The Margaret Sanger Planned Parenthood eugenics depopulation agenda nightmare continues.
When examining the scientific field of bioethics multiple physicians claim in their articles that the new priority is the health of the collective, and not so much for individuals. The new focus on “population health”, which can be viewed as a euphemism for “racial hygiene” is also being touted as a justification for why the surveillance state is beneficial. This is a result of the recent federal standardization of health care. For example, individual accounts are neglected in contrast to bulk data. This wave of change striking the medical industry is even out of the physician’s hands. It is a carefully contrived strategy for control orchestrated by the technocrats.
The justification for the new focus on “population health” as opposed to individual concerns is that eventually the collective health will “trickle down” onto the individual. When one strips away the sunshine and flowers it is really just another indication of the inherent venomous nature of collectivism. It truly echoes the US and German eugenics policies which initially claimed to promote practices that would benefit everyone, but eventually when psychiatric guidelines were altered they called for the eradication of certain personality types in an effort to salvage the rest of the public. A present day mirrored version of this policy lies in the rapid change in the psychiatric diagnosis manual which identifies conservative individuals as mentally ill; limited government, individual liberty, and the family unit are regarded as burdensome vestiges of an antiquated way of life that stifles society from moving into the liberal authoritarian fantasy land proposed by the “progressives”.
There are countless references to “population health”, and one cannot help but to be reminded of what eugenicists called “racial hygiene”. The problem with this new trend of “population health” is that it leaves the public vulnerable to the medical industry imposing certain nefarious agendas, the justification for the utilitarian concept of “the greatest good for the greatest number”. The patient has literally been reduced to cogs in the medical machine, as an article entitled: “Objectifying Patients, Roboticizing Physicians” by Susan Haack elucidates the medical technocratic takeover model that the public is being conditioned to accept, the idea, of course being sold as a massive innovation designed to improve efficiency.
“Population health” also comes into consideration when one considers the apparent future model for calculating health premiums. The technocrat human demonization campaign known as the “carbon footprint” will undoubtedly be used to justify higher health care costs. The problem is isolated through the carbon emissions generated in the production process of medical equipment, and the biggest contributor to these emissions in the health sector, it was found was hospitals.
According to the University of Chicago one tenth of the country’s carbon footprint comes from the US medical industry. The proposition set forth by Jeanette Chung, PHD, and research associate for the Hospital of Medicine section of the University of Chicago was compensation for humanity’s evil ways:
“In this country, the primary focus is on issues surrounding patient safety, health care quality, and cost containment at this current point in time. The health care sector, in general, may be a bit slower than other sectors to put this on their radar screen,” Chung said. “But given the focus on health care policy and environmental policy, it might be interesting — if not wise — to start accounting for environmental externalities in health care.”
Some initial concerns for the federal standardization of health care were articulated in Michelle Bachmann’s warning of “Death Panels”, which the corporate-controlled media vehemently denied. It was however admitted by Bill Gates in a moment of candor when expressing prudent medical expenses in relation to teacher’s wages when he said:
“should we end the life of some elderly folks to prevent laying off ten teachers? But that’s called a ‘death panel’ and you’re not allowed to have that discussion.”
Representative Bachmann received much ridicule for warning the public of the contents of the health care bill that no one was allowed to read until it was passed—former speaker Pelosi famously announced to the House of reps that “we have to hurry and pass it to find out how great it is!”
Confirmation of this aspect of the bill was gradually revealed and further confirmed when Obama boasted about the VA system being the model for universal federal standardized health care, these statements came right before the recent VA scandal where there was a horrendous admission of the internal operations by senior VA officials about actual “death panels”. The VA whistleblower stated that the attitude he’d witnessed concerning veterans was that it “would be cheaper to shoot some of these vets in the head” than to have them continue to rack up medical costs.
There are a few signals of the agenda moving at full speed. Privacy is being regarded as a nasty relic of the past. The medical industry has altered its aim from an institution that merely treats the public affected with illness to statistics collection, an algorithm generating process similar to the neuro economical model utilized by corporations and the law enforcement sector, which is designed to maximize profits for select corporate interests.
This radical change in the means to general health has been partly facilitated by not only the beefed-up electronic patient databases, which are now fueled by analysis of spending habits as reflected by credit card statements, household size, memberships to the gym and other lifestyle metrics, but the industry is also being transformed through the post industrial manifestation of the increase in the utilization of robotics, not just to replace low-level workers like in the manufacturing and service industries across the country, but to change out doctors as well.
Since the large electronic medical databases are becoming more invasive and there is an expected decimation of privacy, and with an increasing focus on the public’s carbon emissions, is too far-fetched to conceive that those who have a larger “carbon footprint” might be pushed to the front of the line on the “death panel roster” when it comes to cost accounting in the medical industry?