UN Decides That People Over 70 Have Lived Long Enough

[boedicca]

Curious. The developed world is being hit with the Retirement Entitlement Tsumani and the Nationalized Health Care Hurricane.

It cannot be a coinkydink that the UN has determined that people over 70 have Lived Long Enough, and won't be included in the pool of people used to calculate success rates in reducing disease.

The real world implication of this is that 70+ folks will not be allocated dwindling health care resources when diagnosed with cancer because the Should Have Died by that age anyway.

Consider this a preview of coming Obamacare attractions....


The NHS could be led to discriminate against the over 70s to meet ‘highly unethical’ UN health targets which seek to reduce premature deaths in younger people, senior medics have warned.

Under the proposed Sustainable Development Goals, UN member states will be given targets to cut the number of deaths from diseases like cancer, stroke, diabetes and dementia by one third by 2030.

However because many are age-related illnesses people who succumb to those diseases from the age of 70 are not deemed to have died prematurely and so are not included in the target.

In an open letter published in The Lancet, an international group of ageing specialists say the new guideline sends out the message that health provision for younger groups must be prioritised at the expense of older people.

Prof Peter Lloyd-Sherlock, professor of social policy and international development at the University of East Anglia, and lead author of the letter, said: “This premature mortality target is highly unethical, since it unjustifiably discriminates against older people.

“We already know that there is age discrimination in cancer care and surgery and these targets give that the stamp of approval.

“The targets are not quite set in stone yet, so we have a final opportunity to impress upon the UN the need to alter this explicitly ageist health target.

“If this doesn’t happen, people aged 70 and over will become second-class citizens as far as health policy is concerned.”...

Elderly face NHS discrimination under new UN death targets - Telegraph

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The U (useless) N needs to be kicked to the curb

 

[Hamlet091765]

Curious. The developed world is being hit with the Retirement Entitlement Tsumani and the Nationalized Health Care Hurricane.

It cannot be a coinkydink that the UN has determined that people over 70 have Lived Long Enough, and won't be included in the pool of people used to calculate success rates in reducing disease.

The real world implication of this is that 70+ folks will not be allocated dwindling health care resources when diagnosed with cancer because the Should Have Died by that age anyway.

Consider this a preview of coming Obamacare attractions....


The NHS could be led to discriminate against the over 70s to meet ‘highly unethical’ UN health targets which seek to reduce premature deaths in younger people, senior medics have warned.

Under the proposed Sustainable Development Goals, UN member states will be given targets to cut the number of deaths from diseases like cancer, stroke, diabetes and dementia by one third by 2030.

However because many are age-related illnesses people who succumb to those diseases from the age of 70 are not deemed to have died prematurely and so are not included in the target.

In an open letter published in The Lancet, an international group of ageing specialists say the new guideline sends out the message that health provision for younger groups must be prioritised at the expense of older people.

Prof Peter Lloyd-Sherlock, professor of social policy and international development at the University of East Anglia, and lead author of the letter, said: “This premature mortality target is highly unethical, since it unjustifiably discriminates against older people.

“We already know that there is age discrimination in cancer care and surgery and these targets give that the stamp of approval.

“The targets are not quite set in stone yet, so we have a final opportunity to impress upon the UN the need to alter this explicitly ageist health target.

“If this doesn’t happen, people aged 70 and over will become second-class citizens as far as health policy is concerned.”...

Elderly face NHS discrimination under new UN death targets - Telegraph

A lot of ailments do not show up until people are late in their lives. For example, I and my wife too, seldom had even a minor health problem before age 70. Now it is something new each day it seems.

Older people are role models for the young and are also investors, so let's not throw them under the bus. My wife and I are still young at heart and the grand kids eat it up.
We have it made while their parents are struggling and probably will never get on top.

Mentally we are in fair shape but physically we are basket cases.

 

[FA_Q2]

Are you suprised?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Curious. The developed world is being hit with the Retirement Entitlement Tsumani and the Nationalized Health Care Hurricane.

It cannot be a coinkydink that the UN has determined that people over 70 have Lived Long Enough, and won't be included in the pool of people used to calculate success rates in reducing disease.

The real world implication of this is that 70+ folks will not be allocated dwindling health care resources when diagnosed with cancer because the Should Have Died by that age anyway.

Consider this a preview of coming Obamacare attractions....


The NHS could be led to discriminate against the over 70s to meet ‘highly unethical’ UN health targets which seek to reduce premature deaths in younger people, senior medics have warned.

Under the proposed Sustainable Development Goals, UN member states will be given targets to cut the number of deaths from diseases like cancer, stroke, diabetes and dementia by one third by 2030.

However because many are age-related illnesses people who succumb to those diseases from the age of 70 are not deemed to have died prematurely and so are not included in the target.

In an open letter published in The Lancet, an international group of ageing specialists say the new guideline sends out the message that health provision for younger groups must be prioritised at the expense of older people.

Prof Peter Lloyd-Sherlock, professor of social policy and international development at the University of East Anglia, and lead author of the letter, said: “This premature mortality target is highly unethical, since it unjustifiably discriminates against older people.

“We already know that there is age discrimination in cancer care and surgery and these targets give that the stamp of approval.

“The targets are not quite set in stone yet, so we have a final opportunity to impress upon the UN the need to alter this explicitly ageist health target.

“If this doesn’t happen, people aged 70 and over will become second-class citizens as far as health policy is concerned.”...

Elderly face NHS discrimination under new UN death targets - Telegraph

That is very inhumane and uncivil. I really can't understand the reasoning and logic behind such nonsense. Are they now acting as a jury deciding who should live and who should die? People are living longer, and some are living longer with great health and energy. Age longevity has been increasing for over a century now. I believe that currently the expected age longevity is around the mid 70's. Yes, people get sick and die. But that holds true for young people also. Something is bad wrong when we start penalizing longevity. Withholding resources, especially health resources, from our seniors is both inhumane and uncivil, to say the least. Many of our elders contribute to society, and do so into their 80's and 90's. We have doctors and lawyers in their 70's. We have politicians in their 70's. We have scientists and engineers in their 70's. We have college professors in their 70's.

In my opinion, this boat wont float. I just don't see health care professionals withholding services and resources from our seniors. It would take cold hearted cruel professionals to treat our elderly in such a manner.

 

[FA_Q2]

Really? You don’t see the reasoning behind something like this because I think the thought process is crystal clear – and quite old. The concept has been around forever.

This is what happens when you play a numbers game with life. You look for ‘best outcome’ numbers by dollar and that includes selling the old down the river. This is one of the CORE problems with things like national healthcare – this is exactly how such measures ‘save’ money and improve outcomes.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Curious. The developed world is being hit with the Retirement Entitlement Tsumani and the Nationalized Health Care Hurricane.

It cannot be a coinkydink that the UN has determined that people over 70 have Lived Long Enough, and won't be included in the pool of people used to calculate success rates in reducing disease.

The real world implication of this is that 70+ folks will not be allocated dwindling health care resources when diagnosed with cancer because the Should Have Died by that age anyway.

Consider this a preview of coming Obamacare attractions....


The NHS could be led to discriminate against the over 70s to meet ‘highly unethical’ UN health targets which seek to reduce premature deaths in younger people, senior medics have warned.

Under the proposed Sustainable Development Goals, UN member states will be given targets to cut the number of deaths from diseases like cancer, stroke, diabetes and dementia by one third by 2030.

However because many are age-related illnesses people who succumb to those diseases from the age of 70 are not deemed to have died prematurely and so are not included in the target.

In an open letter published in The Lancet, an international group of ageing specialists say the new guideline sends out the message that health provision for younger groups must be prioritised at the expense of older people.

Prof Peter Lloyd-Sherlock, professor of social policy and international development at the University of East Anglia, and lead author of the letter, said: “This premature mortality target is highly unethical, since it unjustifiably discriminates against older people.

“We already know that there is age discrimination in cancer care and surgery and these targets give that the stamp of approval.

“The targets are not quite set in stone yet, so we have a final opportunity to impress upon the UN the need to alter this explicitly ageist health target.

“If this doesn’t happen, people aged 70 and over will become second-class citizens as far as health policy is concerned.”...

Elderly face NHS discrimination under new UN death targets - Telegraph

That is very inhumane and uncivil. I really can't understand the reasoning and logic behind such nonsense. Are they now acting as a jury deciding who should live and who should die? People are living longer, and some are living longer with great health and energy. Age longevity has been increasing for over a century now. I believe that currently the expected age longevity is around the mid 70's. Yes, people get sick and die. But that holds true for young people also. Something is bad wrong when we start penalizing longevity. Withholding resources, especially health resources, from our seniors is both inhumane and uncivil, to say the least. Many of our elders contribute to society, and do so into their 80's and 90's. We have doctors and lawyers in their 70's. We have politicians in their 70's. We have scientists and engineers in their 70's. We have college professors in their 70's.

In my opinion, this boat wont float. I just don't see health care professionals withholding services and resources from our seniors. It would take cold hearted cruel professionals to treat our elderly in such a manner.

If we stand by and allow our elders - those who have knowledge of history and were eyewitnesses to it - to be removed from the earth - so that the globalists can rewrite history according to the dictates of their own wicked hearts - we shall live to regret it. Our elders are rich in wisdom, patience, knowledge and mercy. God help us if we stand by and say nothing while Globalists attempt such a thing! God help us!

 

[Sonny Clark]

Really? You don’t see the reasoning behind something like this because I think the thought process is crystal clear – and quite old. The concept has been around forever.

This is what happens when you play a numbers game with life. You look for ‘best outcome’ numbers by dollar and that includes selling the old down the river. This is one of the CORE problems with things like national healthcare – this is exactly how such measures ‘save’ money and improve outcomes.

Money doesn't take the place of life. The problems in this world today are money motivated. There are more important things than money.

 

[FA_Q2]

Really? You don’t see the reasoning behind something like this because I think the thought process is crystal clear – and quite old. The concept has been around forever.

This is what happens when you play a numbers game with life. You look for ‘best outcome’ numbers by dollar and that includes selling the old down the river. This is one of the CORE problems with things like national healthcare – this is exactly how such measures ‘save’ money and improve outcomes.

Money doesn't take the place of life. The problems in this world today are money motivated. There are more important things than money.

Only if you do not understand what money represents.

It represents resource. There is limited resource – period. Nothing is going to change that. Just because you represent that with money does not change the underlying reality.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Really? You don’t see the reasoning behind something like this because I think the thought process is crystal clear – and quite old. The concept has been around forever.

This is what happens when you play a numbers game with life. You look for ‘best outcome’ numbers by dollar and that includes selling the old down the river. This is one of the CORE problems with things like national healthcare – this is exactly how such measures ‘save’ money and improve outcomes.

Money doesn't take the place of life. The problems in this world today are money motivated. There are more important things than money.

Only if you do not understand what money represents.

It represents resource. There is limited resource – period. Nothing is going to change that. Just because you represent that with money does not change the underlying reality.

Believe me, I fully understand money, what it means, and the horrible tragedies that have resulted from the lust and greed associated with it. I have lived long enough to witness the destruction, deaths, and human tragedies that have resulted from the evil side of money. Money is the motivation behind a lot of what we see that's wrong in this world today. All one has to do to understand that is to read the headlines and to walk down Main Street America.

 

[Annie]

Really? You don’t see the reasoning behind something like this because I think the thought process is crystal clear – and quite old. The concept has been around forever.

This is what happens when you play a numbers game with life. You look for ‘best outcome’ numbers by dollar and that includes selling the old down the river. This is one of the CORE problems with things like national healthcare – this is exactly how such measures ‘save’ money and improve outcomes.

Soylent Green.

 

[Porker]

That is very inhumane and uncivil. I really can't understand the reasoning and logic behind such nonsense. Are they now acting as a jury deciding who should live and who should die? People are living longer, and some are living longer with great health and energy. Age longevity has been increasing for over a century now. I believe that currently the expected age longevity is around the mid 70's. Yes, people get sick and die. But that holds true for young people also. Something is bad wrong when we start penalizing longevity. Withholding resources, especially health resources, from our seniors is both inhumane and uncivil, to say the least. Many of our elders contribute to society, and do so into their 80's and 90's. We have doctors and lawyers in their 70's. We have politicians in their 70's. We have scientists and engineers in their 70's. We have college professors in their 70's.

In my opinion, this boat wont float. I just don't see health care professionals withholding services and resources from our seniors. It would take cold hearted cruel professionals to treat our elderly in such a manner.

But right in line with Regressive Party thinking. (see Obamacare)

 

[FA_Q2]

Really? You don’t see the reasoning behind something like this because I think the thought process is crystal clear – and quite old. The concept has been around forever.

This is what happens when you play a numbers game with life. You look for ‘best outcome’ numbers by dollar and that includes selling the old down the river. This is one of the CORE problems with things like national healthcare – this is exactly how such measures ‘save’ money and improve outcomes.

Money doesn't take the place of life. The problems in this world today are money motivated. There are more important things than money.

Only if you do not understand what money represents.

It represents resource. There is limited resource – period. Nothing is going to change that. Just because you represent that with money does not change the underlying reality.

Believe me, I fully understand money, what it means, and the horrible tragedies that have resulted from the lust and greed associated with it. I have lived long enough to witness the destruction, deaths, and human tragedies that have resulted from the evil side of money. Money is the motivation behind a lot of what we see that's wrong in this world today. All one has to do to understand that is to read the headlines and to walk down Main Street America.

Then you don’t understand money at all. Take all the money away and do you think the vices you just associated with it would vanish? Of course not because there would STILL be limited resources and THAT is the source of that strife. Competition over control of limited resources. Money simply represents those resources – it is nothing more than a medium.

 

[FA_Q2]

Really? You don’t see the reasoning behind something like this because I think the thought process is crystal clear – and quite old. The concept has been around forever.

This is what happens when you play a numbers game with life. You look for ‘best outcome’ numbers by dollar and that includes selling the old down the river. This is one of the CORE problems with things like national healthcare – this is exactly how such measures ‘save’ money and improve outcomes.

Soylent Green.

One example in recent years, yes.

 

[boedicca]

Are you suprised?

No. The governments are desperate to reduce the unproductive population. Retired people are no longer tax serfs, hence have outlived their usefulness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sonny Clark]

Really? You don’t see the reasoning behind something like this because I think the thought process is crystal clear – and quite old. The concept has been around forever.

This is what happens when you play a numbers game with life. You look for ‘best outcome’ numbers by dollar and that includes selling the old down the river. This is one of the CORE problems with things like national healthcare – this is exactly how such measures ‘save’ money and improve outcomes.

Money doesn't take the place of life. The problems in this world today are money motivated. There are more important things than money.

Only if you do not understand what money represents.

It represents resource. There is limited resource – period. Nothing is going to change that. Just because you represent that with money does not change the underlying reality.

Believe me, I fully understand money, what it means, and the horrible tragedies that have resulted from the lust and greed associated with it. I have lived long enough to witness the destruction, deaths, and human tragedies that have resulted from the evil side of money. Money is the motivation behind a lot of what we see that's wrong in this world today. All one has to do to understand that is to read the headlines and to walk down Main Street America.

Then you don’t understand money at all. Take all the money away and do you think the vices you just associated with it would vanish? Of course not because there would STILL be limited resources and THAT is the source of that strife. Competition over control of limited resources. Money simply represents those resources – it is nothing more than a medium.

You're entitle to your opinion, and I respect your right to express it. But, I do fully understand money, it's value, it's purpose, and it's power.

 

[FA_Q2]

Really? You don’t see the reasoning behind something like this because I think the thought process is crystal clear – and quite old. The concept has been around forever.

This is what happens when you play a numbers game with life. You look for ‘best outcome’ numbers by dollar and that includes selling the old down the river. This is one of the CORE problems with things like national healthcare – this is exactly how such measures ‘save’ money and improve outcomes.

Money doesn't take the place of life. The problems in this world today are money motivated. There are more important things than money.

Only if you do not understand what money represents.

It represents resource. There is limited resource – period. Nothing is going to change that. Just because you represent that with money does not change the underlying reality.

Believe me, I fully understand money, what it means, and the horrible tragedies that have resulted from the lust and greed associated with it. I have lived long enough to witness the destruction, deaths, and human tragedies that have resulted from the evil side of money. Money is the motivation behind a lot of what we see that's wrong in this world today. All one has to do to understand that is to read the headlines and to walk down Main Street America.

Then you don’t understand money at all. Take all the money away and do you think the vices you just associated with it would vanish? Of course not because there would STILL be limited resources and THAT is the source of that strife. Competition over control of limited resources. Money simply represents those resources – it is nothing more than a medium.

You're entitle to your opinion, and I respect your right to express it. But, I do fully understand money, it's value, it's purpose, and it's power.

IOW, you can’t argue the facts as presented.


Whatever – continue demanding that money is the source even when I have presented the reason such an opinion is silly.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Money doesn't take the place of life. The problems in this world today are money motivated. There are more important things than money.

Only if you do not understand what money represents.

It represents resource. There is limited resource – period. Nothing is going to change that. Just because you represent that with money does not change the underlying reality.

Believe me, I fully understand money, what it means, and the horrible tragedies that have resulted from the lust and greed associated with it. I have lived long enough to witness the destruction, deaths, and human tragedies that have resulted from the evil side of money. Money is the motivation behind a lot of what we see that's wrong in this world today. All one has to do to understand that is to read the headlines and to walk down Main Street America.

Then you don’t understand money at all. Take all the money away and do you think the vices you just associated with it would vanish? Of course not because there would STILL be limited resources and THAT is the source of that strife. Competition over control of limited resources. Money simply represents those resources – it is nothing more than a medium.

You're entitle to your opinion, and I respect your right to express it. But, I do fully understand money, it's value, it's purpose, and it's power.

IOW, you can’t argue the facts as presented.


Whatever – continue demanding that money is the source even when I have presented the reason such an opinion is silly.

What "facts" have you presented? Well, call it silly all you want, but if it's not money, then what is it?

 

[FA_Q2]

Only if you do not understand what money represents.

It represents resource. There is limited resource – period. Nothing is going to change that. Just because you represent that with money does not change the underlying reality.

Believe me, I fully understand money, what it means, and the horrible tragedies that have resulted from the lust and greed associated with it. I have lived long enough to witness the destruction, deaths, and human tragedies that have resulted from the evil side of money. Money is the motivation behind a lot of what we see that's wrong in this world today. All one has to do to understand that is to read the headlines and to walk down Main Street America.

Then you don’t understand money at all. Take all the money away and do you think the vices you just associated with it would vanish? Of course not because there would STILL be limited resources and THAT is the source of that strife. Competition over control of limited resources. Money simply represents those resources – it is nothing more than a medium.

You're entitle to your opinion, and I respect your right to express it. But, I do fully understand money, it's value, it's purpose, and it's power.

IOW, you can’t argue the facts as presented.


Whatever – continue demanding that money is the source even when I have presented the reason such an opinion is silly.

What "facts" have you presented? Well, call it silly all you want, but if it's not money, then what is it?

Did you not read.

The competition over access and control of limited resources which exists with or without money.

 

[FA_Q2]

And that is a constant – you cannot eliminate that fact.