Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.


“Complete Lives System”: The Medical Caste System Infecting The US Today

Written by:

Published on: January 23, 2022

Does anyone remember Betsy McCaughey? She was a former lieutenant governor of New York and one of the only individuals who read the entire “Obamacare” legislation. Why is this important? Ms. McCaughey was warning Americans about the atrociousness of Obamacare as many health care professionals were cheering the garbage as “providing health care for everyone.” The usurper-in-chief chastised anyone speaking out against this legislation, passed along party lines without one “Republican” vote in the middle of the night, as wanting to deny health care to those who could not afford it and those who did not have health care insurance.

McCaughey was one who received tremendous criticism for speaking against the legislation, even though she was one of the only individuals to have read it in its entirety, exposing the horrible system that would result from it – a system we are currently witnessing today. Using a system developed by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist and former health advisor to Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarkah, Americans have been thrown into a “medical caste” system developed by this unqualified “doctor” resulting in medical tyranny. While Hussein Soetoro and quack Emanuel were busy accusing those against this legislation of wanting to deny health care to others, Emanuel cooked up a “system” that would do exactly that based upon arbitrary factors determined by bureaucrats. Emanuel, and his cohorts Gavind Persad and Alan Wertheimer, presented the “system” in an article carried by The Lancet in 2009. Not surprisingly, these individuals based the model on “foreign” systems of health care.

Emanuel, Persad, and Wertheimer, who could be aptly described as “the three stooges”, compared three “systems” using “simple allocation principles”, finding “flaws” in the systems and allocation principles that led to creating their “Complete Lives System”.

Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favouring the worst-off, maximising total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multi-principle allocation systems. We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.

Table 1 on page two of The Lancet article by these stooges indicates which “categories” of allocation principles would be included, principles to be excluded, and principles to be included, but with qualifiers.

Table 2, located on page four of The Lancet article compares the advantages and objections of the three systems and their “complete lives systems”, with discussion abounding throughout the paper on the allocation principles and the three systems used that indicate an incomplete understanding of the complexity of the factors involved in determining the course of medical treatment and implementing that treatment. One such factor is patient choice. Another factor is a patient’s belief system or religion in medical treatment. The most important is the patient’s participation in determining their course of treatment based upon all available information – informed consent if you will.

The figure at the top of page five of their article appearing in The Lancet summarizes the “complete lives system.” As you can see, their “model” system allocates resources based upon age, with the most vulnerable of the population, youngest and oldest, being denied services or receiving sub-standard care.

Ms. McCaughey recognized the problem in real time while many were championing the “health care for all,” which was really “mandated health care insurance for all” where the allocation of resources would fall to an unelected bureaucracy, “death panels”, based upon the Nazi-esque form of health care proposed by the three stooges.

Ms.McCaughey, writing in The Wall Street Journal, highlighted the problems in an opinion piece.

Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): “Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change.”

True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors’ ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the “overuse” of medical care: “Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness,” he writes. “This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath’s admonition to ‘use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment’ as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others.”

In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient’s needs. He describes it as an intractable problem: “Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost. Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic Oath, was associated with rationing, and derided as putting a price on life. . . . Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs.” (JAMA, May 16, 2007).

Of course, patients hope their doctors will have that single-minded devotion. But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained “to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care.” One sign of progress he sees: “the progression in end-of-life care mentality from ‘do everything’ to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible.” (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

One cannot serve two masters, for he will hate the one and love the other. [Paraphrase from Matthew 6:24] Yet, that is what Emanuel supports and what is now being perpetrated during the CONvid-1984 planned scamdemic. Doctors and nurses are trying to serve two masters; they are failing miserably. For what has come about is the “medical caste” system based upon the unethical “complete lives system” developed by Emanuel, Persad, and Wertheimer. So, which is it the doctors and nurses hate, and which do they love? It’s fairly obvious looking at the current situation.

Ms. McCaughey sums Emanuel, et. al.’s proposals as follows:

Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going: “Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)

Warnings were issued at the outset of the passage and implementation of Obamacare exposing the legislation as unconstitutional, unethical, communistic, socialistic, and Marxist in nature. Those issuing the warnings were called “racists”, “uncaring”, “elitists”, “ignorant”, among other things. Even after pointing out the “death panels”, and the changing of long enduring medical standards for diagnostic procedures by unelected bureaucrats, no one cared to heed those warnings because “they were going to finally get health care for the monthly price of a cell phone bill.” Ignored was the fact that other people would pay exorbitant premiums for those individuals to receive premiums akin to a cell phone bill. Likewise, it was ignored that the eldest and youngest among the people would be marginalized in health care. And, it was ignored that as these supporters aged, they would become the victims of the system they so passionately cheered. So, would the offspring of those who were of child-bearing age.

But, facts are stubborn things. Most premiums were higher than a monthly cell phone bill meaning many could not afford to participate in “mandates”. Moreover, these same individuals could not afford to pay the “penalty” for noncompliance. The unconstitutional Republican party wanted to “replace” Obamacare with a “plan” that was just as atrocious, proving that both unconstitutional parties were looking to gain control over the health of Americans. Then, Donald Trump burst upon the scene and all of a sudden people were cheering of the end of Obamacare. The only thing ended under Obamacare was the individual mandate. Nothing else was repealed, reverted, or ended.

As Ms. McCaughey pointed out, Emanuel explicated told how the system would work.

In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a “complete lives system” for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. “One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.

“However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear.” In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel’s chart nearby).

Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.”

The youngest are also put at the back of the line: “Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, ‘It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,’ this argument is supported by empirical surveys.” (, Jan. 31, 2009).

So, the “caring” parents have for their offspring, according to Emanuel, et. al., is the “substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life”. In other words, parents love their adolescent offspring more than infant offspring because of the “cost” extended on the older child. In what universe can love be defined as such? Where in the world is the grief measurement of the loss of a child based upon age? The grief surrounding the loss of a child is devastating regardless of age. Empirical surveys are determiners of the amount of grief a parent experiences based on age? Hogwash. Bull Manure. Hooey.

Losing a child, even in the womb due to miscarriage, has devastating effects for the mother, the father, and the extended members of the family.

But, this is what America has now for its health care system, which is a misnomer in itself. And, America is now witnessing the medical caste system in action, as well as the rise of medical tyranny, government despotism and totalitarianism using the “system” established by bureaucrats. Remember, many in the medical profession applauded this system. Of course they did since they are now the determiners of who lives and dies based on a flawed system, ignoring every principle of ethics and medical care that stood for decades. For those American who applauded this system as well, buying the lies and deceit presented by a usurper and his lapdog media, take comfort in the fact that your day is coming as a recipient of these atrocious, unlawful, unethical, barbaric principles established by this “system”.

Don’t believe it? Tune into The Liberty Belles Saturday Night Special “live” on February 6th, 2022, at 7 PM eastern standard time, with Lynne Taylor and me where the medical caste system will be discussed more in depth.

Become an insider!

Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.

Don't forget to like on Facebook and Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of

Trending on The Sons of Liberty Media