NYT Magazine Article Backs Obama Health Policy Putsch

July 17, 2009 (LPAC)—Just as Nero Obama drives to force the cowards in the U.S. Congress to enact a Hitlerian Nazi health care bill, the New York Times Magazine is planning to run an article by one Peter Singer in the July 19, 2009 edition entitled "Why We Must Ration Health Care." As the accompanying slug documents, Singer is well known as an Australian admirer of Jeremy Bentham, the Australian leader of the World Wildlife Fund, founder of Animal Liberation, and an advocate of infanticide.

In this article, Singer argues on behalf of the fascist policy of rationing health care, which is the cornerstone of Obama's Nazi health plan. The article begins:

"You have advanced kidney cancer. It will kill you, probably in the next year or two. A drug called Sutent slows the spread of the cancer and may give you an extra six months, but at a cost of $54,000. Is a few more months worth that much?"

Singer goes on at length to argue that "health care is a scarce resource and all scarce resources are rationed in one way or another." "The debate over health care reform in the United States should start from the premise that some form of health care rationing is both inescapable and desirable."

Perhaps most telling, is Singer's reference to the Washington Post journalist who asked Daniel Zemel, a Washington rabbi, what he thought about federal agencies putting a dollar value on human life. According to Singer, the rabbi cited a Jewish teaching explaining that if you put one human life on one side of a scale, and you put the rest of the world on the other side, the scale balances equally. Perhaps that is how those who resist health care rationing think."

Singer rejects the rabbi's teaching of the value of the individual human life, and instead sides with the Nazis, arguing that "we already put a dollar value on human life." Citing Britain's Orwellian, fascist NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence), the model for Obama's Health Care Commission, Singer argues that "if a reformed U.S. health care system explicitly accepted rationing, as I have argued it should, QALYs (quality adjusted life years) could play a similar role in the U.S.," to that played by the monetary unit employed by the British fascist health system.

Revealingly, Singer identifies the imperialist basis of this anti-human thinking which regards money as primary. "The QALY is not a perfect measure of the good obtained by health care, but its defenders can support it in the same way that Winston Churchill defended democracy as a form of government: it is the worst method of allocating health care, except for all the others."

This is what the British Empire has in store for the United States under Obama. Succumb to Obama's Neronic thug tactics, and the United States will be destroyed.

There is an alternative: 1) Eliminate the HMOs; 2) Reject Obama's fascist health policy in its entirety; 3) Restore Hill-Burton; and 4) Implement a single-payer system.

Otherwise, if we allow a price tag to be placed on the quality of one human life, we will have eliminated the basis for defending the rest of humanity.