How Power Corrupts:
The Devastating Truth about the Obama Healthcare Plan,
Part Two
By Jon Rappoport
www.insolutions.info
www.nomorefakenews.com
www.PandemicFluOnline.com
Why is the Obama legislation double-barreled? Why does it offer both a
private and public option?
Why are we hearing relatively few howls of protest from the private
insurance industry?
What happened to the Democrats’ single-payer program, in which Medicare
would be expanded to include all Americans under one roof?
The answers to these questions yield up the same result: the private
insurance mammoth so far supports the Obama Plan. The private (and
possibly the public) option will be priced by the insurance companies,
to ensure profits, and since all 300 million Americans will be forced to
sign on to one option or the other, these insurance companies will
handle some of the large spillover. New customers.
In other words, the Obama Plan is a government-corporate partnership
from top to bottom. It always was.
The insurance companies agreed to call in their markers on Congressional
legislators and get the necessary votes to pass the Plan.
The die is not yet cast. But that’s the strategy.
Think of the amount of force present in this arrangement. Insurance
giants, pharmaceutical corporations, the federal government—all working
together to control medical treatment for Americans. And the hidden
secret is: many of these treatments are fraught with danger. They injure
people. They kill them. 225,000 of them a year.
All this power funnels down into the doctor’s office where the patient
is handed his diagnosis and drug prescription.
As I presented in Part 1, here is the breakdown of medically-caused
deaths in the US:
Each year in the US there are:
12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;
7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;
20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;
80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;
106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines.
The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000.
This makes the medical system the third leading cause of death in
America, behind heart disease and cancer.
Source: July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association,
Barbara Starfield (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health), “Is US health
really the best in the world?”
If the Obama healthcare plan passes into law, there will be a gaggle of
vultures descending on the decaying landscape.
Pharmaceutical creatures will be the most powerful of the invaders.
To understand their influence: Consider these winged goblins’ entrance
into the arena of psychiatric practice. Thirty-five years ago, the whole
profession was sinking under the waves. Americans were showing less and
less interest in what psychiatry had to offer.
The psychiatric journals were going broke. Even the funding for
conferences was drying up.
There was one unlikely upside. The “discovery” and definition of mental
disorders had no true scientific foundation. Definitive biological tests
for psychiatric conditions didn’t exist. These mental disorders were
named and labeled by committees, which met and discussed lists of
symptoms (behaviors) and hashed out conclusions.
There was a holy text, the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), and
the ruling committees engraved new mental disorders and their
descriptions on stone tablets.
Into this ludicrous situation flew and flapped the pharmaceutical
industry. It saw the possibilities. Markets could be created. For each
new invented and labeled mental condition, there would be a new
market. It was that simple.
Since no diagnostic tests were necessary, since none existed, the
arbitrary nature of the whole game was a magnificent boon.
The psychiatrists would roll out new disorders, and the drug companies
would supply the drugs.
So pharma essentially made a pact. It would resuscitate psychiatry with
money. It would fund conferences and back the professional journals. It
would help re-float the whole profession.
And that is exactly what happened. Outlandish PR was launched to explain
that many millions of Americans were suffering from undiagnosed
psychiatric disorders.
Talk therapy was no longer the preferred route for alleviating or curing
these disorders. No, all mental conditions, across the board and without
exception, were said to result from brain malfunction. Voila. It was a
chemistry problem—and researchers were on the case.
Their answers naturally led to chemical (drug) strategies.
Studies which called into the question the safety of the drugs were
shunted into the background.
Politicians were enlisted in the PR campaign. The humanitarian levers
were pulled. “We can’t let so many Americans live in silence with their
mental disorders. Drug treatment is available. The breakthroughs are
extraordinary. Today, we are seeing miracles. It’s science at work.”
Dissenters from within the psychiatric profession, people who saw
through this ruse, were attacked. They were called Neanderthals. They
were banished from the top journals. Anyone who suggested that unhappy
and troubled patients might really need nutritional help, or might be
experiencing problems associated with myriad chemicals in processed
foods, or might need a way to realize they were uniquely themselves in a
society increasingly bent on conformity---this was slammed as scientific
nonsense, clap-trap, idiocy of the first order.
Instead, millions of children were really suffering from a deficit of
Ritalin. Millions of Americans were suffering from a deficit of Prozac
or Depakote.
The job description of psychiatrists changed. Talk in the office with
patients was, at best, about confirming a list of symptoms/behaviors and
writing drug prescriptions.
The new alliance between the American Psychiatric Association and the
pharmaceutical companies was strong.
This is how vultures operate when they see an opportunity.
And now, as the Obama bill creeps forward toward a vote, the
opportunities abound. Americans under the compulsory umbrella would be
“served” by a wide-ranging medical panel. The panel, over time, would
determine which diseases and disorders would be covered by insurance,
and which would not.
But where does that stop? A patient under the Plan is told by his doctor
that he has a mental disorder. A diagnosis is made. A drug is
prescribed. Can the patient refuse?
Of course he can. At first.
But what about ten years, 20 years up the road? Do you seriously think
pharma and organized psychiatry are going to curtail their efforts at
the golden gate?
If the insurance is compulsory, the treatment at some point is going to
be compulsory.
Oh, it’ll be a struggle to enact such draconian rules, but the chances
of success, when the government is the ruling entity, will dramatically
increase.
And when drugs are involved, and when the prescribed treatment is
compulsory or coerced through pressure, the drugs’ dangerous effects are
ignored, because the treatment cannot be refused. Do you believe the
government is going to assume and admit liability for a damaging drug
the patient must take?
The pharmaceutical companies will have a field day.
Take a case described by psychiatrist, Peter Breggin, in his landmark
1991 classic, Toxic Psychiatry. A young patient, Roberta, had been
treated with a host of so-called major tranquilizers [AKA neuroleptics].
Peer-reviewed published studies support the use of these drugs: Haldol,
Mellaril, Prolixin, Thorazine.
Breggin writes: “Roberta was a college student, getting good grades,
mostly A’s, when she first became depressed and sought psychiatric help
at the recommendation of her university health service. She was eighteen
at the time, bright and well motivated, and a very good candidate for
psychotherapy. She was going through a sophomore-year identity crisis
about dating men, succeeding in school, and planning a future. She could
have thrived with a sensitive therapist who had an awareness of women’s
issues.
“Instead of moral support and insight, her doctor gave her Haldol. Over
the next four years, six different physicians watched her deteriorate
neurologically without warning her or her family about tardive
dyskinesia [motor brain damage] and without making the [tardive
dyskinesia] diagnosis, even when she was overtly twitching in her arms
and legs. Instead they switched her from one neuroleptic to another,
including Navane, Stelazine, and Thorazine. Eventually a rehabilitation
therapist became concerned enough to send her to a general physician,
who made the diagnosis. By then she was permanently physically disabled,
with a loss of 30 percent of her IQ.
“…my medical evaluation described her condition: Roberta is a grossly
disfigured and severely disabled human being who can no longer control
her body. She suffers from extreme writhing movements and spasms
involving the face, head, neck, shoulders, limbs, extremities, torso,
and back—nearly the entire body. She had difficulty standing, sitting,
or lying down, and the difficulties worsen as she attempts to carry out
voluntary actions. At one point she could not prevent her head from
banging against nearby furniture. She could hold a cup to her lip only
with great difficulty. Even her respiratory movements are seriously
afflicted so that her speech comes out in grunts and gasps amid spasms
of her respiratory muscles…Roberta may improve somewhat after several
months off the neuroleptic drugs, but she will never again have anything
remotely resembling a normal life.”
Under a government no-way-out Plan, it could start this way:
Patient: “Doctor, I really don’t think I want to take this medicine.”
Doctor: “Believe me, I understand your apprehension. But it’s a good
drug, and we’ll be monitoring the effects all the way.”
Patient: “I know, but still…I’ve read about the side effects.”
Doctor: “I’m starting you out on a small dose. You tell me if you’re
uncomfortable.”
Patient: “I’m not sure…”
Doctor: “Listen. Perhaps you don’t understand what’s happening here.
You’re covered. You have insurance under the Government Plan. Now, if
you decline treatment, what are we supposed to do? You want the
coverage, but you don’t want the treatment. It’s like saying you want to
buy the car, but you don’t want to drive it.”
Or the doctor might say, “I’m seeing fifty patients a day. They want my
help. I’m giving them the best available medical advice in the world,
based on the best science we have. Don’t you want to take advantage of
that?”
Many variations on the same theme.
“I’m telling you, you need chemotherapy right away. We can’t wait. This
is your optimal chance for survival.”
Pressure.
“As I’m sure you’re aware, there is a list of patients on the Government
Plan who refuse treatment. I don’t think you want to be on that
refusenik list. It’ll mean your waiting times for appointments will
stretch out. You’ll go to the back of the line. We have to serve the
people who are willing to take advantage of what we give.”
The road continues through twists and turns until treatment is
compulsory. If you’re under the Plan, you take your medicine. You don’t
ask about the science. You don’t demand evidence the drugs are safe. You
don’t discuss other options. You don’t buck the system. The system is
huge. Everyone says it is there for your own good. It’s based on a
fundamental humanitarianism. Share and care.
“I see on your chart you’ve refused three vaccines in the last six
years. You have two children. You tried to obtain a waiver for them so
they don’t have to receive vaccinations. I’ve notified Child Protective
Services. I’m sorry, but we can’t allow this to go on. I know you don’t
want CPS to take your children from the house. What parent would? But if
we can’t reach an understanding here, you’re going to encounter serious
trouble.”
Let’s imagine a doctor is handling a cancer patient, a young boy, whose
mother is quite educated.
The mother says, “Doctor, are you familiar with the work of Ulrich Abel?
A German biostatistician. Very fine international reputation. In 1990,
after reviewing thousands of studies on chemotherapy, he came to a
conclusion. Here is the quote. ‘Success of most chemotherapies is
appalling…There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in
any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common
organic cancer…Chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery,
which accounts for 80% of all cancers, is a scientific wasteland.’”
The doctor smiles and says, “We’ve heard all the objections. But
chemotherapy is your son’s best option, I assure you.”
“I know you assure me, but I’m presenting evidence that contradicts your
opinion, Doctor.”
“Madam, this situation is far more complex than you realize. Believe me,
I’ve looked at all the possibilities. You’re not a physician. Cancer is
my specialty. You boy needs chemo, and he needs it now.”
“Doctor, I’m going to decline.”
“It’s not that easy, I’m afraid. In the old days, you could take this
case to court. Lawyers could argue both sides before a judge. But now,
under the Government Plan, we have the right to insist on treatment.
We’re not trying to be coercive. We’re only concerned with the best
interests of the patients. That’s why the Plan exists.”
“Doctor, chemo will not extend my son’s life. And it will make him
suffer terribly.”
“It’s our best hope, and I’m going to go ahead with it. I’ll note your
objections. I’m happy to have you meet with one of our counselors.
Perhaps she can alleviate your concerns. That’s all I can do.”
This is where the rubber will meet the road, and the powers-that-be will
dictate the results. The science doesn’t matter. Even pointing out a
number of qualified studies that indicate a specific medical treatment
is ineffective and dangerous won’t save the day.
To some, all this sounds like a paranoid fantasy. But only the most
naïve imagine that an enormous increase in centralized power will
somehow enhance personal freedom or maintain it in its present state.
The major players want more. They always want more. And a struggle along
the road to compulsory treatment is not a great price for them to pay.
They’re willing. They have the time and the means and the power and the
connections. They see the goal. They see the rewards.
We may want to extend the benefit of the doubt to those who say they are
looking out for our best interests, but then we are the fantasizers. We
are the fools. More power means more control. It always does.
What is starting out now as a “public option” in the Healthcare Plan is
the wedge in the door. If joining the Plan, in one form or another, is
no longer a choice, then someone has just gained the power that formerly
resided in us.
What do you think will happen to the whole issue of medical liability
under the Obama Plan? What will eventually happen to a private citizen
who tries to sue a drug company, doctor, or hospital for damages?
“You say this drug injured your health in a permanent way? Go home.
There is no case. The Plan is the best structure we have. Occasionally,
a mistake occurs, but we all have to live with that. If we permit huge
lawsuits to move forward, we won’t be able to pay for the Plan anymore.
Greatest good for the greatest number of people is the watchword.”
So the freedom to obtain justice, too, will disappear in time as well.
(It already has, in so-called pandemic seasons, as drug companies
promise delivery of vaccines to governments if and only if no liability
is attached when a patient is injured by the vaccine.)
* * *
Who benefits from all this? Obviously, Big Pharma. Compulsory or coerced
drug treatment for all Americans, in every area of medical practice;
greater and greater legal protection against claims for damage; an
insider’s place at the table where an official panel decides what
diseases and disorders and drug treatments will be covered and paid for
under the Government Plan.
Instead of having to swoop down on a whole profession, like psychiatry,
and bankroll it, the pharmaceutical industry can rely on the federal
government to carry the burden.
I cited above the quintessential study that established a death toll of
106,000 Americans, every year, as the direct result of FDA-approved,
correctly prescribed medicines.
Under the Obama Plan, and its succeeding incarnations, Big Pharma will
be slipping out from beneath that shadow of liability, as it walks, hand
in hand with its partner, the federal government of the United States,
into the sunrise of official absolution.
JON RAPPOPORT
www.insolutions.info
www.nomorefakenews.com
www.PandemicFluOnline.com
This article originally published at:
http://www.nomorefakenews.com/index.php |