It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: grandmakdw
This is why Obama said openly that the elderly would not receive life saving health care under the then proposed Obamacare years ago. You may disagree that he said this, but he did when telling a woman under his proposed health care plan her elderly mother would not be eligible for lifesaving care.
Part of Obamacare was to ensure the earlier death of "non productive" citizens. (the elderly)
People scoffed that this was true, but it has turned out to be quite true.
Socialists/progressives/liberals see the elderly as a drain on society, too bad they won't see themselves that way when they are elderly.
Of course the socialists who pass these policies will get all the life saving healthcare they want until they are quite quite old. It is just the average american who will be denied anything but pain meds in old age.
When I lived in Europe (6 years total) the socialists were firmly in control.
At that time, smoking was not discouraged at all
(at the same time America had already gone smoke free in public buildings).
Heavy drinking was the norm and expected.
Healthy eating was not discussed or encouraged at all, while America had healthy eating and lifestyle campaigns going.. (It may have changed in recent years, I admit to not knowing)
I pondered why this was so in socialist Europe and came to a realization, these things led to early death. In a heavily socialized country the retired were a huge economic burden.
Yes end of life care is expensive, but it is just as expensive at 70 as it is at 90 and in those intervening 20 years the state is paying huge sums in retirement benefits.
So it is much cheaper to allow and not discourage unhealthy lifestyles for a socialist state, and to disallow lifesaving treatment for those who are retired.