It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Progressives want to kill the elderly and the sick

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
This is just a fact. The Progressive movement sees the State as more important than the individual. The elderly threatens State programs like Medicare and Social Security and instead of reforming these programs to accomodate the increase in life expectancy, they want to ration out healthcare and basically kill the elderly and the sick in a humane way of course.

The Progressive George Bernard Shaw talked about killing folks in a gas chamber if they couldn't show their worth to the State. To Progressives the State is more important to the individual.

Obama is a Progressive. So is Soros and many people in Obama's Administration. This is why Obama called the Constitution fundamentally flawed. It gives too much power to the individual and not enough power to the State. One of the reasons why Obama saw the Constitution as flawed because it "RESTRAINS GOVERNMENT."

This is why they want death panels. They want to encourage the elderly to forgo expensive end of life care and just kick the bucket.


During the stormy debate over his healthcare plan, President Barack Obama promised his program would not "pull the plug on grandma" and Congress dropped plans for death panels and "end of life" counseling that would encourage aged patients from partaking in costly medical procedures.

But on December 3rd, the Obama administration seemingly flouted the will of Congress by issuing a new Medicare regulation detailing -- "voluntary advance care planning" that is to be included during patients' annual checkups. The regulation aimed at the aged "may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment,"

Before being tapped by Obama to his Medicare post, Berwick had long applauded Britain's National Health Service, which uses an algorithm to determine if the aged are worthy of additional expenditure for medical care and advanced treatments.

Berwick has argued that rationing will have to eventually be implemented in the U.S, stating, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

Seniors appear to be a major target for precious resources under the Obama healthcare plan. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama plan cuts nearly $500 million in Medicare benefits to seniors as the federal government adds 30 million uninsured Americans to private and public health care systems.

The cost of caring for the elderly has not been lost on Berwick.

“The chronically ill and those towards the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here… there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place,” he said.


www.newsmax.com...

Again, the Progressives see State Programs like Medicare and Social Security as more important than the Individual. This is why Obama talks about reducing the volume in healthcare.

Paul Krugman said this from the same article.


Last month, however, economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman told ABC News that rising Medicare costs could only be dealt with by "death panels and sales taxes."

He added: "Medicare is going to have to decide what it's going to pay for. And at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the [death] panel that was part of the healthcare reform.’"


So instead of reforming the system they see the programs as all important to the State and to Progressives the State is more important than the individual.




edit on 27-12-2010 by Matrix Rising because: (no reason given)



+36 more 
posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:21 AM
link   
And yet, conservatives want to end these programs altogether and shunt the money into wall street. So, who wants to kill granny again? The people who want to reform these programs and make sure that they last, or the people that want to end these programs altogether and give the money to people like Bernie Madoff?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   
If this passes, the Bilderberg group is going to need new members.

S+F



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I don't believe you.

Perhaps you have some statistics to back up your claims, no?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
While they may be "progressives, liberals or conservatives" the accurate term is Eugenicist. Every other label is in addition to and I would argue, not relevant.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Euthanasia is a very complex, difficult and confronting topic for many. Personally, if I had some terminal illness that left me in high pain I would rather be dead than slowly waiting for that last breath to come. There are many risks and possible abuses with such a system. The best way through it is for everything to be out in the open and all involved consulted. Death is the one thing we can be certain that will happen, I see nothing wrong with planning for it, I see plenty wrong with covering it up and pretending it does not happen.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   
The Film ' Logans Run' with Simon McCorkindale (i think?) was all about this.

A society where those over 30 / 40 (?) years old are vaporised........... a little extreme but has to be said that Population of humanity on a global scale is and will be a greater problem in the future.....

For the record i am a couple of years over the sell buy date ...!!!

For the OP, the 'progressives' will say this but when they are sick and infirm, perhaps be not so quick too shout...!!

PDUK


+9 more 
posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I don't actually care if you believe me or not. In fact, if it is all possible, it would please me if you ceased speaking to me altogether.



And, according to the ISIL (A conservative think tank)

It's Time To End Social Security


At some point people must realize the futility of trying to save the current bankrupt Social Security system.

More tinkering with the status quo won't help – Social Security is both financially and morally bankrupt – and soon this Ponzi scheme will collapse.

Completely ending Social Security and returning total control over retirement savings to individual workers will end the fraud and provide opportunities for them to earn a decent rate of return on their own hard-earned money. Moreover, it will protect their savings from rapacious politicians and ensure that their money is used productively rather than to disguise federal deficits. Reforms in places such as Chile suggest that the overall benefits to the economy could be substantial if government is removed from the equation.

Unfortunately, like the falling man, it is hard for most people to realize that things are not "fine" – until they hit the pavement. The sooner we end Social Security, the better for everyone concerned.


So, yea, Conservatives want to completely end both of these programs, putting old "granny" on the fast track to starvation and death while someone from wall street collects the money she worked for her entire life.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


This is another Fact and is happening already thanks to conservatives....

Death Panels Proven,Who Lives and Who Dies....



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Nope, Conservatives want to reform the system. One of the ways this can be done is through Social Security Savings Accounts for everyone 40 and under like myself. You also increase the age of retirement to 75 or 80 for those 40 and under like myself.

You allow people to put half of the money they pay into S.S. into a Private Savings Account and they can start drawing from this account at age 65. They start getting a S.S. check at age 75 and 80.

See, S.S. is a pyramid scheme. It depends on worker at the bottom of the pyramid to pay out benefits to those at the top of the pyramid. The problem occurs because baby boomers are living longer and this widens the top of the pyramid.

The Progressives want to fix this through Amnesty and Rationing healthcare. This is a recipe for disaster. Just allow people under 40 to do what people in Congress already do. They invest in Private Accounts but we can't?


+5 more 
posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Conservatives want to end both systems, because they feel that they are socialist and that's a bad word among conservatives. They want to give everyone's social security to people like Bernie Madoff, because they feel that only Wall Street investment bankers are smart enough to handle everyones money. Of course all that money will disappear the second they do this.

And they want to completely end Medicare because well, that's socialist too and granny should have had private insurance that can kick her off if she becomes too expensive.

This is why they are against what they termed "Obamacare" because it would make sure that Medicare was properly funded and that people who have need of it and can't actually afford medical insurance would have coverage.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Of course the goal is to end Social Security and Medicare for future generations because of the increase in life expectancy. You will only need these programs for the poorest among us.

Again, these things are Pyramid Schemes and they are designed to crash as life expectancy increases. So they have to be phased out because we can't afford them.


+7 more 
posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


So, basically conservatives want to take all the money I have invested in this so called pyramid scheme and give it to the same people who collapsed the economy and that is a viable solution?

What we cant afford is two wars, an overbloated military budget, and congressional perk packages like the ones currently enjoyed by our congressmen and senators.

What we can't afford is PMC Contracts to companies who arbitrate gang rape cases with our tax dollars. What we can't afford is military projects that will likely never see the light of day.

There's your wasteful spending, not medicare, and not social security, programs paid for by the people that receive direct benefit from them.
edit on 12/27/2010 by whatukno because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Savings accounts also do not solve the problem at all. They also in fact depend on the bottom of the pyramid providing for those at the top (as any other concievable SS program), and IN ADDITION they depend on inflation and stock market fluctuations. Basic SS payed from taxes (+savings for more wealthy) is still better than to rely only on savings.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Funny That the NHS in the UK actually looks after the elderly and the sick in this country. Probably designed by so called "progressives". Maybe if we got rid of the NHS (which the Conservatives would really like to do) the elderly and sick can look after themselves, that would make for a better society wouldnt it?
edit on 27-12-2010 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Elderly men have rights to live. They earned it. They built the country for the next generation.

Sick (ordinary ilness) have rights to healthcare.

Mentally ill, genetically defected who are uncapable of doing deeds to the society should be castrated.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


You don't understand how the system works.

That money is not their for you and it will not be there for the next generations.

The Government spends this money and they replace it with I.O.U.'s. So the Government depends on a certain percentage of people dying before they reach the top of the pyramid. The problem occurs because people are living longer and collecting benefits longer.

There will never be enough workers to pay out benefits as life expectancy increases.

So they have to be phased out because of the way they were set up.

You pay into S.S. and the government spends that money and puts an I.O.U. in it's place. If more people start to live longer and collect benefits then you will have a situation where there's more people at the top of the pyramid then there's workers at the bottom of the pyramid and the Country will come crashing down under the weight of these programs.


+6 more 
posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 




The sooner we end Social Security, the better for everyone concerned.


It is amazing how some people can form this idea. Lets spend millions on airport security with body scanners, lets spend trillions on global security by invading other countries, but when it comes to the security of own people, well just throw them on the street and let them fight it amongst themselves... Does anyone realise the term 'security' is in 'social security' for a reason?
Thankfully most people on this site do



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   
So now we have a third(?) thread about this. The one I read initially was Medicare revives end-of-life planning

Which the user 'sestias' offered this personal story:


My husband has a disease which will probably lead to his death within a few years. He actively seeks out end-of-life counseling from doctors, psychologists, religious leaders, philosophers, etc. He has also talked extensively to me and to his family about what he would like to have happen if and when his early death should occur.

His complaint is that most doctors don't take the time to counsel their patients sufficiently after they deliver the bad news. Many simply give their medical opinion and leave the patient to work out the existential issues on their own.

Probably many doctors feel unqualified to counsel people in spiritual and philosophical subjects and decline on those grounds. Another reason, however, is that a doctor's time is money. Physicians are not reimbursed for the time taken to counsel their patients fully, and they do pay attention to the bottom line.

The Obama plan to reimburse physicians for taking the time to go over a patient's options carefully with them seems sound. Our concern is not that the people my husband consults are encouraging him to die -- none of them are -- but rather that they often don't seem equipped to deal with the subject at all.

My husband can't consult people who have had the experience of dying, obviously, so it seems right that physicians, who have had extensive experience with these matters, should be one of the resources a terminally ill person has available. It seems only right that counseling on these matters should be among the services they are paid to perform.


The second thread Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir

I have to wonder what the threat of planning to die is to you. Is it the idea that it's going to be covered as a medical expenditure through medicare? Is it the reality of death and the countless people that are completely unprepared for the inevitable?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   
No reason to do away with the elderly.

It is enough to do away with Social Security, Welfare and all the Wealth Distribution schemes.
That is just not a duty of the state. Let everyone care for themselves. That would be justice.
I am sick of socialism and communism.

I am tired of having other people's hands on MY pocket.
[SNIP]
edit on Mon Dec 27 2010 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors – Please Review This Link.




top topics



 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join