A Philosopher's Blog

Shutting it Down

Posted in Business, Ethics, Medicine/Health, Philosophy, Politics by Michael LaBossiere on October 2, 2013
English: President Barack Obama's signature on...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Once again, the United States government has been shut down. As is to be expected, the politicians and pundits are engaging in the blame game. A key Republican talking point is that Obama and the Democrats are to blame because they would not compromise on the matter of Obamacare. If, say the Tea Party Republicans, Obama had been willing to defund or delay Obamacare, then they would not have been forced to do what they did.

The obvious counter to this is that Obamacare became a law via the proper constitutional process and hence this is no longer a compromise situation. It should also be noted that the proposed compromise is a rather odd one. It is as if the Republicans in question are saying: “here is our compromise: we get our way on Obamacare and, in return, we will not shut down the government.” That hardly seems like a reasonable compromise. To use an analogy, it would be like being in a bus heading to an event that was voted on by the people on the bus. Then some folks say that they do not like where the bus is going and one of them grabs the wheel. He then says “here is my compromise: we go where I want to go, or I’ll drive us into a tree.” That is hardly a compromise. Or even sane.

It could be argued that Obama and the Democrats should have done a better job in the past in terms of getting Republican buy-in on Obamacare. Or that the fact that the Republicans are a majority in the house shows that Americans want to be rid of Obamacare. These are not unreasonable points. However, they do not justify shutting down the government.

While I believe that Obamacare is chock full of problems and will have a variety of unpleasant consequences, I also believe in the importance of following the constitution. That is, I believe in the process of law. Obamacare went through that process and properly became a law. As such, there do not seem to be any grounds for claiming that it should be stopped because it is somehow an improperly passed law.

There have been claims that Obamacare is unconstitutional. There are some merits to these claims, but the matter was properly settled by the Supreme Court. Presumably the matter could be reconsidered at a later date, but the constitutional process has been properly followed. As such, the rhetorical points that Obamacare is unconstitutional lack merit. However, even if there was new and most excellent legal argument for this claim, this would not warrant shutting down the government to block the law. It would warrant having the Supreme Court consider the argument. That is proper procedure—that is how a system of government should operate. Using the threat of a shutdown against a law is certainly not how things should be done. That is essentially attempting to “govern” by threats, coercion and blackmail.

To use an analogy, imagine a night baseball game in which one side is losing. That side has argued every call repeatedly and used all the rules of the game to try to not lose. But it is still losing. So the coach of the losing team says that his team will turn out the lights, take all the balls, rip up the bases, and throw away the bats unless the other team “compromises” and gives them all the points they want. That would obviously be absurd. Likewise for the Tea Party Republican shut down.

A possible approach to warranting the shutdown is based on the idea of popular democracy. Some have argued that Obamacare is unpopular with most Americans. While this seems true, it also is true that most Americans do not seem to have enough of an understanding of Obamacare to have a rational opinion and much of the alleged dislike seems to stem from how the questions are asked. Interestingly, many people seem to really like things like the fact that people cannot be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions and that children can stay on their parents’ insurance until they are 26.

Since this is supposed to be something of a democracy, considering the will of the people (however confused and ill-informed the people might be) seems reasonable. However, this would need to be a consistent principle. That is, if the Tea Party Republicans say that they are warranted in shutting down the government because a majority of Americans are opposed to Obamacare, then they would need to accept that the same principle applies in the case of other laws as well. So, if most Americans believe that X should be a law or that X should not be a law, then that is what must be done—and if it is not done, the government must be shut down. Given the overwhelming support for certain gun control laws that congress refused to pass, if this principle is accepted then these laws must pass—or the government must be shut down.

However, the Tea Party Republicans are clearly not operating on a principle here, unless it is the principle of “we’ll shut down the government if we don’t get what we want”—but that is hardly a reasonable or democratic principle.

Another plausible approach to countering this is to argue that a shutdown can be justified on the grounds that a legitimately passed, Supreme Court tested law is so bad that action must be taken. While this could not be warranted on constitutional grounds, it could be justified on moral grounds, most likely utilitarian grounds. The idea would be that the consequences of allowing the law to go into effect would be so dire that the consequences of shutting down the government are offset by the achievement of a greater good. Or, rather, the prevention of a greater bad.

Interestingly, this could be seen as a variation on civil disobedience. But, rather than have citizens breaking an unjust law to get arrested, there are lawmakers breaking the government—or at least the parts that don’t pay their salary.

Since I find Thoreau’s arguments in favor of such civil disobedience appealing, I have considerable sympathy for lawmakers deciding to serve the state with their consciences. However, what needs to be shown is that the law is so unjust that it warrants such a serious act of civil disobedience.

Ted Cruz and other Tea Party Republicans have made various dire claims about Obamacare—it will result in people being fired, it will cause employers to cut hours so that workers become part-time workers, and so on. Cruz even brought out a comparison to the Nazis, which did not go over well with the Republican senator John McCain. Interestingly, Cruz and others have attributed backwards causation powers to Obamacare: the stock talking points well before Obamacare went into effect included claims that Americans were already suffering under Obamacare—despite the fact that it was not in effect.

When pressed on the damage that Obamacare will do, the Tea Party Republicans tend to be rather vague—they throw out claims about how it will come between a patient and her doctor and so on. However, they never got around to presenting an obective coherent, supported case regarding the likely harms of Obamacare. This is hardly surprising. As a general rule, if someone busts out a Nazi analogy, then this is a fairly reliable sign that they have nothing substantial to say. This is, I think, unfortunate and unnecessary: Obamacare no doubt has plenty of problems and if it is as bad as the Tea Party Republicans claim, they should have been able to present a clear list without having to resort to rhetoric, scare tactic, hyperbole and Nazi analogies. So, I ask for such a clear case for the harms of Obamacare.

As a final point, Obama has made the reasonable point that he has been asking the Republicans for their input and their alternative plan for health care for quite some time. Some Republicans have advocated the emergency room, which I wrote about earlier, but their main offering seems to be purely negative: get rid of Obamacare. In terms of a positive alternative, they seem to have nothing. But, I am a fair person and merely ask for at least an outline of their alternative plan.


My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Enhanced by Zemanta

36 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. T. J. Babson said, on October 2, 2013 at 9:01 am

    There you go again with the Nazi stuff. Can you supply a quote in which Cruz compares anything to the Nazis?

    • WTP said, on October 2, 2013 at 9:27 am

      Why? Mike has no problem comparing the Tea Party to murderous Bolsheviks. And in a far more direct manner. You’re asking a leopard to change his spots.

      • T. J. Babson said, on October 2, 2013 at 10:47 am

        For at least a year now we have heard report after report that the Tea Party was dead. Yet suddenly it is being blamed for the government shutdown. Hmm.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 2, 2013 at 2:02 pm

          The Tea Party is still going. They were instrumental in the Republicans taking the House.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 2, 2013 at 2:00 pm


      McCain took issue with Cruz’s comparing those who think Obamacare will not be defunded to Nazis.

      “If you go to the 1940s, Nazi Germany,” Cruz said Tuesday. “Look, we saw in Britain, Neville Chamberlain, who told the British people, ‘Accept the Nazis. Yes, they’ll dominate the continent of Europe but that’s not our problem. Let’s appease them. Why? Because it can’t be done. We can’t possibly stand against them.’”

      McCain didn’t mince words in his response.

      “I resoundingly reject that allegation,” he said on the Senate floor. “That allegation in my view does a great disservice, a great disservice for those brave Americans and those who stood up and said what’s happening in Europe cannot stand.”

      • WTP said, on October 2, 2013 at 2:17 pm

        Your quote is NOT Cruz comparing anyone to Nazis. He’s talking about appeasement as a failed strategy, using Chamberlain as an informative example. He is comparing Chamberlain to the GOP moderates. I suppose you could argue it’s a subtle difference. But if the argument was to your favor, you’d make a big deal about the difference being significant. Anyone who compares the Tea Party to the murderous Bolsheviks has no standing in such an argument. You sir, have no shame. You sir, are a sophist.

      • T. J. Babson said, on October 2, 2013 at 2:37 pm

        So where does Cruz compare anything or anyone to the Nazis?

        Is comparing someone to Neville Chamberlain really the same as comparing someone to the Nazis? Really?

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 3, 2013 at 11:31 am

          Well, let us break this down:

          “If you go to the 1940s Nazi Germany. Look, we saw in Britain, Neville Chamberlain, who told the British people, ‘Accept the Nazis. Yes, they’ll dominate the continent of Europe, but that’s not our problem. Let’s appease them. Why? Because it can’t be done. We can’t possibly stand against them.’”

          In this analogy, Obamacare seems to clearly be Nazi Germany. Those who apparently claim that Obamacare cannot or should not be opposed are being compared to the appeasers. You can’t have a Nazi appeasement analogy without something occupying the Nazi slot. In this analogy, Obamacare is in that slot.

          • T. J. Babson said, on October 3, 2013 at 3:49 pm

            Mike, do I really need to explain to you how historical analogies work? For example, if I were to say “Afghanistan is another Vietnam,” this does not mean I am comparing George Bush to JFK or Hamid Karzai to Nguyen Van Thieu, even implicitly.

            I’m frankly shocked at the lengths you will go to avoid admitting you were wrong about Cruz because you were misled by biased media reports.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 4, 2013 at 9:58 am

              I’ve taught analogies for decades. I know how they work. Cruz’s analogy compares Obamacare to Nazi Germany-that is clear from his wording.

              How do you analyze the analogy? If he is comparing folks who say to let Obamacare through to Nazi appeasers, then what is Obamacare being compared to? The obvious inference that it would be the Nazis.

  2. magus71 said, on October 2, 2013 at 9:18 am

    Prediction: The government shutdown will result in zero deaths. No one will starve. In fact, almost no negative events will take place. I submit that if the entire food stamp program disappeared tomorrow, no one would starve. Yes, zero people in the US would starve without food stamps.

    The commissary here on Fort Drum is shut down as a result of the government shutdown; yesterday was the last day it was open until the Fed opens up again. People of course flooded the commissary as if the end of civilization had arrived. My wife went to buy steaks there and there were none. She got momentarily upset until I reminded her that Fort Drum is surrounded my supermarkets and has a Super Wal Mart. Since her lane is shopping for the family (I hate going to malls and stores, except for the local gas station/store–quick and easy), I understood why she was upset. Mostly because the shopping is done in a fairly uniform manner and at the commissary she knows where things are and how much they will cost. So I reminded her that in the grand scheme of things it meant little. She went to Wal Mart.

    I also told her that I’m not buying into the use of the stories about how military families have to go to more expensive places to buy food, now. Several of those stories have already made the news. Propaganda to scare people.

  3. T. J. Babson said, on October 2, 2013 at 10:56 am

    In baseball, I always tell my boys it is better to go down swinging than to be called out on strikes. I think that is what is happening here. The Republicans may lose this battle, but they will gain the respect of the public for actually fighting to avert what they see as a looming disaster.

    • WTP said, on October 2, 2013 at 11:47 am

      Yes, under current conditions. But if we had an honest umpire (and crew) it wouldn’t hurt to force the pitcher to find the damn plate.

      • T. J. Babson said, on October 2, 2013 at 12:15 pm

        That’s the other lesson baseball teaches: life isn’t always fair, but you have to keep on fighting even if the umpire seems biased against you.

        • WTP said, on October 2, 2013 at 12:23 pm

          Exactly. You need to have tactics that fit the situation. Just my subtle hint that while it sounds and feels good to go down swinging, forcing the pitcher to find the plate is a good strategy. I’ve seen it work quite well in baseball. Frustrates the hell out of me to watch eager batters swing at crap. A walk is as good as a hit in my book. And if the catcher sucks too, a walk’s as good as a double. It’s similar to the “never up, never in” putting fallacy. Better to have a short second putt than a long one. But again, based on the situation, conditions, etc.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 2, 2013 at 2:04 pm

      I think that shutting down the government will earn them points with some of their existing supporters, but most Americans seem to be against this. I’m all for heroic stands against impossible odds, but there is nothing heroic about what they are doing here. Now, if they gave up their salaries as well and refused to accept any lobbying gifts/support during this time, then they would be moving a bit towards sort of being like in the vicinity of what might be called somewhat heroic.

  4. ajmacdonaldjr said, on October 2, 2013 at 12:34 pm

    The US Constitution is a dead letter. Look up the term “dead letter”, because that’s what the US Constitution is, and that’s what the US Constitution has been for many, many, many years. Power politics, political optics, style points, and political theater is all the Washington politicos are interested in, which have nothing whatsoever to do with law, democracy, or anything else you’re (unfortunately) wasting your time writing about. 😛

  5. WTP said, on October 2, 2013 at 3:01 pm

    These people have no shame:

    According to the memorial’s website, “National World War II Memorial was funded almost entirely by private contributions, as specified in Public Law 103-32. The campaign received more than $197 million in cash and pledges. Support came from hundreds of thousands of individual Americans, hundreds of corporations and foundations, veterans groups, dozens of civic, fraternal and professional organizations, states and one territory, and students in 1,200 schools across the country.”

    “I know that this is an open-air memorial, but we have people on staff who are CPR trained, (and) we want to make sure that we have maintenance crew to take care of any problems. What we’re trying to do is protect this resource for future generations,” National Mall and Memorial Parks spokeswoman Carol Johnson told CNN.

    Yes, because the men who stormed the beaches at Normandy and Anzio, flew unescorted bombing raids over Nazi Germany, survived Bataan, Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, and Okinawa should be afraid to visit the memorial that THEY THEMSELVES paid for because there might not be a well maintained defibrillator near by. Hell, a good number of them probably have DNR orders.

  6. Patrick Sperry said, on October 2, 2013 at 8:47 pm

    Hmm… Follow the Constitution, I get it Professor. Sell something as not being a tax increase. In part because all tax issues need to begin in the House. Then later, have it declared as being Constitutional because it is a tax increase. So, it got Constitutional by not being Constitutional…

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 3, 2013 at 11:35 am

      I do agree that was some semantic treachery (not to be confused with kung fu treachery). Selling it as not being a tax, then saying “well, yeah, it is a tax” is deceitful. However, the Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional as a tax. The law did not actually changed-just the rhetoric.

      The rhetorical smoke and mirrors is distinct from the substance of the law-the Supreme Court doesn’t make rulings on the rhetoric used to sell laws, they rule on the actual laws.

      Now, one might contend that the law is still unconstitutional and we have a process for handling that-the supreme court. Shutting down the government is not a process for determining the constitutionality of a law.

      • Patrick Sperry said, on October 3, 2013 at 1:32 pm

        True enough, however, I would submit that when something is “sold” to the American public as one thing, and later it is determined by whatever means, it is something quite different? Then undo the mistake by any means necessary. Defunding it seems to be perfectly in line with the founders idea of Congress, in this case the wishes of the people, is the very process of redress that is called for. Besides, this so-called shut down really isn’t a shutdown. Sure, my better half is getting some unpaid time off. But we can easily weather this minor storm. Various talking points and rhetoric notwithstanding.

  7. magus71 said, on October 3, 2013 at 4:48 am

    “However, the Tea Party Republicans are clearly not operating on a principle here, unless it is the principle of “we’ll shut down the government if we don’t get what we want”—but that is hardly a reasonable or democratic principle.”

    Why does this argument not apply to the Democrats? After all, they could give in, just like Mike wants the Republicans to, and stop the shut down.

    • T. J. Babson said, on October 3, 2013 at 7:29 am

      Obama says that Congress is not doing its job, but negotiating with Congress is Obama’s job. Obama is the one dropping the ball here.

      • WTP said, on October 3, 2013 at 8:53 am

        I’m amused by the “spoiled child” meme. Listen to conservatives and they say Obama is behaving like a spoiled child. Listen to leftists and they say congress is behaving like a spoiled child. Finger pointing instead of discussing the issues. If you can’t argue what someone’s fundamental point is, scream about how they make it and the masses will chime in high dudgeon. And they are all, right and left, “educated” people.

      • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 3, 2013 at 11:50 am

        So, if teacher tries to teach a student and the student refuses to pay attention, take notes, or study, then the teacher is dropping the ball?

        Also, the idea that there is something to negotiate here is a deception: the law is passed. The process for changing the law is through the legislative process which is well defined. Holding the government hostage is not a proper strategy here and one should not, of course, negotiate in the face of such threats.

        As always, I’ll leave my post up here-if the Democrats ever use this tactic, I will take the exact same position. That way when the Democrats are being bashed by the Republicans, you can see that my position is a consistent one.

        • WTP said, on October 3, 2013 at 1:21 pm

          So, if teacher tries to teach a student and the student refuses to pay attention, take notes, or study, then the teacher is dropping the ball?
          This is so arrogant. Obama is the “teacher” and congress is the “student”? This analogy is absurd. They are equal branches of government. And if Obama is all hot for his own law, why does he keep granting exemptions? More BS sophistry. Is the congress acting in a way that is unconstitutional? This is nothing new in US history, “teacher”. The House has submitted bills to fund specifics. Nothing is stopping the Dems in the Senate or veto-boy Obambi from passing those bills to keep those aspects of government running and dealing with the other issues on an as-needed basis.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 3, 2013 at 11:46 am

      It would, if the Democrats were threatening to shut down the government to get their way.

      Here is this difference: Obamacare is a properly passed law that was ruled to be constitutional by the supreme court. That is, it has gone through the proper process of government. The Republicans found that they cannot undo the law through the proper processes, so they are engaging in coercion: give us what we cannot get via the legislative process or we will take down the government.

      To use an analogy, consider my bus example:

      A bunch of people get together to go on a trip by bus. People agree to abide by the will of the majority and to accept the process of decision making. People vote on where to go and a destination wins. Then, some folks on the bus decide that they do not like where the bus is going, so they grab the wheel and yell “give in to out demand or we will drive into a tree!” Sure, the people on the bus could just give in to the threat, but it makes far more sense to claim that the folks who grabbed the wheel should not drive the bus into a tree.

      By nature, I’m a lawful sort-I’m all about proper process and abiding by the results of the legitimate process. Being good, I’m also fine with criticizing wicked processes. However, the passing of Obamacare was not an act of wickedness and although the law has problems, it does not warrant shutting down parts of the government and damaging America.

      My view is that this shutdown is hurting America-damaging our economy, putting people out of work, damaging our international status, and degrading our moral capital in regards to being the harbinger of democracy. While Obamacare will cause problems, this shut down is going to do more damage if it persists.

      Oddly, two of the talking points being presented are 1) the shutdown is the Democrats’ fault and it is really bad and 2) the shutdown is not that bad…and might even be a good thing. Obviously, both of these cannot be true.

      • WTP said, on October 3, 2013 at 1:22 pm

        It would, if the Democrats were threatening to shut down the government to get their way.

        See above. The Dems are the ones making this an all-or-nothing situation.

  8. T. J. Babson said, on October 3, 2013 at 8:58 am

    Priceless comment from the Instapundit:

    “Hell, it’s just over three weeks ago they were still telling us that it was absolutely essential we bomb Syria right away.”

  9. […] Shutting it Down (aphilosopher.wordpress.com) […]

  10. sebastian888 said, on October 25, 2013 at 1:00 pm


    ” FACTSHEET: Obamacare Will Kill You · How Obama Got The Mustache
    October 24, 2013 • 10:58AM

    The United States was suffering from a crisis in health care when President Barack Obama came into office. As a result of the deindustrialization of the U.S. economy, the privatization of health care into profit-making ventures, and deregulation, both the health care system and the health of the American population was rapidly deteriorating.
    Obama’s health care program, however, has made the situation much worse. If allowed to continue, it will turn the U.S. government into the enforcer of a worse-than-Hitler genocide machine.
    Download PDF


    1) ” TONY BLAIR T4 HEALTH CARE. In Britain, on April 1, 1999, the first initiative was taken by the Tony Blair government (1997-2007) in the name of health care “reform,” to institute an updated version of the Hitler T4 program: the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) was formed, to dictate what treatments would, and would not, be given to designated groups of patients in the British National Health Services (NHS), which had served the nation since the 1940s.
    Blair’s health adviser to set up NICE, Simon Stevens, then moved to takedown the NHS system, by privatizing key functions, in particular through the private insurer UnitedHealth Group UK, which Stevens joined.
    The record shows how the death rate has climbed for whole classes of Britons, especially the elderly and cancer patients, as a result of both NICE barring treatments, and the NHS being dismantled. For example, as of 10 years after NICE went into effect, only 40 to 48% of British men diagnosed with cancer survived, and 48 to 54% of British women; in stark contrast to Sweden, for example, where 60% of men and 61% of women survived after a cancer diagnosis.
    A particular program to speed up death was put into effect called the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient (LCP). According to extensive exposes in the British press, over the 2000s, participating NHS hospitals were offered financial inducements to put patients deemed as at the end-of-life, on the LPC list, under which all treatment is discontinued, and even water and hygiene removed. The LCP started originally for cancer patients in Liverpool in the 1990s, with royal patronage; by 2012, it involved 178 NHS hospitals throughout Britain, and involved patients with any illness. On average, 130,000 persons a year were put under LCP, under the claim of saving medical resources, which as of 2012, had rewarded hospitals with at least $40 millions. An estimated 60,000 on LPC died yearly, without having given their consent to discontinue care. After storms of protest, the U.K. government in July 2013, ordered the LCP to be phased out over the next 12 months. ” http://larouchepac.com/files/20131022-obamacare-health-factsheet_0.pdf

    THE FAMILY OF TONY BLAIR HAS FRIENDSHIPS WITH THE FAMILY OF JACOB ROTHSCHILD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Rothschild,_4th_Baron_Rothschild
    “Tony Blair. Illegitimate Son Of Jacob Rothschild….Evidence”
    TONY BLAIR IS ALSO A FRIEND OF EVELYN DE ROTHSCHILD AND OF HIS WIFE . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Robert_de_Rothschild
    http://landdestroyer.blogspot.de/2012/05/protester-calls-tony-blair-war-criminal.html http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/celebritymoney/article-2167655/Former-PM-Tony-Blair-alleged-earned-80million-2007.html

    2) ” Sir Donald M. Berwick, knighted by Queen Elizabeth, for his work on NICE and “reforming” the British National Health Service, to cut out excessive lives, was given a recess appointment by Obama on July 7, 2010, to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). As such, he was responsible for initiating T4 policies in programs affecting 49 million older Americans in Medicare, and 48 million poor, disabled and dependent, in Medicaid. He stayed in office as long as his recess-appointment tenure would allow, leaving in December 2011, to avoid the scrutiny that would ensue in the Senate from a proper nomination to CMS head.
    While in office, he moved to strike certain cancer drugs from approved Medicare reimbursement; to set up ways to financial penalize hospitals for “over-treating” patients; and limit physicians by financial penalties and pushing top-down “evidence-based” medical practice dictates. He was followed in office by Marilyn Tavenner, a technocrat for Obamacare, with a pedigree as top executive at HCA, the mega for-profit hospital chain, benefitting from the takedown of the traditional community hospital system. ” http://larouchepac.com/files/20131022-obamacare-health-factsheet_0.pdf

    ” Lord Jacob Rothschild, the behind-the-scenes controller of the Inter-Alpha Group, was a partner at Rothschild at the time he set up the Inter-Alpha Group in 1971, using its resources and then leaving in 1980 to continue his special mission, which includes advising the genocidal British Crown and managing the funds of Prince Charles’ Duchy of Cornwall, to finance his kooky, “green” schemes.”
    ” Prince Charles already played polo with Evelyn de Rothschild in his student years and later set up the Interfaith consultations with him. ”
    Evelyn de Rothschild ” In 1989, he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II,[2] for whom he serves as a financial adviser. ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Robert_de_Rothschild
    But the Royal Bank of Scotland, that is a bank controlled by the British Royal Family, is also connected with the Edmond De Rothschild.
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-charles-dumps-rbs-boss-372885 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/laura-scolan/a/ba1/7b7 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mark-phillips/4/5b9/772
    ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_de_Rothschild ) http://www.lejdd.fr/Economie/Images/Les-plus-grosses-fortunes-de-France/Benjamin-de-Rothschild-206941
    THE SAME obama IS A PUPPET OF THE BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13489879

    3) ” It is no surprise that the winners in the Obamacare game are from Wall Street’s big insurers. This is inherent in the fascist (corporatist) nature of the plan, which unites the health insurance cartels with the government, in a drive to cut back health care for the “useless eaters” in the population.
    Robert Lenzner of Forbes reported Oct. 1 that the “value of the S&P health insurance index gained 43%” this year alone. CIGNA is up 63%; Wellpoint 47%; and United Healthcare 28%. Since the passage of Obamacare in 2010, the stock values of these big firms have risen 200-300%!
    United Healthcare, the largest insurer, with about 70 million insured, reported last summer that they had a particularly strong past year, with net income of $5.1 billion, up by 11% from the previous year; similarly for the others — even before the bonanza to result from the corporatist plan to force every American to buy their inflated products, beginning on October 1.
    United Healthcare, it should be recalled, has as a top executive Simon Stevens, who was Tony Blair’s health policy advisor and the architect of NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) in 1999, the “reform” of the British National Health Service which imposed triage and genocide on the British people through selective denial of cancer drugs, surgeries, kidney dialysis, and other treatments. This was the model for the IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board), which is now the law of the land under Obamacare. Genocide can be profitable. ” http://larouchepac.com/node/28409
    ( Obamacare Genocide in Action: What is Already Underway http://larouchepac.com/node/28608 )

    “UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is a diversified managed health care company headquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota, U.S. It is No. 17 on Fortune magazines top 500 companies in the United States.[5] UnitedHealth Group offers a spectrum of products and services through two operating businesses: UnitedHealthcare and Optum. Through its family of subsidiaries and divisions, UnitedHealth Group serves approximately 70 million individuals nationwide. ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnitedHealth_Group
    ” Abigail Pierrepont (Abby) Johnson[4] (born December 19, 1961) is an American businesswoman. Johnson is President of Fidelity Investments Personal and Workplace Investing. Fidelity was founded by her grandfather Edward C. Johnson II and her father Edward C. (Ned) Johnson III is its current CEO. As of March 2013 The Johnson family owns a 49% stake in the company.[3]
    She had a brief stint as a consultant at Booz Allen & Hamilton from 1985–86, completed an MBA at Harvard, and joined Fidelity Investments ”
    Arthur Johnson, an Independent Trustee of Fidelity, is also a director of Booz Allen & Hamilton. http://www.boozallen.com/media-center/press-releases/48399320/49502902
    BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON IS LINKED WITH CARLYLE, BLACKSTONE AND DEUTSCHE BANK. http://transmissionsmedia.com/the-911-illusion-part-ii-deutsche-bank-blackstone/
    “In 2008 Carlyle Group bought a majority stake in Booz Allen for $2.54 billion.”
    ” Carlyle is the 11th largest defense contractor in the US. It is 20%-owned by Mellon Bank (http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Mellon_family) and is controlled by the powerful Blackstone Group (seeOverthrow of the American Republic), which dined cheaply on the carcasses of looted S&L’s at auctions held by Bush Sr.’s Resolution Trust Corporation. ”
    http://www.almartinraw.com/uri1.html http://transmissionsmedia.com/the-911-illusion-part-ii-deutsche-bank-blackstone/
    ” Henry Kissinger’s good friend Lord JACOB ROTHSCHILD sat on Bioport owner Blackstone’s International Advisory Board. (See Corexit Linked to the Blackstone Group and Lord Jacob Rothschild) ”
    http://transmissionsmedia.com/the-911-illusion-part-ii-deutsche-bank-blackstone/ http://beforeitsnews.com/gulf-oil-spill/2010/06/corexit-linked-to-the-blackstone-group-and-lord-jacob-rothschild-76363.html
    ” Blackstone was founded in 1985 as a mergers and acquisitions boutique by Peter G. Peterson and Stephen A. Schwarzman, who had previously worked together at Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc. ”
    Peter G. Peterson ” is founding Chairman of the Peterson Institute for International Economics ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_George_Peterson http://larouchepac.com/node/28610
    Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the wife of EVELYN DE ROTHSCHILD, is a director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. http://www.petersoninstitute.org/institute/board.cfm
    Blackstone is also related with the LCF EDMOND DE ROTHSCHILD, for example, through the person of Daniel Costa Lindo that is a M&A Analyst at Blackstone and was Private Equity Analyst at LCF Edmond de Rothschild. http://www.linkedin.com/pub/daniel-costa-lindo/32/255/543 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_de_Rothschild https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_de_Rothschild
    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=CI http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=WLP

    ” Pennsylvania Doctor Releases Statement Against “Murderous Obamacare”
    October 24, 2013 • 11:57AM

    Statement released by Mark Shelley, M.D., D.A.B.F.P. 1 Willow St., Port Allegany PA
    For more information: (267)218-5655 stevekomm@gmail.com


    As a physician and an American, I feel compelled at this time of peril, to address the changes that I see in the process of the actual delivery of health care to the American people.
    From my perspective as a general practitioner of medicine, and from my concern as a citizen for my fellow man, I must speak out to explain the dangers that I see in the implementation of American health care today, as exemplified by Obamacare.
    What I see being done today is chillingly consistent with the findings and warnings of Dr. Leo Alexander, the chief consultant to the U.S. prosecutors at the Nuremberg War crimes Tribunal after World War II. In his famous article entitled, “Medical Science Under Dictatorship,” that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine on July 14, 1949, Dr. Alexander made clear what happens to medicine when it, “becomes subordinated to the guiding philosophy of a dictatorship.”

    That dictatorship today is money.

    Medicine and economics are joined at the hip. But, in real economics, economic considerations, and monetary considerations are not identical. The problem today, is that monetary considerations take priority over all else. The fact that health care is considered synonymous with acquisition of health insurance today, is indicative of this monetary/health care problem.
    Nor is this a government versus private sector problem. Nor is it a Republican versus Democratic Party question. We just suffered a 16-day government shutdown, that almost precipitated financial Armegeddon, courtesy of President Obama, and the Democratic and Republican Party leadership.
    At the same time, USA Today of Oct. 22 reported that the top ten CEOs of the United States made $5.7 billion last year, even as we are at the verge of a financial blow-out, that will dwarf the one of 2008-2009. This is financial madness.
    Are we to dismantle our health care system, based upon the recommendations of these mismanagers and people whose programs for theft would make Jesse James blush?
    To remedy this crisis, we must undertake three important initiatives:

    1. SEPARATE THE PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLE OF MEDICINE FROM A DISEASED ECONOMIC SYSTEM. Restore the essence of the Hippocratic Oath as the philosophical center of the medical professions. The practice of medicine is meant to serve the development of people, not Wall Street financial conglomerates, and “population reduction” agendas.

    As Hippocrates said, “It is the duty of the physician, not only to do that which immediately belongs to him, but likewise to secure the cooperation of the sick, of those who are in attendance, and of all the external agents.”

    2. RESTORE THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT OF 1933. The same Wall Street debt bubble which is crushing the Federal government is crushing the medical profession, as well as the rest of the economy. The only way to liberate ourselves from its destructive effects, is to restore the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Its repeal in 1999 opened the door to the growth of the biggest financial bubble in history. We must separate commercial banking from investment banking, and let Wall Street sink under the weight of its own bad investments.

    No more bailouts, or bail-ins, for Wall Street.

    3. IMPEACH PRESIDENT OBAMA. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he is incapable of performing the job for which we hired him. Multiple legal authorities have already assembled articles for impeachment. This man has failed you, and will allow you to die, with his inept and undeniably lethal policies that masquerade as “health care reform.”

    It is time for the American people and their medical community to wake up, before it is too late.
    See Dr. Shelley’s presentation :“The Commoditization of the U.S. Health-care System” at the Schiller Institute “New Paradigm” conference in New York. ” http://larouchepac.com/node/28640

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: