, poverty, conflict and poor agricultural infrastructure in countries where those hungry people live. War is one of the main causes of crop destruction. And who are the sponsors of war and conflict? The military industrial complex controlled by the same globalists who want us to be green and friendly to the environment. Reducing the number of people on the planet would not solve an overpopulation problem, if it existed. That is just another fear tactic used by the globalists who up until today perpetuate the Nazi dream. For a detailed explanation on how the United Nations hides its eugenics programme under supposed initiatives to promote reproductive health, end poverty and decrease the appearance of disease, watch the four-part report (Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4)

Sources for this article include:

(1) Raymond H. Dominick, The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871-1971

(2) Der Begriff des Volksgeistes in Ernst Moritz Arndts Geschichtsanschauung, Langensalza, 1914.

(3) Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, Feld und Wald, Stuttgart, 1857, p. 52.

(4) George Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich, New York.

(5) Lucy Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews 1933-1945, New York, 1975, pp. 61-62.

(6) Daniel Gasman, The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League, New York, 1971, p. xvii.

(7) Gasman’s thesis about the politics of Monism is hardly uncontroversial; the book’s central argument, however, is sound.

(8) See the foreword to the 1982 reprint of his 1923 book Die Entdeckung der Heimat, published by the far-right MUT Verlag.

(9) Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology, p. 101.

(10) Bramwell, Ecology in the 20th Century, p. 197.

(11) Karl-Heinz Ludwig, Technik und Ingenieure im Dritten Reich, Düsseldorf, 1974, p. 337.

(12) Quoted in Rolf Peter Sieferle, Fortschrittsfeinde? Opposition gegen Technik und Industrie von der Romantik bis zur Gegenwart, München, 1984, p. 220.

(13) Dominick, “The Nazis and the Nature Conservationists”, p. 529.

In U.S. Elderly Medicare Patients Get Less Attention

Washington Post

Want an appointment with kidney specialist Adam Weinstein of Easton, Md.? If you’re a senior covered by Medicare, the wait is eight weeks.

How about a checkup from geriatric specialist Michael Trahos? Expect to see him every six months: The Alexandria-based doctor has been limiting most of his Medicare patients to twice yearly rather than the quarterly checkups he considers ideal for the elderly. Still, at least he’ll see you. Top-ranked primary care doctor Linda Yau is one of three physicians with the District’s Foxhall Internists group who recently announced they will no longer be accepting Medicare patients.

“It’s not easy. But you realize you either do this or you don’t stay in business,” she said.

Doctors across the country describe similar decisions, complaining that they’ve been forced to shift away from Medicare toward higher-paying, privately insured or self-paying patients in response to years of penny-pinching by Congress.

And that’s not even taking into account a long-postponed rate-setting method that is on track to slash Medicare’s payment rates to doctors by 23 percent Dec. 1. Known as the Sustainable Growth Rate and adopted by Congress in 1997, it was intended to keep Medicare spending on doctors in line with the economy’s overall growth rate. But after the SGR formula led to a 4.8 percent cut in doctors’ pay rates in 2002, Congress has chosen to put off the ever steeper cuts called for by the formula ever since.

This month, the Senate passed its fourth stopgap fix this year – a one-month postponement that expires Jan. 1. The House is likely to follow suit when it reconvenes next week, and physicians have already been running print ads, passing out fliers to patients and flooding Capitol Hill with phone calls to convince Congress to suspend the 25 percent rate cut that the SGR method will require next year.

Such temporary reprieves have increased the potential pain down the road, compounding not only the eventual cut but the cost of doing away with it for good, now estimated in the tens of billions.

The lobbying blitz by doctors also comes amid concern in Washington that Medicare spending is spiraling up so fast the nation can’t afford to boost it further by significantly raising doctors’ pay. And government analysts and independent experts suggest that although doctors could not absorb a 25 percent fee cut, the claim that they have been inadequately compensated by Medicare until now is wildly exaggerated.

Among the top points of contention is the complaint by doctors that Medicare’s payment rate has not kept pace with the growing cost of running a medical practice. As measured by the government’s Medicare Economic Index, those expenses rose 18 percent from 2000 to 2008. During the same period, Medicare’s physician fees rose 5 percent.

“Physicians are having to make really gut-wrenching decisions about whether they can afford to see as many Medicare patients,” said Cecil Wilson, president of the American Medical Association.

But statistics also suggest many doctors have more than made up for the erosion in the value of their Medicare fees by dramatically increasing the volume of services they provide – performing not just a greater number of tests and procedures, but also more complex versions that allow them to charge Medicare more money.

From 2000 to 2008, the volume of services per Medicare patient rose 42 percent. Some of this was because of the increasing availability of sophisticated treatments that undoubtedly save lives. Some was because of doctors practicing “defensive medicine” – ordering every conceivable test to shield themselves from malpractice lawsuits down the line.

“Then you have doctors who order an MRI for an unremarkable headache or at the first sign of back pain,” said Robert Berenson, a Commissioner of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent congressional agency. “It’s pretty well documented that it doesn’t help patients to have those scans done in these cases. But if you have the machine in your office … why not?”

Whatever the cause, the explosion in the volume of services provided helps explain why Medicare’s total payments to doctors per patient rose 51 percent from 2000 to 2008.

A review of physicians’ incomes suggests that specialists – who have more opportunities to increase the volume of the services they offer than primary-care doctors – reaped most of the benefit.

On average, primary-care doctors make about $190,000 a year, kidney specialists $300,000, and radiologists close to $500,000, figures that reflect the income doctors receive from both Medicare and non-Medicare patients. The disparity has prompted concern that Medicare is contributing to a growing shortage of primary doctors.

Still, even if primary-care doctors had to rely exclusively on Medicare’s lower payment rates their incomes would only drop about 9 percent, according to a recent study co-authored by Berenson, who is also a fellow at the non-partisan Urban Institute.

“The argument that doctors literally can’t afford to feed their kids [if they take Medicare’s rates] is absurd,” said Berenson. “It’s just that doctors have gotten used to a certain income and lifestyle.”

Regardless of their motivation, if doctors skew their patient base away from Medicare too drastically seniors’ access to medical care could be limited.

Is that happening? Again, opinions vary. Based on its studies as well as those done by others others, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission has concluded the share of affected seniors has been small, and perhaps most significantly, lower than the share of privately insured patients ages 50 to 64 who also report access problems.

But the American Medical Association cites a recent online survey that it commissioned in which nearly one-third of primary-care doctors said they are currently restricting the number of Medicare patients in their practice.

For Michael Trahos, the geriatric specialist in Alexandria, that has meant spacing out routine visits by his Medicare patients such that their share of his weekly appointments has dropped from about half to less than one-third. Trahos said that if a Medicare patient has a serious condition, he will see the person more frequently. But Trahos said it makes him uneasy to push even apparently healthy elderly patients back to twice yearly visits.

“Is it the proper thing to do? Probably not,” he said. “These are patients who should be scheduled for proper maintenance every three months.”

Adam Weinstein, the kidney specialist in Easton, has taken to supplementing his three-doctor practice by doing medical IT consulting several hours a week. But although the pay is far greater than what he would receive seeing Medicare patients, who make up 70 percent of his practice, the side work means he has less time to serve them. Not only must Weinstein make them wait longer for an appointment, he said, he can no longer afford to answer their phone calls.

Read complete article…