Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Obamacare: Feedlot Health Management




The continued profitable success of a modern feedlot is dependent on a combination of a number of factors:

     - good management;
     - a favourable economic climate;
     - relative freedom from epidemics of disease;
     - changes in the costs of inputs such as feed;
     - changes in the price received for the final product.

These are the definitions of successful feedlot health management for Beef CAFO's.

The objectives for our Brave New World Order's Sheeple Feedlot Health Management System are a little bit different...and a lot more profitable for the Corporate-Government Complex that manages our Sheeple CAFO -- otherwise known as "Society."

     - Absolute control and total surveillance management of the herd;
     - A totally controlled and manipulated economic climate;
     - Regular maintenance treatments for epidemics of easily preventable diseases;
     - Changes in the costs of inputs such as feed;
     - Changes in the price received for the final product.


In beef CAFO's, the end goal is to get the cattle to slaughter at their maximum weight and as free of disease as possible.

In our Global Sheeple Feedlot, the end goal is to get the sheeple to eat the GMO man-made feed long enough to develop health issues for which the sheeple will then require treatment from the feedlot's veterinarian staff -- aka our "healthcare industry."

In beef CAFO's, the owners must pay for the feed, veterinarian services and other inputs to realize a profit.

In the sheeple feedlot, the owners get We the Sheeple to pay for our confinement, pay for our feed and pay for our own treatment that comes from the conditions of that confinement.

Sheeple CAFO's are far more efficient and profitable.

Now, since the Sheeple Feedlot is largely a mental construct, the kommisars of our mass media culture still need to convince the sheeple to stay within the confines of the feedlot. The easiest way to do this, of course, is to apply the most successful tactic in the dialectical social engineering playbook: divide and conquer.

Right vs. Left. Conservative vs. Liberal. Republican vs. Democrat. You know the drill.

First you get one "side" to propose a new idea, and the other side appears to oppose it...oftentimes vehemently and with a great show of principled outrage.

Than several years later, after a round or two of the so-called election cycle, the 'other' side appropriates the formerly opposed platform and passes it without even token resistance from it's supporters.

Remember the so-called anti-war movement when Bush was President?

Remember when Bush passed the largest increase in socialized medicine legislation...."free" prescription drugs for medicare/medicaid recipients?

Well, now we have "Obamacare" which is now supposedly opposed by the "conservatives." It's all a charade. Obamacare is everything the big business stooges of the 'right' have been trying to get passed for decades now - aka an insurance cartel that mandates all Sheeple in the American feedlot MUST buy the insurance policy. "Obamacare" is a right wing initiative appropriated by the 'left.'


Sound ludicrous? Check this out:

The mandate, requiring every American to purchase health insurance, appeared in a 1989 published proposal by Stuart M. Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation called "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans," which included a provision to "mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance."

The Heritage Foundation "substantially revised" its proposal four years later, according to a 1994 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. But the idea of an individual health insurance mandate later appeared in two bills introduced by Republican lawmakers in 1993, according to the non-partisan research group ProCon.org. Among the supporters of the bills were senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who today oppose the mandate under current law….

In 2007, a bi-partisan Senate bill authored by Senators Bob Bennett, R-Utah, and Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, contained a mandate….
In 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that put into place an individual mandate.

LEFT, LEFT, LEFT, RIGHT, LEFT

The managers of our feedlot wear two different colored uniforms. Some wear red, some wear blue. Whichever one is currently overseeing our corner of the Feedlot is really inconsequential, as their management systems they choose to use to control the herd will be implemented, with a majority of the herd convinced that they had a hand in making the decision.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is like a parody of modern Glibertarian thought. Ignore the issue. Offer no solutions. Pose as above-it-all cool guy rebel. Use the term SHEEPLE for Christ's sake!

This is a country full of old, poor, fat people. Sucks, but there it is. They need health care, and either someone pays for it, or we start turning people away at the emergency room.

The free market solution to this problem is to cull the herd and let the old, poor and fat go without treatment and die. We're not going to do that because that would be wrong. (By the way, yes, I know that in Glibertarian world there is no "we," only "I") Everyone knows an old, fat or poor person that they love, and no one would tolerate a country that lets the old, fat and poor die on the steps of the ER.

Every advanced Western capitalist democracy has universal health care, spends less on health care than we do, and is universally more healthy. Our system sucks and we're getting screwed. So unless you have some kind of better answer to this unsolvable problem, stop posing like you have some greater insight or moral superiority. There are probably more cool-guy rebel Libertarians on the internet than there are LOLCats. No one's impressed.

Hawaiian Sheepletarian said...

The point is not to come off as "cool" and "above it all."

I belabor to point out that 'healthcare' in this country is hopelessly corrupt and entirely dependent on profiting off of our sickness.

The term "sheeple" is not one I use condescendingly, but rather how "THEY" see us. We are mere cattle to be fattened for slaughter.

Your inability to understand the metaphor and your attack of straw men and your appeal to collectivist arguments are all a waste of time, "anonymous."

I only respond here to clarify for other readers this charge that I am "condescending" or trying to appear "above it all" when I use the term sheeple.

Finally, the entire point of using the sheeple feedlot metaphor is to make the point that the feedlot for sheeple is a mental construct. Once you recognize the barricades it is constructed from (misinformation and propaganda), you can then figure out how to escape it.

patrick kelly said...

Mr. Anonymous please note that currently, without Obama care or any more "universal" health care than we currently have, when poor, fat, old people show up at the ER, they get treated, and someone pays for it.

Now, you may not like who gets the bill or how, but they do not get turned away from the ER.

"So unless you have some kind of better answer to this unsolvable problem...." Well, there you have it, an unsolvable problem, but we must do something, and the ACA is something, therefor we must do it. /s

These "progressive" solutions are such a broken record.

Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho said...

There are probably more anonymouse posters on the internet than their are Willy Wonka memes, no one is impressed.

Upgrayedd (with two d's for a double dose of the pimpin) said...

Whoops there not their.

BlackCat said...

Anonymous: This is a country full of old, poor, fat people. Sucks, but there it is. They need health care, and either someone pays for it, or we start turning people away at the emergency room.

First, "old" is not a medical condition requiring expensive treatment, especially if people, knowing full well in advance that someday they will become "old," take care of themselves.

Oh, but that entails responsibility for one's lifestyle choices. My bad.

Second, "poor" and "fat" are also largely lifestyle choices, and even in the rare case that they are not (i.e., poor due to truly unforeseen and/or unavoidable circumstances), it is still possible to live simply and healthily.

Oh, but that also entails responsibility for one's life choices. My bad again.

Third, the liberal "someone" who is to pay for these things always tends to mean "someone else." Well, if you personally want to pony up to wipe other people's arse for their poor lifestyle habits, go right ahead. knock yourself out. But of course you don't want to do that; you want to force other people, at gunpoint, to pay for your social conscience.

But pointing that out makes me a cold-hearted fascist, of course. My ba-

No. You know what? Fuck you, Anonymous.

Pip said...

"This is a country full of old, poor, fat people. Sucks, but there it is. They need health care, and either someone pays for it, or we start turning people away at the emergency room."

Health care is not a right. Put on the Floyd and start turning 'em away.

Amy Haines said...

@Anonymous,

ask yourself this, "why does the system suck? Why and how are we getting screwed?"

Finding the answer will not yield an automatic solution. KG seeks to explicate problems so he and others can posit possible solutions. Analysis and pattern recognition are the first steps in the process of solving problems.

The thing is, many, many people have offered solutions to the healthcare problems in America, ranging from take care of yourself and your family to getting insurance companies out of the game and letting doctors charge what is fair for their services and patients pay for what they get. Buy catastrophic insurance if you think you will need it: against broken legs or heart disease or cancer, and pay a rate calculated similar to life insurance, based on your state of health and anticipated risk factors.

Insurance companies dictate rates to the doctors, period. Insurers are middle men, bookies, who collect a vig on every transaction between a patient and doctor. Remove the middle man and you can have true, free market interaction between doctor and patient. If the doc charges too much, there is surely another about who will charge less. The patient decides the premium he is willing to pay for good service, not the other way around.

Also, we could do without so much mandatory meddling in our lives by public health advocates. Guess how many fewer doctor visits I'd make a year if I didn't have to have my kids observed and poked and prodded every six months? Guess how much LESS money my current insurance plan would have to pay out if I wasn't required to have certain "routine" tests done?

I've been tested for HIV 7 times in the past four and a half years. WHY? because I've been pregnant three times in the past 4.5 years. My state, and surely many others, require a minimum of two HIV tests and other STD screenings, in the name of "public health." No one ever considers that I do not fit the demo of the typical person to contract HIV, not to mention that I find it terribly judgmental and invasive to test me for a disease that does not happen in stable, monogamous, drug-free, healthy people.

So much of our current health system is designed to make money for insurers, service providers, and drug manufacturers regardless of a real need or reason for tests, procedures, or services. In the name of Public Health and the Greater Good, we are all slaves to the failure state.

Oh, and of course I could opt out of any test I want to, but my insurer could deny future claims. I'd gladly pay out of pocket, but my doctor is forbidden from negotiating a new rate for me and I would pay the insurance company mandated rate. That's not a free market. I could opt out of tests, but they would deny my coverage, and then poke and prod my infant at a mere hour old, against my wishes, in the name of public health.

It's a rigged game, probably the worst one into which we've mired ourselves.

JJ said...

Great point. I did the research on Obamacare, and I still have no idea what I am talking about! I don't think the point was to ever let people now what ails them.

Everything aout it is vague, meant to deceive. I post on my site that congress should be limited to bills that are no more then 200 pages so they can only draft what the legislation is about, not put all those one line statements in it that benefit this corporation, political group, or foreign bank trust.

It is really difficult to know what is, and what is not. Like how Romnney wrote what obamacare is based off. Romneycare if you will in the state of Mass. Problem is, is that true or not, he flip flops so much he most likely did.

Can't trust anyone in D.C.!

Retrenched said...

Perhaps this explains Romney's health care approach -- he doesn't want to repeal Obamacare, he merely wants to repeal and replace it with his version of it.

Meet the new boss...

libertyman said...

Seeming to be true is not the truth, which is the real truth.

health care data warehouse

Narnia said...

Seriously, they have a huge cattle feed lot. How could they manage those herd? The President must have an action regarding this. Different issues are coming about feedlots and this will affects the market.

Enrique said...

The discipline is known by many names, including health management, healthcare management, health systems management, health care systems management, and medical and health services management.

healthcare management