Anyone who thinks that "socialized medicine" under government control, health care and health care insurance under government control such as Obamacare, are a good idea might want to reconsider when hearing about the United Nations "Post 2015 Sustainable Development Goals." The UN SDG plot "represents a brazen attack on liberty, self-government, markets, national sovereignty, and more – all under the guise of 'solving' all the world's real and imagined problems." Part of this "plot" is the unethical treatment of the elderly as "death targets" by denying medically necessary and life-saving treatment to individuals in all countries who are over 70 years of age.
According to an article in "The Lancet," the UN SDG for health proposes to "avoid in each country 40% of premature deaths (under-70 deaths that would be seen in the 2030 population at 2010 death rates), and improve health care for all ages." The article continues to talk about decreasing premature deaths in all age groups in all world countries except those who are over 70 years of age. From the outset, it appears the UN "plan" is ageist and discriminatory against individuals aged 70 and over.
It is this age discrimination in health care that prompted UK health care and aging experts to reply in an open letter in the same journal, The Lancet. According to the authors, "a chronologically exclusive premature mortality target sends out a strong signal that years lived beyond a certain age, such as 60 years or 70 years, are intrinsically less valuable than those of a younger person." The article accused the plan of "focusing only on mortality" while neglecting "the effect of age-related, chronic morbidity on sustainable development." It has been claimed that evidence existed from low to mid income countries showing "public investment" in the goal targets of maternal and child health and HIV, reducing available resources for other interventions. The authors accuse the premature mortality based SDG of draining "resources from services of relevance to older people – services that are already woefully inadequate in some countries."
According to Infowars.com, the radical UN plan "would put virtually every realm of human activity in the crosshairs…." It is suggested that "government-run health care systems, such as the UK 'National Health Service' (NHS) are likely to focus more resources on easier-to-save younger people – at the expense of the elderly whose deaths would not be counted as 'premature'." It sounds like the creation of a "death panel" in every country. In fact, the UK NHS has already become infamous for killing the elderly, to the stark number of 130,000 patients per year through its Liverpool Care Pathway, and denying necessary care to patients. The UK Royal College of Surgeons, in a statement last year, confirmed elderly patients were "being denied crucial treatment and operations due to discrimination."
Peter Lloyd Sherlock, one of the authors citing ageist discrimination in the UN SDG, declared to the UK Telegraph, "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."
It should not surprise anyone who knows anything about the United Nations that this type of "plan" would be formulated. After all, the majority of countries, who are part of the UN, have governments that are dictatorial, tyrannical, oppressive, and the worst violators of human rights. These "third world" UN members care nothing for individual God-given rights, freedom, or liberty – they are all about exercising iron-fisted control. It's not dubbed the "Dictator's club" for no reason. These tyrants would kill their own mothers, wives, daughters and other family members in a heartbeat without batting an eyelash; so, it's quite obvious elderly countrymen mean nothing as they cannot contribute to "keeping up the tyrants."
In looking at this UN SDG plan, one has to consider the "Obamacare" fiasco currently plaguing the United States. Jonathan Gruber, the "Freddy Krueger" of Obamacare, admitted the idea of controlling cost under Obama care was to deny treatment. Obamacare has its own "death panel" in the form of the Independent Payment Advisory Board; and, an independent body was authorized by Congress to make recommendations on preventative services. The supposed "independent body", the US Preventative Services Task Force, has narrowed the recommendations of preventative services since 2009 in contrast to recommendations made by respected health organizations such as the American Cancer Society, the American College of Gastroenterology and the Mayo Clinic. This results in many individuals aged 50 and over do not receive certain preventative screenings that could save their life because of early detection of many diseases.
Obamacare, hailed by many as "health care for all," is anything but health care for everyone. It is the government forcing its population to buy a product – health care insurance – or face a penalty, tax or whatever anyone wants to call it. It's still punishment for noncompliance. The "signature" law of Obama was never meant to be sustainable, provide health care for the masses, or be affordable. It was designed to fail in order to extend more control over the people leading into a socialized medicine system, such as the UK NHS, while redistributing wealth. Considering that a Republican majority House continues to fund this atrocity should signal to every US citizen that it isn't just Democrats who want control. What must be remembered is health care insurance does not guarantee payment for medical services nor does it guarantee access to health care services.
Even Republicans who are not fans of Obamacare are reluctant to repeal or defund it. Instead, they want to "reform" or "repeal" parts and "replace" those parts with their vision. Their vision is no better than Obamacare and certainly does not restore the previous system as government retains their hands in health care and health care insurance. Americans can look forward to rationing of health care, loss of privacy, discrimination based on variable factors and paying more in premiums and deductibles for less.
Just as government has no business in health care or health care insurance, the United Nations certainly has no business "dictating" to any sovereign nation any aspect of health care or meddling in a nation's internal affairs. The question is why would any independent, free first world nation follow any "plan," "mandate," or "guidelines" spit out by a conglomerate of third world dictators and human rights violating oppressive leaders who would kill their own countrymen – in fact, some have? Who is the United Nations to decide what lives are more valuable than others? Who is government to decide?
It is almost unconscionable that free individuals could support Obamacare or any type of socialized medicine that limits their medical services, decimates their privacy, inflicts punishment in the form of a penalty or tax and would deny treatment to their elderly parents, grandparents, and extended family members or disabled and infirmed less productive family members. Have some Americans in society become so selfish and narcissistic that they would discard their parents, grandparents or elderly and their disabled, infirmed family members? While the majority of Americans did not want Obamacare, there are a few fans of the unconstitutional health care insurance mandate; therefore, the answer to that question would be yes – there are some in America who are that selfish and narcissistic. Greedy could be added as well since Obamacare redistributes wealth in a way.
It takes a truly heartless individual to look in the eyes of a suffering elderly family member and say, "You're not going to get any treatment and will die from your condition so I can get health care insurance that might or might not provide the health care I need." As of right now, it doesn't appear that scenario has occurred. It will eventually and the outcry will fall on the deaf ears of government. Everyone ages and those who are young now may face a worse situation. Only time will tell as Americans are stuck with Obamacare, which will lead to socialized medicine when it implodes on itself. And, if our government sells our sovereignty to the UN or through the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Americans could see the willful unethical euthanasia of patients as is occurring in the UK and the adoption of the UN SDG.
The most innocent and helpless among our population, the unborn, has already been determined to be worthless and undeserving of life. The elderly is the other extreme.
Obamacare, the UK NHS and the UN's intrusion into the health care services of sovereign nations creates an ethical and moral dilemma for health care workers, physicians and nurses. The US has already seen hospitals close, physicians retire or leave the practice of medicine and the nursing profession suffer a shortage. It could get worse as individuals in the medical field migrate to other professions instead of engaging in unethical and immoral practices.
One has to wonder if Obamacare was following the UN "Millennium Development Goals" established in 2000 since the "Sustainable Development Goals" are slated to replace the MDG. Who knows but the similarities are startling which begs the chicken or the egg question. If the intent of the UN is to depopulate the world by 90% within a certain time frame, the socialization of medicine and denial of care to the elderly through SDG implementation in all world nations is a good place to start. The UN SDG is targeted for adoption in September.
It is passed time for the United Nations to be dissolved and kicked out of the free sovereign nation of the United States, as it is a breeding ground for dictators to implement worldwide genocide/democide. At the very least, the US should withdraw from this "world government" wannabe organization, stop all support for it and rescind its welcome to operate on our soil. That action would require a strong, principled, Constitution following, supporting and upholding federal government with the backbone to back it up through action. Right now, the US does not have it. From the looks of it, our great nation may never have it again.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.