18 votes

How Hitler used Universal Healthcare in Holocaust

How Hitler used Universal Healthcare in Holocaust

This is an excerpt from the documentary "Architecture of Doom." It shows how the Nazis considered the German population as one body to be healed collectively by the German universal healthcare system (Hitlercare). The Jews were seen as analogous to a microbial infection of the population that had to be eradicated in order to bring on utopia.

Progressives were major promoters of eugenics in America in the 1930's. About 60K people were sterilized by eugenics programs in the US. Whether they are yet as ruthless as Hitler, or not, they still want to use universal healthcare to social-engineer an utopia in America by Government coercion and force.


To read more see:

Hitler - The Real Father of Universal Healthcare


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

How about that it is a notice that WE ALONE have a

healthcare system that costs twice as much as anyone else yet doesn't cover many people and that we alone have a defect in our system that easily explains why this is so?


That's not as a result of a lack of a universal healthcare system, but due to other well-known factors.

"Strawman" call is hardly appropriate here.

A "strawman" is an invented argument attributed to an opponent merely to be shot down by the inventer.

Also used inappropriately by those who don't know what they are doing to object while trying to sound educated and sophisticated in doing it.

You may very well disagree with me but that doesn't make the universal healthcare argument a strawman.

List the supposed "well known factors", don't just allude to them.

We might be the most expensive,

but it has nothing to do with the 'lack of healthcare'. It has everything to do with insurance moneys and a sue happy country. Nobody in America is without healthcare, healthcare insurance maybe, but not healthcare. Insurance and lawsuits are to healthcare cost as endless piles of education entitlement funds and debt are to education cost. It's a big ole shit pile of money, now who has the biggest straw? Get the illegals off the system and see how much better things could have been. I shouldn't lose my perfectly good insurance, which is much better than anything offered by Obamacare, simply because my plan doesn't include coverage for preventing babies or helping me become the first unaltered man to have a baby.

If you can't afford to go to a doctor - you are without


Oh, I know the old conservative argument "They clog emergency rooms! They go there for every little cut and scrape! And the emergency rooms have to take them!".

There may be SOME who do that but they are the minority.

I speak from experience. Years ago as a young adult with a family of four - myself, a wife and two children - we had no money and no real access to healthcare. And we DIDN'T go to Emergency Rooms.

And even if you DO got to an emergency room - they patch you up and get you out. Its not the same as real and preventative healthcare at all.

I think if you'll review the history of healthcare prices

you'll find that the prices began to skyrocket when the government first began getting involved.

  • 1940's - During the 2nd World War, wage and price controls are placed on American employers. To compete for workers, companies begin to offer health benefits, giving rise to the employer-based system in place today.
  • 1950's - At the start of the decade, national health care expenditures are 4.5 percent of the Gross National Product. Federal responsibility for the sick poor is firmly established.
  • 1960's - The price of hospital care doubled. Now in the early 1960s, those outside the workplace, especially the elderly, have difficulty affording insurance. President Lyndon Johnson signs Medicare and Medicaid into law.
  • 1970's - President Richard Nixon renames prepaid group health care plans as health maintenance organizations (HMOs), with legislation that provides federal endorsement, certification, and assistance. Healthcare costs are escalating rapidly, partially due to unexpectedly high Medicare expenditures.
  • 1980's - Growing complaints by insurance companies that the traditional fee-for-service method of payment to doctors is being exploited. "Capitation" payments to doctors become more common.
  • 1990's - Health care costs rise at double the rate of inflation.
  • 2000's - Health care costs are on the rise again. Medicare is viewed by some as unsustainable under the present structure and must be "rescued".
  • Present (not found at reference) - The Affordable Care Act has left less people insured than were previously. People across the nation are finding that previous policies are being canceled and similar plans are much more expensive - further straining financially strapped Americans that find themselves still suffering from the 2008 economic collapse which was also cause by government intervention.


Then explain how it is that we are the ONLY developed country

without universal healthcare. (We are talking here about countries where running waters and any kind of basic sanitation are the norm.) and yet BY FAR the most expensive for healthcare

The argument that prices increase with government participation fails when you consider that there are SO many other examples where government is more involved than in the USA (the very definition of universal healthcare) and yet WE (again WITHOUT universal healthcare) are by far the most expensive.

Last figures I saw were that in the US we spend an average of $8,300 per person for healthcare (from all sources) and yet more than 20% of the people covered in that average, have no health insurance. FRANCE which is second most expensive at around $4,150 per person, covers EVERYBODY wit the top medical care (according to the World Health Organization) while the US ranks 37 (right near Costa Rica according to the same organization).

If you hate freedom why even

If you hate freedom why even post here? I am forced to use a universal health care system and I would give up everything for even a single EU country not to have one. Universal health care is a system of redistribution that works for the irresponsible and for politicians. It reduces costs only through the rationing of care and the obfuscation of real costs. It is unfair and pernicious beyond any measure.

Please visit my site for more information about my libertarian book. Thanks!

Classic argument - usually used by uneducated liberals - but

I see here used by uneducated Libertarian leaners too.

If I want more access to medical care and better prices like EVERY OTHER CIVILIZED COUNTRY HAS - I HATE freedom. Of course I do! What better ways to silence critics than by making ridiculous accusations?

Were you a mindless Bush follower who gobbled it up when he told us that the reason Muslims did 9/11 was that they hate us for our freedom?

Yeah. Sure. I hate freedom. That's why I am here. You got it.

Eating habits

Other cultures tend to have healthier diets. That's a major part of the problem. Subsidizing healthcare also means the subsidization of poor diet. Or do you also advocate government regulation of individual diets?

I better go. All my friends are about to jump off of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Thats plain baloney.

I have visited more than 15 countries. All in Europe. And there is little real difference in eating habits that would account for all of our maladies.

TwelveOhOne's picture

Baloney? No, that has GMOs in it too, probably

European countries have, by and large, banned GMOs.

The US welcomes the corruption of our food supply.

Therefore, you are wrong: there is significant difference in eating habits, due to the predominance of GMOs in USA's food supply. Let alone the benefits of Mediterranean diet etc.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Ignore the facts to promote an agenda much?

Obesity and overweight pose a major risk for serious diet-related chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension and stroke, and certain forms of cancer. The health consequences range from increased risk of premature death, to serious chronic conditions that reduce the overall quality of life.

For the USA:

  • of 22 industrialized countries, the U.S. has the highest obesity statistics
  • 2/3 of Americans over age 20 are overweight
  • nearly 1/3 of Americans over age 20 are obese

Overweight and obesity lead to adverse metabolic effects on blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides and insulin resistance.

The likelihood of developing Type 2 diabetes and hypertension rises steeply with increasing body fatness. Confined to older adults for most of the 20th century, this disease now affects obese children even before puberty. Approximately 85% of people with diabetes are type 2, and of these, 90% are obese or overweight.

Raised BMI also increases the risks of cancer of the breast, colon, prostate, endometroium, kidney and gallbladder.

Chronic overweight and obesity contribute significantly to osteoarthritis, a major cause of disability in adults. Although obesity should be considered a disease in its own right, it is also one of the key risk factors for other chronic diseases together with smoking, high blood pressure and high blood cholesterol.

According to the American Cancer Society, obesity cost an estimated $75 billion in 2003 because of the long and expensive treatment for several of its complications. According to the National Institute of Health, $75-$125 billion is spent on indirect and direct costs due to obesity-related diseases.

Eric Schlosser in his book "Fast Food Nation" states that the annual health care costs in the United States stemming from obesity approaches $240 billion.


I thought you were going to give me facts.

Not Eric Schlosser who was primarily funded by agricultural giants like Monsanto to promote the consumption of grain based commodities.

Same commodities used to promote a "healthy diet" that raise insulin levels and actually make people fat.

Same "healthy diet" that is given to pigs to make them fat is promoted by Mr. Schlosser in his book.

According to official statistics if you are 6'1" and 190 pounds - you are obese.

You're an avid traveler...

From your observations, are Americans more or less fat than other cultures?

For instance, I know quite a few Asian folks. They don't go without eating. To the contrary, they probably eat more than I do and I'm 6'7" 260 lbs. However, the quality of their diet is superb - mostly rice and vegetables.

At the link below is a map that you can hover over the country for statistics. All of the nations were subject to the same criteria. The problem that you bring up about miscategorization is rendered null by the equal treatment (ie the error is distributed evenly without bias).


many of the places I travel SOME people are in excellent shape,

simply because I tend to visit former Soviet Republics like Ukraine, Moldova Latvia, etc. More correctly YOUNGER people are in excellent shape simply because they have very little money, buy very little food and often have to walk miles at a time because a car is an envied luxury.

But the typical diet is pig fat flavored and on bread, fatty sausage, cheese, and many other highly caloric food. And don't forget vodka.

By middle age these people are as obese and more so than any similar population group in the US.

Richer and more industrial countries like France and Germany are as addicted to junk food as we are. At all ages.

Check out:

Fathead. Its an interesting documentary by Tom Naughton that refutes much of Fast Food Nation.


What a load of propagandist bunk!

Pre WW2, the German population was starving, freezing, unemployed and sick. Germany was being "Punished" for starting WW1, a large slice of Germany was "given" to Poland, the native Germans in that territory, were persecuted, raped, shot, nailed to their barn doors, and driven off land that they had owned, often for generations, but since the Treaty of Versailles, was now Polish.
"Collectively" Germany and her peoples were very ill and demoralised
Within 2 years of taking office, Hitler had 6 million people back to work, something no other leader has ever done.
He also recognised the "collective" benefits of healthy eating, fresh air and exercise, and a sense of national pride.
Germany was the most Catholic country in Europe, and she had been infiltrated and overrun with Russian Bolsheviks, who made Berlin their base for Communism and pornography. homosexuals from across Europe arrived and lived, and partied in a manner that shocked and angered the German people.
On coming to power, Hitler gave them time to pack up and leave, peacefully, which many did, by the thousands.When the deadline was up, they, and the Jews that did not leave for Palestine became targets, to drive them out of Germany, so the Germany could belong to the Germans.
Germany was in a drastic state pre WW2, and drastic states call for drastic measurers. Hitler was the product of the meddling of the League of Nations…and they wrote the victors propaganda.

NAZIs/fascists were not "conservatives"

Nazis were national SOCIALISTS. They believed in government autarchy over the economy and all aspects of social life.

They were basically satantic Democrats (Pelosi-style) run amok.

So, when you see nationalists posts even here on daily paul, recognize that the people at heart are collectivists, not libertarians at all.

Which is what suprises me when libertarians get persuaded by alternative theories, particularly those emanating from nationalists.

Very much like NeoConism run amok.

The Republican Party is currently run by NeoCons, who believe in government surveillance of the people, government monitoring and military first.

Romney (King NeoCon himself) wanted to double the size of the military. He wanted every young person to either serve in the military or to do some sort of government conscription as an alternative.

And once you are IN the military, the world is pretty much socialistic for you. Military owns the barracks, provides, your food and medical care you get uniform allowance. There is nearly nothing about military life, the favorite of supposed "conservatives" (NeoCons)that is not as "socialistic" as anything Hitler offered in his military first Third Reich.

The argument is very strong that Naziism was much more like NeoConism taken to extremes.

Yeah. Just like North Korea is actually the "Democratic People's

Republic of Korea".

Its Democratic, owned by the People AND a Republic! (None of that argument about whether it is a democracy OR a republic. Its BOTH.)

So it can't be denied (unless you want to be eaten by 120 hungry dogs).

Names ALWAYS tell the real truth.

(Sarcasm alert.)

How is the "euthanasia" of

How is the "euthanasia" of inferiors born with birth defects any different than pre natal testing and often the abortion that follows if testing proved positive? Just technology

"and the truth shall make you free"
John 8:32

Great point.

I watched a movie about how Sparta would "take care" of it's sickly newborns. Post-birth abortion by throwing them over a cliff. It was their way of being one-degree removed from murdering babies... similar to pre-birth abortion of a baby with defects.

However with the Spartans, I believe they did not give the family the option of raising the child.

Don't take this as an endorsement of either method.

The decision

is presented for the parents, not the state. The state enables an individual(or parents) to decide the fate of their offspring.

You may be aware that there are several cases of "brain dead", and Terri Shiavo back in the news, because many parents choose to LOVE their offspring despite diagnosis of "braindead" or inferior.

Steven Hawking would not be living if it was up to Hitler, eh?

bump so I can watch later.


Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html