"In every case, total medical spending for the elderly will increase dramatically between 2005 and 2030 because the elderly population will increase dramatically during that period"

"Modeling the Health and Medical Care Spending of the Future Elderly", Dr. Jay Bhattacharya's 2008 Rand Corporation Conclusion

Wheeewww boy.

::big breath::

Catherine was right.

Remember that whole “Death Panels” debate?

Yeah.

This may be the angle that red pills people who can’t stomach DEPOPULATION or EUGENICS or EUTHANASIA or FAKED PANDEMICS or JABS BAD…

But understand ECONOMICS.

To be clear, I write this Stack not as an advocacy site but rather as a “solve the mystery” site.

Meeebbbeeee have this case solved and it’s time to head to Wanda’s Diner for some chili now!

😅

---

Note: Some bolding is mine. I picked the Cancer Section because it is illustrative of what I think is the dominant mechanism of culling the herd being deployed.

Excerpt is provided, full paper is here. RAND Corporation exploration into Modeling the Health and Medical Care Spending of the future Elderly, busted out in 2008, which points to this current timeline.

Trump’s NIH nod Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford Public Health dude, is an author.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9324.html

Effects of Cancer Treatment on Medicare Spending

Cancer is largely a disease of old age. For example, about 60 percent of cancer patients in 2001 were age 65 or older. Because cancer treatment is expensive, changes in cancer treatment would certainly affect Medicare spending. A team of analysts used FEM to project spending on cancer care among the elderly through 2030.

To capture the uncertainty about the nature of future cancer treatment, the team estimated the future costs of treatment using five widely varying scenarios of technological change:

• Cancer treatment technologies existing in 2000 remain the same until 2030.

• New drugs developed between 2000 and 2004 improve treatment outcomes.

• Cancer screening technologies improve significantly.

• A cancer vaccine is developed.

• A cure for cancer is discovered.

These scenarios, which range from very pessimistic to very optimistic, reflect the judgments from a panel of experts on cancer and the biology of aging. Some of the scenarios would keep some people alive long enough to contract other diseases. If these diseases are expensive to treat, a relatively inexpensive and effective cancer treatment could end up increasing Medicare spending. An important feature of FEM is its ability to model the outcomes of such competing mortality risks.

Figure 3 shows FEM's projection of cancer prevalence among the elderly, based on each of these scenarios. (Prevalence is the number of individuals age 65 and over reporting having cancer in a given year, divided by the total number of individuals age 65 and over in that year.)

If there is no change in treatment, cancer rates decline from close to 20 percent in 2000 to about 16 percent in 2015 and then remain unchanged through 2030. The decline reflects the fact that people aging into Medicare between 2000 and 2015 were healthier than previous beneficiaries because the former group had lower smoking rates. By 2015, this replacement process reaches a steady state.

In two cases, the scenarios increase the prevalence rate. New drugs could increase the survival rate, so that at any given time there would be more people alive with cancer. Better screening technologies would increase cancer prevalence because previously undetected cancers would be found at an early stage, and early-stage cancer patients are more likely to survive.

Both a vaccine and a cure would reduce cancer prevalence. In the case of a vaccine, prevalence would essentially reach zero after the remaining cancer survivors die. In the case of a cure, cancer prevalence would drop immediately to zero.

However, none of these scenarios would significantly affect total Medicare spending. In every case, total medical spending for the elderly will increase dramatically between 2005 and 2030 because the elderly population will increase dramatically during that period. Demographics swamp the effects of even the most impressive technological developments.

---

related:

SUPPRESSING CANCER CURES AS A MEANS OF POPULATION CONTROL

Cancer. He said. "We can cure almost every cancer right now. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it's ever decided that it should be released. But consider - if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer as something else."

Efforts at cancer treatment would be geared more toward comfort than toward cure. There was some statement that ultimately the cancer cures which were being hidden in the Rockefeller Institute would come to light because independent researchers might bring them out, despite these efforts to suppress them. But at least for the time being, letting people die of cancer was a good thing to do because it would slow down the problem of overpopulation.

---

---

---

---

Okay.

1. The Owners are explicit. They do NOT wish to cure cancer.

2. Catherine Austin Fitts describes how public health economics is unsustainable due to the ballooning demographics and the government is fully aware of this and has given up.

3. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a public health economics expert. I believe he is essentially a bean counter. Not sure if he is an actual doctor seeing patients.

4. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya recommended the Covid Shots for the elderly. All the way through the faked pandemic.

5. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya provided his intelligence to the Rand Corporation, a (military) think tank.

---

Here is more on the modern day Rand Corporation stance on Covid-19 and vaccine uptake for pregnant women.

Background

Pregnancy poses increased risks from COVID-19, including hospitalization and premature delivery. Yet pregnant individuals are less likely to have received a COVID-19 vaccine.

Objective

This study aimed to investigate COVID-19 vaccine uptake and reasons for delay or refusal among perinatal parents.

Study Design

A total of 1,542 eligible parents who delivered between 2019 and 2021 were surveyed through the Ovia parenting app, which has a nationally representative user base. Adjusted and nationally weighted means were calculated. Multivariate logistic regression and survival models were used to examine uptake.

Results

At least 1 dose of the COVID-19 vaccine was received by 70% of the parents. Those with a bachelor's or graduate degree were significantly more likely to have received a vaccine relative to those with some college or less (adjusted odds ratio for bachelor's degree, 1.854; 95% confidence interval, 1.19–2.90; adjusted odds ratio for graduate degree, 2.833; 95% confidence interval, 1.69–4.75). Parents living in rural areas were significantly less likely to have received a vaccine relative to those living in urban areas (adjusted odds ratio for small city, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.45–0.86; adjusted odds ratio for rural area, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.35–0.89); 56% (281/502) of unvaccinated parents considered that the vaccine "was too new." Among those pregnant in 2021, 44% (258/576) received at least 1 dose, and 34% (195/576) reported that pregnancy had "no impact" on their vaccine decision.

Conclusion

There was significant heterogeneity in vaccine uptake and attitudes toward vaccines during pregnancy by sociodemographics and over time. Public health experts need to consider and test more tailored approaches to reduce vaccine hesitancy in this population.

👇

---

I hope you see the outlines of what is going on here.

How the Day Tapes “ostensible reason” is placed in the minds of those who make it through the Spook Rockefeller Medicine and Science gauntlet and how they are presented problems to solve and to solve them means playing along.

FALSIFIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Somewhere in this connection, then, was the statement admitting that some scientific research data could be - and indeed has been - falsified in order to bring about desired results. And here was said, "People don't ask the right questions. Some people are too trusting."

Now this was an interesting statement because the speaker and the audience all being doctors of medicine and supposedly very objectively, dispassionately scientific and science being the be all and end-all ... well to falsify scientific research data in that setting is like blasphemy in the church ... you just don't do that.

Anyhow, out of all of this was to come the New International Governing Body, probably to come through the U.N . and with a World Court, but not necessarily through those structures. It could be brought about in other ways. Acceptance of the U.N . at that time was seen as not being as wide as was hoped. Efforts would continue to give the United Nations increasing importance. People would be more and more used to the idea of relinquishing some national sovereignty.

---

I see this plain as day right now and I didn’t even spend time in the federal government or the Rand Satan Corporation or go to Harvard or Yale or Stanford or MIT.

Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s roles in this theater of cull is to make sure that you do NOT see this.

(Trust me, Donald Trump did not sit down and look at the Rand Corporation reports and land on Jab the Olds Dr. Jay Bhattacharya or Jab the Preggers Marty Makary. Someone who is well aware of the “public health economics” made sure that they ended up in the mix.)

---

As such, I am putting a laser pointer on my forehead.

I’m possibly fucking with their shit as I have former Reagan Staffers and former CBS News Anchors following this joint.

---

So can I have a Kofi is what I’m saying?

☕️

https://ko-fi.com/sagehanaproductions64182

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/sagehanaJ

😅 That was manipulative. I do apologize.

Heather B. Red Drink and afk. dsjf kldjfkl jkfldas k fjakdsapaul alexakdn kdrere adf d mossasad

---