Establishment Demands Euthanasia, Denounces Exposure Of It

August 18, 2009 (LPAC)—Against implacable public opposition to Obama's program to kill the elderly, the financiers' news media run hysterical commentaries calling openly for such murder, while denouncing as liars and insane those who attack the program. Monday's Washington Post and New York Times continue this bizarre pattern.

Newsweek editor Fareed Zakaria writes, under "More Crises Needed?" in the Post, that the 9/11 attacks and the financial crash worked to scare Democrats into line to back Bush on terrorism and bailouts. But the "debacle of the health-care debate" shows the "weakness of the American system."

The "political debate is unreal," he says. How unreal? Opponents are "suggesting that President Obama is endorsing euthanasia and murder boards..."

In the same paragraph, Zakaria laments that Congress will probably not go along with — that very thing. Of "the Democrats' proposals ... to rein in costs ... the chief one — a medical board — assumes (improbably) that Congress will cede massive powers to five unelected people who would have the power to deny people treatments and drugs. The likely scenario is that ... cuts and curbs will be pushed off to be tackled another day."

Zakaria ends with a warning that "the political system seems unable" to slash Social Security, cut state government budgets, and enact "energy" (i.e. Green austerity) measures, and that "It makes you wish for a crisis."

"All we have to do," Lyndon LaRouche responded, "is cancel the $25 trillion bailout and put through the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act, and we can reorganize the system and go back to a healthy economy."

For the New York Times, Ross Douthat writes, in "Telling Grandma 'No,'" that "Republicans find themselves" in the role formerly played by Democrats, "as champions of old-age entitlements." Douthat is disgusted by the "sea of septuagenarians: some in wheelchairs, some clutching walkers, some dragging dialysis machines..." — who are sticking their noses in the debate and "dragging support for reform southward." He claims that with Medicare, they now have "all the benefits of socialized medicine... Once you hit 65, the system pays and pays, without regard for efficiency or cost-effectiveness."

Douthat decries "the controversy over 'death panels'" as "the most extreme manifestation of this debate." "Obviously," he writes, Obama's "plans wouldn't euthanize your grandmother. But they might limit the procedures that her Medicare will pay for."

He warns that because older people vote, they are making the problem almost insoluble. We must find somebody to "defend the younger generation's promise (and its pocketbooks). Somebody will need to say 'no' to retirees."

"The son-of-a-bitch doesn't realize," LaRouche replied, "that people have to mobilize their economy to meet their obligations. That's the American tradition. These lazy slobs want to steal, or they want to kiss the butt of people who are stealing. This is the responsibility of these bastards, and they're denying it; they don't want to pay it. It's really the worst side of the Baby Boomer."

Richard Dooling, under "Health Care's Generation Gap," in the Times, rages against an "epidemic of overtreatment." He tells of working in intensive care units and "marvelling ... over how many millions ... were spent performing insanely expensive procedures." He complains of families spending their savings for "Grandma ... on the slim-to-none chance that bypass surgery, a thoracotomy, an endoscopy or kidney dialysis might get her off the ventilator and out of the hospital for her 88th birthday."

He demands, "shouldn't we instantly cut some of the money spent on exorbitant intensive-care for dying, elderly people and redirect it to ... care for children and mothers."

How to do the necessary murder? You have to have a murder board to do it, to prevent chaos:

Dooling raves, "Rationing of health care is imminent. But given the political inertia, we could soon find ourselves in a triage situation in which there is no time or money to create medical-review boards to ponder cost-containment issues or rationing schemes. We'll be forced to implement quick-and-dirty rules based on something simple, sensible and easily verifiable. Like age. As in: No federal funds to be spent on intensive care for anyone over 85."

He then adds, "I am not, of course, talking about euthanasia." He then again attacks bypass surgery for the elderly, when we could use that money for younger people. In the purest Goebbels fashion, Dooling denounces Medicare giving "seniors the best money can buy ... for everything from restless leg syndrome to erectile dysfunction, scooters and end-of-life intensive care."

He ends by lauding Sir William Osler, who was a director of London's 1912 International Eugenics Congress, and whose earlier proposal to deny medical care to everyone over 60 made "Oslerizing" the popular term for euthanasia. Dooling calls Osler the "father of modern medicine," and quotes Osler: "One of the first duties of the physician is to educate the masses not to take medicine."

"Well, look, I hear what you're saying," LaRouche answered Dooling and the New York Times which featured him. "The problem is, if you're saying that, how do you distinguish yourself from Adolf Hitler?"