The health reform bill and population control: Part 1
By Alisa Craddock
Socialists have always admired the colonial life of the social insects – ants, bees, termites and such. They are so industrious, dedicated, with a singleness of purpose—to carry out their function for the benefit of the colony, with a queen at the center providing the nucleus of the community, and the purpose for which this bustle of activity exists. In the eyes of a socialist, it's near perfection. No competition exists, no selfishness, no sloth, total, selfless cooperation.
Do you remember these words from Michelle Obama about her husband's candidacy?
I couldn't help but think of this when I read F. A. Harper's Liberty: A Path To Its Recovery (1949). The colonial behavior of such insects as ants have always held a particular fascination for socialists. "Every aspiring dictator," he writes, "both large and small, would like to ascend to the throne of 'queen bee' of a world-wide human colony, in which every human would become subservient to the dictator's own wishes and would serve his plan with unwavering loyalty."
But there is an aspect of colonial insect life that they neglect or ignore (or perhaps not…) in their fascination. Insect colonies are totally materialistic, without a moral or spiritual dimension. There is no love or human compassion. "Population is rigidly controlled," Harper continues. "By killing those that do not work and by ruthlessly destroying the ill and the aged, full employment and 'high' production is maintained."
The society envisioned by our Global Elite for their World Government isn't much different from that, I'm afraid, at least morally. The term for those who are unproductive is "useless eaters." Another is "non-eugenics". These include people who are terminally ill, the aged, handicapped, the unborn, blacks, Jews, and Catholics. Those involved in the formation of a global government believe that population control measures must eliminate or control the populations of these "useless eaters" and preserve resources for the productive and the politically correct.
And so we march on toward our godless insect society, all working together to bring about the New World Order, a hive of busy little drones servicing the global elite, the queen of our global hive. Gaia is our god, sex and drugs are our panacea, the antidote to an age of hopelessness and stagnation called socialism.
All of this seems a great deal apart from the Baucus health care bill, doesn't it? But is it? That bill, too, was revealed, not surprisingly, to have health care rationing embedded in it. The NRLC (National Right to Life) warns that the bill contains "a dangerous provision that creates a financial incentive for Medicare doctors to deny treatments to seniors. A September 18 press release explained the provision and the effect it will have on the quality of seniors health care: "The provision penalizing doctors establishes that for at least five years, Medicare physicians who authorize treatments for their patients that wind up in the top 10% of per capita cost for a year will lose 5% of their total Medicare reimbursements for that year.
"This means that all doctors treating older people will constantly be driven to try to order the least expensive tests and treatments for fear that they will be caught in that top 10%. It is noteworthy that this feature operates independently of any considerations of quality, efficiency, or waste - if you authorize enough treatment for your patients, however necessary and appropriate it may be, you are in danger of being one of the 1 in 10 doctors who will be penalized each year." (So this is how they will end waste and fraud? This is how they will "squeeze" medicare, as Speaker Pelosi called it?) It may even discourage doctors from taking geriatric patients, causing a further crisis of healthcare for the aged.
NRLC Director, David N. O'Steen warns, "This is the cruelest and most effective way to ensure that doctors are forced to ration care for their senior citizen patients. It takes the telltale fingerprints from the government: instead of bureaucrats directly specifying the treatment denials that will mean death and poorer health for older people, it compels individual doctors to do the dirty work. It is an outrageous way to provide coverage for the uninsured - by taking it away from America's senior citizens." I might add, "who paid into that system their entire working lives."
In addition to this appalling provision, the Baucus Bill also provides a number of provisions for abortion. Under the Baucus Bill (like HR3200), according to NRLC, federal funds would subsidize coverage of elective abortions. In addition, NRLC states "the Baucus bill requires that a specific charge must be included in the premiums paid by those who enroll in such subsidized plans, of at least '$1 per enrollee, per month,' which amounts to a surcharge specifically for elective abortions, and additionally provides $6 billion in federal funds for the establishment of health insurance cooperatives, without any limitation on the use of these funds to pay for abortions or to subsidize plans that pay for elective abortions." NRLC further emphasizes that "the Baucus bill contains language that would allow the federal government to declare abortion to be a 'mandated benefit as part of a minimum benefits package' in any circumstances in which the federal Medicaid program could pay for an abortion." The Baucus Bill makes it easier for the Hyde Amendment to be discontinued, which would automatically force the coverage of elective abortion.
The latest polls show a strong shift in popular sentiment against abortion. All over the country abortion clinics are shutting down, yet the Congress wants to sneak this on us, and force us to pay for it. Why? Our leaders have put provisions in the health care bill that directly threaten the health, and even the lives of seniors. Why? Why does the government propose to compel everyone to have health insurance? Why does it insist on setting up co-ops that will inevitably lead to government run health care, which clearly very few people want? Where is health care in the enumerated powers of the government as defined in the Constitution, anyway? What is the real agenda at work?
The answer is simple. It is all about population control. It always has been. Even if the government ends up with a pretty good reform bill, it will get added to and amended—if not now, in subsequent bills—until the government has what it wants: complete control of your health care. And that will be complete control of you.
If the government could control waste and fraud, they'd have done it already, unless it is to their advantage not to. But to whatever extent any aspect of our liberty is restrained by government (save in the protection of our or our neighbor's God-given rights, such as life, liberty, property, the right of parents over their children, the right to defend ourselves) our freedom is diminished. Cumulatively, they result eventually in dictatorship. Compulsory health insurance, government interference in the competition for health insurance (such as preventing the purchase of insurance from another state), using co-ops to unfairly manipulate and compete with the health care industry and insurance industry--these are not legitimate federal government concerns, and whatever outrages we object to in this bill holds out the possibility for compromise, and that would inevitably mean a compromise of our freedom. The Congress' time would be better spent on tort reform and creating greater access to health insurance through competition, rather than pandering to the culprits responsible for the excessive cost and the waste and fraud, and providing special provisions for union members and community organizers. Politicians pay off the special interests who bankrolled their candidacy all the time, but to do so at the expense, health, and even the lives of the American people is getting downright personal. It says to me, if you're not "one of us" (that is, on the Left), you may not get the quality of care your neighbor gets who belongs to SEIU. Sounds to me like the government is practicing political discrimination.
A strange irony occurred to me the other day. Abortion advocates have used the "horror of the back alley abortion" for years to justify keeping the moral outrage of abortion legal, though the horrors of abortion and its damage to our women, our culture, and our society goes unanswered. Wouldn't it be ironic if those same people turned their backs on the horrors of, say, a back alley triple bypass that someone was forced to get because the government made the morally outrageous decision to render it illegal for grandpa to have supplemental insurance?
Just a thought.
Next time we'll talk about global population control a bit more, just to illustrate that things in Washington may not be what they seem.
Alisa Craddock is a columnist and activist in the culture war, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian. She may be contacted at
Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!