from NY to Israel Sultan Reveals
The Stories Behind the News

Obama's Health Care Euthanasia Plan for Senior Voters

Posted: 14 Oct 2009 07:35 PM PDT

What happens when a politician takes a look at the demographics and realizes
that he has a serious problem with one particular group? In this case the
politician is Barack Hussein Obama, and the problematic demographic are
senior citizens.

Obama's
strongest base of support was among voters age 18 to 29, which is a fancy
way of saying voters who didn't have enough experience with lying
politicians to know better and were easily awed by stadium rallies, social
media and stylized posters. Over 30 it was already a dead heat, and over
50 the voters trended McCain's way. And 2008 only worked because of a
large youth vote turnout, a demographic that traditionally doesn't do big
voter turnouts. To win in 2012, Obama must either maintain that level of
youth turnout or somehow reduce the voter turnout by senior citizens. A
tricky problem either way, one that nationalized health care is meant to
solve.

In the past politicians have tried segregation,
redistricting and voter suppression as solutions... but none of those are
enough at a national level. Nationalized health care however can
effectively kill two birds with one stone, by getting rid of some of the
elderly, and giving youth voters a new shiny toy that only works so long
as they don't use it. And of course giving back to Obama's core
demographic of corrupt unions, in this case the corrupt Marxist thugs of
SEIU.

Now most people living in countries with national health care
plans like having them... so long as they don't actually have to use them
very much. Nationalized health care works best as a safety net for those
who need the occasional doctor's visit or treatment for a broken leg after
an accident. The more services they need however, the worse their
experience becomes. And the largest and heaviest users of health care
services are usually the elderly.

Health care rationing, by both
private and government plans, depends on providing a base of basic
services to the most people, while trying to ration the more expensive
services needed for patients with more serious health conditions. It's
easy enough to pay for the occasional dentist's visit, mammogram or to set
a broken leg... and it's even profitable, because both business and
government have a financial interest in healthy workers. The government
however has much less interest in the health of seniors when it
begins to require spending thousands on expensive drugs, major surgeries
and regular nursing care.

When the Czars used to travel to see
Russia, their subordinates would go before them erecting two dimensional
facades of villages in order to create the illusion of a thriving
peasantry. These villages were known as Potemkin villages after the
Russian minister who originated the clever notion. Even with the rise of
Communism, Potemkin villages continued to be constructed to hide the
dismal truth. Even when Nixon visited Russia in 1972, he encountered more
Potemkin villages. But when he overflew the sites he saw that the facades
were nothing more than an illusion.

ObamaCare is a giant Potemkin village. It looks good
from the outside, until you actually need it, and then like all national
health care programs, it does its best to get rid of you. And it is
designed to look good to younger voters who will need it the least and
therefore have the least negative encounters with it, while shoving the
elderly into the refuse bin. Like a mirage, it provides a glittering image
of food and water, but when you step forward and reach for it, you come up
with nothing but handfuls of desert sand.

In any rationing scheme the elderly
will get the knife in a system that is designed primarily to offer
HealthCare Lite. The result creates two kind of voters, satisfied voters
and dead voters... which is a can't lose proposition. Either you don't
need health care very much but are pleased to have it available if you
need it, or you do need health care and then you'll probably be too busy
writing letters and challenging the authorities to have any time left for
politics anyway. Until you're finally hospitalized, put on a limited care
plan and your IV drop gets disconnected. It's the European approach now
being exported to America.

The Big ObamaCare Lie is that it will
offer health care for the masses without rationing. The two of course are
incompatible. The government rations its services no differently than
private businesses do, the difference is that government services are more
expensive and therefore delivered less efficiently, and that they come
backed with a political agenda.

ObamaCare rewards the youth vote
that came out for Obama with a health care mirage that is meant to make
them feel grateful, and punishes senior voters who came out for McCain
with health care rationing that's designed to get rid of them quickly.
"...if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology
and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you
maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're
going to let you die." So spoke Obama advisor
Robert Reich.

White House Health Care Advisor, Dr.
Ezekiel Emanuel, spoke of health care rationing by age, as well as
limiting health care to those incapable of civic participation.
Lee Siegel wrote, "Determining which treatments are cost effective
at the end of a person's life and which are not is one of Obama's
priorities. It's one of the principal ways he counts on saving money and
making universal health care affordable."

It is of course the
priority, not simply because it is the only way to at least try and
balance the books at a level slightly above complete economic disaster...
but because seniors are an obstacle to the Obama administration. The
senior vote is expected to keep on rising to an ever greater share of the
electorate. The median age in the United States is at its highest point
ever, and that is a major problem for Obama and the Democratic party
because senior citizens traditionally skew more conservative. An older
America would also mean a more conservative America, and one that would
find itself increasingly unable to support the socialist infrastructure
that has become the fundamental platform of the Democratic
party.

Immigration has partially balanced things out, just as it
has in Europe, compensating for a growing older population, with Third
World immigrants closely wedded to the left leaning parties. And if
elderly people are more likely to be the victims of their crimes... well
to the socialist way of thinking, that just evens out the class situation
and makes the voter demographics look a bit better. But immigration alone
in the United States cannot fill the gap. That's where euthanasia comes
into the picture.

Sustainable socialism requires workers to pay for
it, and needs to edge retirees out of the picture. Keeping the Democratic
party leaning left requires freezing or lowering the median age of
Americans by getting rid of them. ObamaCare will reduce benefits for
seniors and put them on a government controlled treadmill that will
encourage them to die sooner rather than burden society with their
presence. The outcome will look like the Tuskegee experiments on a
national scale with medical problems in seniors going untreated due to
rationing... and the final outcome benefiting Obama and the Democratic
party.

Some might deride it as alarmist to call such an outcome
politically motivated euthanasia. Yet in practice it will mean that a part
of the American people who did not vote for Obama have been put at the
greatest risk by his proposed policies. Had a Republican President
proposed a plan that would ration medical services most for
African-Americans, opponents would rightly make comparisons to eugenics
and segregation. What then are we to make of ObamaCare, whose victims will
be chiefly those Americans who did not vote for Obama?