Fact-checker verifies a Paul Ryan remark in the
"Veep Debate" in Kentucky that the $716 billion
stripped from Medicare was added to Obamacare.
This will cause many seniors suffering from heart
attacks and strokes, who might have otherwise sur-
vived, to die waiting for care. The diverted funds,
paid by senior taxpayers, will be spent to treat
younger, under-50 patients. Obama paying bonuses
to hospitals who cut benefits to seniors as of Oct. 1.
When Barack Obama peddled the merits of a government healthcare system in 2009, many Democrats and almost every Republican opposed the takeover of America's healthcare system by a bureaucracy that could not even manage a 90-day government "Cash for Clunkers Program." They rightly argued that with Social Security and Medicare both on the verge of collapse, Obamacare would simply fast-track the bankruptcy of the United States of America.

Obama assured the public that would not be the case. "Medicare," he said through his talking heads, "will restore the fiscal integrity of Social Security." No one thought to ask, "How?" Or, if they did, the question was ignored. But, I'm sure the answer to that question didn't appear on anyone's "talk show spin" cue card.

Did you ever wonder why, when Obamacare was enacted without a single Republican vote except the Maine Marxists, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, Obama called it a bipartisan effort that would solve the insolvency of Social Security, without any fear of voter backlash? Because Barack Obama knew what every nation in Europe—but no rank and file American—knew about how government healthcare systems worked since every nation in Europe that adopted a retirement income system also added healthcare as a "bonus" for their citizens. But, if you've lived longer than a 20-something know-it-all, you learned the hard way that, in life, nobody gives you something for nothing.

But, because they wanted to believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, when people thought about it, it seemed to made sense to them. A healthcare system keeps you alive so you can continue to pay tax dollars into the system. One hand washes the other, right? Not exactly. The people who are living longer aren't paying into the system longer—they receive benefits longer. Government actually believes those greedy seniors are draining the system when they outlive the actuarial tables. For example, in 1930, 5 years before Social Security was enacted, the average life expectancy of a male in the United States was 57.7 years. A woman could expect to live 60.9 years. Retirement age for Social Security benefits was set at 65 years of age. Men who reached age 65 lived an average of 11.7 more years before they died; women, 12.8 years.

The Roosevelt Administration did not expect to pay benefits to any retiree for long. Medical science and pharmacology, however, got better. By 1950, the life expectancy of men rose to 65.5 years; women, 71.0 years. (Men who reached 65 lived an average of 12.7 more years; women, 15 years). The statistics were beginning to bother the bureaucrats. Harry S. Truman attempted to enact socialized medicine. His plan failed. In 1970, man's life expectancy rose to 67.0 years, and women's life expectancy rose to 74.6 years. (Men who reached 65 lived another of 13 years or more; women, 16.8 years.) Richard Nixon tried to enact a healthcare plan around 1970. He failed, too. In 1993 Bill Clinton tried to enact healthcare, and failed, too.

Men were now living an average of 71.8 years; women, 78.8. (Men who reached 65 lived an average of 15.1 additional years; women, 19 years.) Remember, when Social Security was debated by Congress in 1935, a man's lifespan was about 57.7 years, so the Roosevelt Administration did not expect too many people to live long enough to create a problem. And, those who did were expected to be six feet underground within 11.5 years. Social Security was supposed to be a cash cow for the Roosevelt bureaucracy. Today, the life expectancy average in the United States is 78 years with expectations of the recipient collecting benefits for 20 additional years—in a system that expected them to die before they hit 65. Do you see the problem? We're living too long. At least Barack Obama and the Democrats who enacted Obamacare think so. (But, it's important to understand that they—and the wealthy donors who fill their campaign coffers—are exempt from the capital punishment which awaits you and me for living too long.)

Socialized medicine was desiged to fix that problem. It does in Canada—by euthanizing the elderly who are put on waiting lists longer than what life they still possess. Remember, this is the system Hillary Clinton said, in 1993, was the best healthcare system in the world. I guess that's why Canadians flock to the United States to get the procedures they need to prolong their lives (which are no longer available to them in Canada). Once the Canadian version of Obama's Death Board put the patient on the "never forever" waiting list, no physician in Canada can perform the procedure—even if the patient is willing to pay, out of pocket, for the surgery they need to stay alive. Which, of course, is why Canadians cross the border to get the surgery they need to save their lives. Today the Canadians look at the Americans and wonder why the stupid Yanks aren't half as frightened as they are. I guess it's because they lived with the life-threatening reality of a failed healthcare system for almost a half century, and we still think the system will continue to work like it did before the bureaucrats hijacked it. Americans are not accustomed to having to wait six months to two years for a test to determine whether or not they have cancer, and then wait another year or two for a surgey that always comes too late.

During the vice presidential debate in Danville, Kentucky on Oct. 10, 2012, Vice President Joe Biden [D-DE] challenged GOP veep candidate and House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan [R-WI] when Ryan said that Obama cut $716 billion from Medicare and gave the money to Obamacare. Biden challenged him, saying that what Obama did was cut $716 billion in "fraud" from the system and simply pass those savings over to Obamacare.

On Friday, Oct. 11, Fox News invited a fact checker to Fox & Friends to see who was right. The fact checker was former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D, a woman with a heavy political and educational resume and a new best seller from Encounter Books entitled "Obama's Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It." Speaking to a reporter at the Republican National Convention in Tampa on Aug. 27, 2012, about Obamacare, McCaughey said, "The hospital provider cuts in the Obama health law—cuts to treating seniors, will cause 40,000 deaths a year. And, that's an estimate based not on political stuff, but on the actual medical evidence from the Annuals of Internal Medicine, from the National Bureau of Economics Research."

Asked why there was no more media attention focused on those numbers, McCaughey said, "Because the Administration claims that cutting payments to hospitals and hospice care won't actually hurt patient care; it won't affect their benefits. But it's not true. The growing body of scientific evidence proves that when you cut [funding to] hospitals, it means fewer nurses on the floor and higher death rates from heart attacks, from hip fractures, from pneumonia, from very common conditions affecting the elderly. What it means is that elderly hospital patients will have a lower chance of surviving their illness, and leaving the hospital and going home."

Interviewed on an Accuracy In Media's video on Oct. 5, 2012 (shown here), McCaughey, who is also the Chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, told AIM that Obama "...has said, again and again, that he's only cutting payments to hospitals, not senior's benefits. But you shouldn't be bamboozled by that. It's really just a trick and an illusion because this law takes $247 billion dollars out of what hospitals will have to care for seniors over the next decade. In other words, the hospitals will have to care for the same [amount of] seniors with hundreds of billions of dollars less money. And, we know it means there's going to be fewer nurses on the floor, with fewer MRIs done, less room cleaning, less physical therapy, and higher death rates because research sponsored by the Federal Institute on Aging, published in peer review articles—this is not political. Research shows that patients treated at low spending hospitals are less able to recover from their illnesses. For example, elderly patients treated in low-spending hospitals have a 19% worse chance of recovering from a heart attack and going home. Whereas someone else treated at a higher spending hospital, for the same kind of heart attack, recovers, and goes on with life. And, despite this evidence, the Obama Administration is actually awarding bonuses to the hospitals that spend the least per senior and whacking the other hospitals with demerits for spending more. Even penalizing hospitals for recommending physical therapy once the patient leaves the hospital. Or recommending a follow-up visit with the doctor. Something that costs money in the three months after the patient is discharged from the hospital. So we know that these penalties are going to cost seniors their lives."

AIM asked McCaughey if what she was saying was new to Obamacare since AIM had not heard of it mentioned in any previous attempt by any administration trying to enact healthcare reform. McCaughey replied that it was. In point of fact, it was not. The Health Security Act of 1993—Hillary Clinton's failed healthcare system—contained a similar anti-senior euthanasia devise. The Clinton's healthcare system was copied from the Canadian system if you believe Hillary. If you study the healthcare systems of Canada and western Europe, you will find the traditional, death-resultant long waits are prevalent in every country's socialized medicine plans for precisely the same reasons—cost containment.

Not so much for containing the costs of the healthcare systems, but to curb the cost of the retirement income systems which no nations on Earth can now afford. Why? Because in the early 1960s, the princes of industry and barons of banking decided the world population was unsustainable, and legalized abortion was used to curb population growth. The money problems that are now destroying the nation-states are caused from a dire lack of new generations of consumers and taxpayers, working, paying taxes and spending money, to fund both the economies and the governments of the global communities on planet Earth.

McCaughey continued, saying, "We know these penalties are going to cost seniors their lives. Section 3001," McCaughey noted, "rewards hospitals that spend the least on seniors. This is brand new. It's a brand new regulation put into Medicare. It [went[ into effect in October, 2012—and, it's going to have a very detrimental effect. We know from looking at the data, that in one State—California—almost 14 thousand seniors died at the low spending hospitals who would have survived their illness and gone home had they been treated at a higher spending hospital that provided the care they needed. And yet, the Obama Administration just disregarded this evidence and forced hospitals to imitate the low spending hospitals with the highest death rates."

AIM also asked McCaughey how much of Obamacare has already gone into effect. She rightfully said only a small part. When Obamacare kicks into high gear after the election and the inauguration of the newly elected President on Jan. 20, 2013, the Independent Payment Advisory Board system goes into affect and that's when seniors will really begin to see why Canadian and European seniors come to the United States for lifesaving surgeries—and sometimes even for medical tests they can't get in their native land until whatever catastrophic disease they have has consumed their organs and they are nearing a premature death they should not yet be experiencing. It's the fate of the "double dippers"—seniors who greedily outlive the actuarial mortality tables and collect what the State feels is "rightfully someone else's dime," who also greedily expect the State to keep them alive so they can continue to collect Social Security benefits although the a trust fund under their Social Security number is now, for all practical purposes, "overdrawn."

So, what is the Independent Payment Advisory Board? It came from the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Research (yawn) which, surprisingly, was not spawned from Obamacare. The FCCCR was created a year before Obamacare (Obama learned from Hillary's failed Health Security Act that when you legislate a board to euthanize senior citizens, you don't put it in the healthcare act that creates the illusion the healthcare system is supposed to save lives, not end them. No Congressman or Senator wants their "aye" vote to appear on a bill containing provisions to kill the elderly by denying them basic healthcare. The FCCCR was buried in Obama's first stimulus bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The article I wrote exposing it (and showing photos of all 15 Death Board members) who were surreptitiously appointed by Obama to write the guidelines on how euthanize society's dead weight—grandma and grandpa or, if you're old enough, mom and dad. On Aug. 30, 2009 after I found the FCCCR in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, I put together the article linked in the opening words of this sentence.

On Oct. 13, 2010, less than 3 weeks before the 2010 midterm election, Dr. David Jada, MD, an orthopedic surgeon was campaigning for Dr. Robert Steele in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Dr. Steele was trying to unseat Congressman John Dingell [D-MI], a Democratic fixture in Congress. He began by saying that "...it should be clear that the same warning notice must be placed on the Obamacare Plan as on a pack of cigarettes: consuming this product will be hazardous to your health." He continued, "The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on rationing and denying care. There is no focus on preventative health care needs whatsoever. The plan's method is the most inhumane and unethical approach to cutting costs I can imagine as a physician." In his speech he was the first to introduce America to the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. (Notice the layering here. The more layering the more easy it is to obfuscate blame.) No one's responsible for what McCaughey says will be the deaths of at least 40,000 seniors per year from what amounts to medical abuse.) Myself, I believe the number will be much closer to 400,000 deaths per year than 40 thousand—and everyone who voted in favor of Obamacare is to blame..

There are currently about 50 million seniors on Social Security, with another 20 million ready to join them by the end of the next decade. The problem is, abortion has eliminated 69 million potential income earners (about 52 million abortion victims and another 17 million babies who never got to be born, grow up, marry, and have babies of their own).

Without a law legalizing what amounts to about 40 million illegal aliens in the United States (and forcing them into the tax system rather than allowing them to live in a tax-free underground system), Uncle Sam is going to have to euthanize at least 4 million seniors a year, using the contributions to the Social Security system they made to pay the next generation of benefits recipients. Now you understand the WHY. Until you understand why government believes it is imperative to act in a despicable and criminal manner to prevent the economy from collapsing you won't understand why the man sitting in the Oval Office today and the leaders of all of the other "advanced" industrialized nations on Earth see nothing wrong with what's he's done. Remember this second lesson from history as well. The very Jews who where being mercilessly exterminated in the Zyklon-B showers in the Auschwitz concentration camp system and cremated in the furnaces in the camps, and the still-living watched the snow flakes of human skin fall from the darkened sky, refused to believe the Germans would destroy the human capital whose slave labor made them rich—even when those enered the Zyklon-B showers never left them alive. Reasoning is based on the logic of how well the puzzle pieces we possess at the time we analyze any scenario fit together.. When we don't possess enough of the puzzle pieces to see the whole picture, our minds tell us that what is too horrific to be logical cannot be true. I hope this article will give you enough of the puzzle pieces that you can "reason" the whole picture.

Government statisticians have calculated that by 2030 the cost of the federal government's Ponzi scheme—Social Security—will outpace the contributions from its unwilling participants and, from that point, the shortfall will have to be drawn from what is left of the Social Security Trust Fund—a drawer full of IOUs and not much else, which will be actuarially bankrupt in 2041. This will happen largely because of the legalization of abortion in 1973 with the prenatal erasing of over 69 million consumer taxpayers through the saline baths and scalpels of the abortionists. Abortion was also the culprit that made the exodus of the factories of Corporate America to the third world inevitable since the United States and the industrial nations of Europe, with 0.5 to 0.7 population replenishment rates, were no longer producing enough "homegrown" consumers to support the profit base of the corporate princes of industry.

Without a foreign consumer customer base, American factories were producing goods at less than 60% of capacity. Increasingly, America became a replacement market. Americans had everything and needed nothing. The human capital in the third world presented Corporate America with a consumer source that had nothing and needed everything—particularly jobs to provide them with the income needed to buy the goods the factories of the industrialized world could produce. What that means is that, in days and months to come, the drain on Social Security will become even more severe because government can only tax its citizens so much. Government has two choices: somehow, and virtually overnight, replenish the taxpayers it has lost through a two decade old jobs exodus caused by NAFTA; or dramatically reduce the number of retired workers who are currently draining the very finite financial resources of the State. Government appears to have chosen option two.

Medicare is in the same boat as Social Security. Only, Medicare is already paying out more than it takes in. Advocates of reducing Social Security benefits or, once again, raising the "premium," or advancing the age when recipients will be eligible to receive benefits, with partial benefits available at age 67 and full benefits at either 70 or 72 years of age insist that Social Security will begin negative payments in 2017 not 2030. To keep Social Security solvent until 2041 requires a 16% increase in payroll taxes and a parallel 13% cut in benefits. To keep Medicare solvent past 2017 requires a 122% increase in premiums and/or a 51% decrease in hospital stays. Stripping $716 billion from Medicare at a time when increased premiums are needed seems to be the type of thing that only someone without the intellect to manage what used to be the world's largest economy would do.