Health Care Conspiracy Solved--It's Soylent Green!

(I’m not sure why I feel compelled to insert a warning here but the following is a result of the overactive imagination of the writer and too much time spent on Google—please place tongue firmly in cheek, suspend belief and hopefully be amused).

Yesterday, curious about the controversy surrounding Pres. Obama’s Healthcare proposal (which has been dubbed “ObamaCare” a term more convenient to use) I decided to do some research. One of the primary objections revolves around Section 1233 of HR3200 “Advance Care Planning Consultation”.

I read some of the comments and concerns that have been expressed about Sec 1233 including how this section authorizes “Death Panels” and euthanasia. And I downloaded the entire 1000+ pages of HR3200 to find and read Sec1233 where it is buried on pages 424-434.

Then I did a little further research online. (You know, it’s amazing what you can Google and all the incredible information you can unearth—think Roswell and Area 51). And today I must admit to you that I am appalled.

The first thing I’m appalled at is how investigative reporters like Beck and Hannity and Limbaugh; even Maddow and the most trusted news reporter in America, Jon Stewart have failed to uncover that which is waiting right in front of them to be discovered and disseminated to all of America. This is a conspiracy of incredible proportions.

We can’t just view ObamaCare on the surface or singularly. It goes far deeper. It permeates government and economic and environmental policy in America. The insidious danger of Sec1233 is what Dr. Robert Langdon in “The DaVinci Code” termed the “keystone”—that upon which all the other elements of the conspiracy depend and that which “unlocks” the despicable nature of the conspiracy.

The first element is that everything associated with this diabolical, comprehensive initiative is about people. A wonderful concept. It’s all about PEOPLE!


It starts with the emphasis that has been put the last 2 or 3 years on the environment. The most popular buzzword in business and government has become “green”. Everything has to be green. Obama’s primary goal for “Cash for Clunkers” is so that inefficient vehicles will be replaced by those that are more “green”. Alternative fuel vehicles are “greener”. Wind and solar energy are “green”. It’s all about GREEN!

But let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves. This did not originate with Pres. Obama. In fact, he may even be an unwitting dupe of a plot which even more thoroughly permeates the fabric of our nation and society than any of us realize. Remember, it all comes down to GREEN. Consider the evidence which goes all the way back to the early 1960s.

Consider this (and bear in mind that ads for this “green” product were on TV in the late 1950s)

In the early 1970s the first ecology movements were underway in the U.S. This went so far as to engage children’s television characters in the propaganda by cleverly incorporating “green messages” into programming such as this one:


And now we come to 1973. Interesting, the year I graduated from college. There was a blockbuster movie which was shocking in its surprise ending and message. It starred Charlton Heston and featured Edward G. Robinson in his final role (a telling finale to a grand career). “Soylent Green”. A frightening premise. And yet, the words “Soylent Green” have endured in our vocabulary gaining meaning and acceptance—eventually co-mingling with other environmental uses for the term “green” so that both have come to be accepted as part of the language and as viable concepts.

Considering these irrefutable facts (Hey! You might think that they’re “refutable” but I guarantee you that if Sarah Palin came up with this stuff that she’d consider them “irrefutable facts”!) The conspiracy has slowly gained a “sub rosa” momentum until all of the elements have come into place in 2009—economic crisis, pollution, diminishing and ever more expensive oil and a health care crisis.

Corporations have bought into this.

And now, inexorably everything has come together. We have new food sources:

Management plans and priorities are being put into place for the future:

And finally, the healthcare element poised in the halls of the United States Congress, proposed by a radical new administration in the White House which will bring everything to fruition.

As the plan gains momentum a bandwagon effect is anticipated.

And ultimately we’ll be addicted to the nutritional properties of this wonder product. A product which is the result of patient, long-term planning and waiting for the “perfect storm” politically, economically, environmentally and socially so that it may be successfully implemented.

There you have it. This is a sordid tale but it is one that needs to be told. I hope that you are now as convinced as I am.

Finally, I have read Section 1233 of HR3200. It deals with consulting people on Advance Care (living wills). It spells out that which needs to be discussed with a patient so that their wishes can be clearly articulated and put into a legal format. It’s something that is commonly done and is a beneficial thing for patients, their families and medical professionals. I did one nearly 4 years ago prior to hernia surgery. It was discussed with me by a practitioner in a preliminary appointment prior to the surgery, I stipulated my desires in a “worst case scenario”, signed it, had it notarized and provided a copy on the date of the surgery. It’s another form of “due diligence” as far as I am concerned and there is nothing insidious, nefarious or evil whatsoever contained in the provisions of Sec1233 no matter what many who have succumbed to some of the most ridiculous of propaganda (especially from the former Gov. of Alaska) on this may think.

Obama vs Cheney--Back to Basics

Bear with me just a bit while I mentally journey all the way back to the mid-70s. Forget the wide bell-bottom jeans and fitted polyester double-knit shirts and harness boots.

I’m trying to recall lessons learned from lectures and readings—as well as all the introspection over the intervening years. But it starts here with Dr. Poochigian’s classes on political thought. With his emphasis on “linguistic analysis”. Yep, my Master’s degree is in Political Science emphasizing political philosophy and constitutional law. And, as I’ve maintained ever since, my MA in political philosophy and $2.50 will buy me a cup of coffee at any Denny’s. I used to be able to do that for half a buck but that’s the wages of inflation for you.

So, if you’re still reading, what I’m trying to do is to make some sense of the Cheney/Obama “debate” that is see-sawing back and forth in the media concerning Guantanamo Bay and “detainees”. The way I have typically done this in my life is to try to break things down to the most basic concept that I can.

Cheney has always bothered me and scared me. Because of that I have tried not to think too much about him. However, he seems to want to be the face and voice of conservatism within the Republican party during the Obama administration when Republicans are regathering themselves. Unfortunately, back in my own Republican days there seemed to be a strong “moderate branch” with which I identified which all but disappeared starting with the Gingrich years in the 90’s—which is when I abandoned the Republicans for good.

Cheney takes the classic approach that the ultimate aim of government is order—that everything flows from there. No rights can be assured; no benefits can accrue to the public until and unless order is assured. Rights are articulated and then whittled away all in the quest for maintaining order. This is the more cynical view of people as purely self-interested and ready and willing to resort to anarchy at any time.

Obama on the other hand believes in the aim of government as one which assumes the basic goodness and worthiness of people. This is the more optimistic view which passionately protects and expands upon the rights of individuals and works to assure the common good. More importantly, government protects the weakest of its citizens in order to assure protection for all of its citizens.

The Cheney view is one which could come up with a hollow rationale which claimed that because detainees were in Guantanamo Bay that they were outside the U.S. and consequently not subject to the protections of the Constitution. This was one of the flimsiest fabrications I’ve ever encountered. Everyone else at that installation is subject to the Constitution. The Cheney view justified torture of “detainees” because they weren’t really POWs, merely “enemy combatants”.

The Obama view is that the “Gitmo” environment, torture, etc. are just not right. If someone is in our custody, that person is the beneficiary of at least minimum assurances to treatment and due process. Now this sounds simplistic and it is. It’s either fundamentally right or it’s fundamentally wrong. Make that determination and go from there.

This is all such a hydra-headed monster that efforts to reduce it to what in elementary school arithmetic is known as the “least common denominator” is an essential exercise. It is this exercise that allows for issues to be exposed on a bare-bones level. It seeks the foundation of who we are and what we are.

Quite frankly the Cheney view is little different from a fascist view. It is a view that has justified totalitarianism in its various forms over the centuries. Obama’s view can be seen in a more egalitarian fashion—perhaps somewhat naïve. But give me naiveté anytime over the cynicism which led us through the debacle of the first 8 years of the 21st century and which Mr. Cheney would like to perpetuate.

Obama Court Pick: "You Gotta Have Heart"

I must be dating myself badly because I have this image of the characters from the movie “Damn Yankees” going through my head—the locker room scene where the players are singing “You Gotta Have Heart” with that incredible high descant harmony.

The reason is that yesterday, an AP article stated that President Obama wants the successor to Supreme Court Justice Souter to be someone “who is not only schooled in the law, but passionate about how it affects people’s lives, a scholar willing to decide a case from the heart when the constitutional answer is elusive.”

Unfortunately there wasn’t a whole lot of depth to the article. (I wonder whether my paper did some pretty heavy editing). The only person quoted in the article was White House Press secretary Robert Gibbs. “You have a president who understands and has studied many of these issues—even taught them,” said Gibbs.

Now I don’t have much of a problem with these criteria. But I think that has a lot to do with how I perceive President Obama and his philosophical and constitutional orientation. If Obama’s predecessor had said the same thing in the context of his choice for a Supreme Court justice it would have scared the hell out of me.

So, unfortunately what it seems to come down to is our basic sense of agreement with the person who will be doing the nominating. A good justice is in the eye of the beholder. It just depends on which side of the teeter-totter you’re sitting.

Yeah, I think that Souter’s successor will likely be pretty liberal in his or her view of the U.S. Constitution. I also think that the successor will have some pretty well established credentials as a Constitutional scholar (especially knowing that Obama has those same credentials). As for someone who is passionate about how the law affects people’s lives—to me that’s a pre-requisite. The law and the constitution do affect people’s lives. Every day. In numerous ways.

And I guess I think that a liberal successor to David Souter (who was more “liberal” than Pres. Bush would have ever supposed) is just fine. There will be those who will revile that more liberal orientation. There will be those who are scathing over ever opinion. Personally I think they’re wrong.

Maybe it’s like my Dad always used to say (especially when I was just about to lose a teen-ager’s argument with him) “Opinions are like asses. Everybody has one.”

Supreme Court justices are kind of like the father of a teenager—when push comes to shove their opinion is going to be the one which counts. Hopefully when whoever is ultimately confirmed as the next justice decides from the heart it will be reasoned, tempered by knowledge and passion for the constitution and empathy for the people who will be affected. And, “You Gotta Have Heart” is a good way of putting it.

Is California "Too Big to Fail"?

I think I’ve got it figured out finally. I’ve been worrying on the California special election like a hungry dog on a steak bone, just gnawing away looking for a solution.

You see, I just don’t like the 6 questions which are being put before the voters. It seems to me that the so-called “solution” is a cop-out by the Governor and Legislators who have now tossed it to the voters to validate. Unfortunately, if the voters validate the smoke and mirrors put forth by the 6 measures then the voters will take ownership of a pitiful excuse for solutions which will allow elected officials to wash their hands in the best Pontius Pilate fashion.

Of course, it’s California’s government by referred measure which has had more than a little to do with the budgetary debacle that the state is experiencing.

So, what to do about it? Well, the first thing is to do what I’ve been thinking about for several months. Defeat measures 1A through 1F. Just vote No! Turn down every one of them. Then, as the budget gets worse, as the economy of California tanks further, have Governor Schwarzenegger make a call to President Obama.

The Governor can tell the President that the world’s 5th largest economy is tanking. The state with almost 1/8th of the nation’s population is broke. He can then tell the President that, like AIG, California is “too big to fail”.

AIG got something like $85 billion and that’s a lot of money. According to Gov. Schwarzenegger’s budget, California only needs a little less than half that--$41 billion—a bargain. And for a whole state. If the Federal Government would just write California a check, from TARP funds or wherever, the state’s books would be balanced and we could maybe, just maybe, manage to make ends meet until we have to engage in a budget debacle again for next year when we might, or might not, be able to generate enough money. Oh, and by the way, no executives in California will be paid 7 or 8 figure bonuses. There are already enough 6 figure State employees and retirees as it is.

Let’s see, last week Pres. Obama suggested that we cut $17 billion from the Federal budget. He was criticized because that’s only about ½ of 1%. So $41 billion would be what—about 1 ¼%? That ain’t bad for the world’s 5th largest economy with 1/8th of the nation’s population. Of course, we won’t tell Pres. Obama that California’s budget is 37% in the red; that might tend to tick him off just a bit.

And who knows, maybe the President will put some things in motion to bail us out just like AIG or GM. Although he may say that, like GM, the first thing is that top management has to go and a re-structuring plan has to be presented within 6 weeks or California will have to go the route of Vallejo and declare bankruptcy.

That being the case, I was wondering who would come on board as new CEO/Governor. Robert Nardelli is going to be available in a couple of months when Fiat finishes its acquisition of Chrysler. Rob Blagojevich is looking for work, has run a large state and knows how to solicit funds. I don’t think either of those would do. How about Clint Eastwood? Also an actor, but he was mayor of Carmel. And he would call the situation what it is (to use the edited version)—a clusterflub.

Too big to fail? We’ve already failed. Can it be fixed? Not by continuing to put a bandaid on a hemorrhage. But nobody’s going to bail out California but Californians. Let’s start by putting the politicians on notice that we expect them to do it right—for a change.

Now, I’ve been trying to be sarcastic in an Art Buchwald kind of way (I knew I couldn’t get to Dave Barry). Governing California is like trying to herd cats. But we’ve done it to ourselves. So maybe sarcasm won’t work but it definitely helps to keep you sane