By Matthew Ehret-Kump
In April 2009, the LaRouche Political Action Com-mittee, a PAC known to represent Democratic candi-dates for Congressional office, targeted the Health
Care legislation of Barak Obama as a “Nazi uselesseater program”. A Hitler moustache on Obama’s up-
per lip became famous soon thereafter, and a scandalunprecedented in American history, broke out. Whilemany a right wing reactionary jumped on the band-wagon accusing the Obama administration of
“socialism”, anyone studying the LaRouchePAC lit-
erature would find something much different behindthe evaluation of this Nazi resurgence with a
The core of the LarouchePAC evaluation was not to
be found in the “state directed” universal health care
proposal so adamantly attacked by right wing simple-tons, a measure Lyndon LaRouche had in fact sup-ported for decades
It was to be found, however, inthe swarm of economic behaviorists that had entered
into the White House as Obama’s cabinet and inner
circle of advisors. This click of ideologues repre-sented by such famous characters as Cass Sunstein,Larry Summers, Daniel Ariely, Ezekiel Emmanuel
and Peter Orszag had made the focus of Obama’s presidency not one of “universalizing healthcare”, butrather “balancing the budget” in tackling the looming“baby boomer time
bomb”. Peter Orszag claimed that
over one trillion dollars could be saved, while the 50million uncovered Americans would receive access tocare.
The thinking citizen would ask; “if more people shall
receive coverage after a reform, then how will signifi-
cantly less money be spent?” How could such a para-
dox be overcome? The dark resolution to this paradoxwould be apparent in the policy guideline that had
been summarized in Emmanuel’s 2008 “Principles of Allocation of Finite Medical Resources”
where theobligation to eliminate lives that were not worthy tobe lived was sketched out in blood curling terms. Themeans to achieve this cost saving effect would in-volve the application of theBritish National Institute forClinical Excellence (NICE)system of Tony Blair fame.With NICE, a quality ad- justed life year (QALY)model
would be intro-duced as a universal stan-dard of value to determinewhich citizen would receive
“expensive medical treat-ment” and which would be
only given morphine dropsor palliative care, based
upon “cost effective” con-
siderations.The regulator of this QALY
system could not be trusted to those “selfish” doctors
who were inclined to thoughtlessly provide whatevermedical treatment they thought fit to their patientswithout consideration for monetary values. To try togain public support against the doctors, multiple ref-erences had been made by Obama and his behaviour-
ist hive regarding the “selfish” tendency of doctors to
provide unnecessary treatment simply in order to getmoney from insurance companies. The enforcer of such a program could only be an anonymous board of
“experts” outside of the control of Congress or the
Constitution. The name of this group would be theIndependent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), andwould be the pivot of the whole reform. This was also
known euphemistically as the “death panels” by accu-
sators who sadly often knew very little about theirsubject. Today, a similar reform is silently underwayin Canada.
(3) Quality Adjusted Life Year
(QALY) is the model choice of the NICE to determine thedollar value for human lives. Categorization of the population into age, lifestyle, andhealth risks produce a statistical analysis of a human quality of life. Life year values aredifferent for people based upon which categories they fall under.
Tony Blair’s NICE reforms
would go on to serve as themodel for Obamacare
The Disease in the Healthcare SystemMust be Removed.
Is Canada turning into a fascist meat grinder?