Monday, July 11, 2005
AARP Paves the Way for Euthanasia
AARP is the largest and most well known advocacy group for retirement-aged persons. It's political and economic clout is enormous. They are also full partners in the right-to-die movement along with the usual suspects (George Soros, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,the Hastings Center, Choice in Dying, etc.) The trusty LifeTree Timeline gives a the highpoints of AARP's involvement with the the right-to-die movement:
Nov 1995 - Soros' foundation hosts conference at Project on Death in America headquarters: Cummings, RWJF, Commonwealth, AARP and others
Sept 2000 - American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) $560,000 (for a special companion piece in Modern Maturity. The title of the lead piece was "The Last Taboo.")[to support Bill Moyers "One Our Own Terms" documentary]
March 2002 - NHPCO receives $100,000 grant from AARP Andrus Foundation for NHPCO's National Quality Partnership Program.
March 2003 - AARP's Modern Maturity magazine publishes article supporting assisted-suicide.
Based on the background information, guess which European country AARP recently picked as the best place for people to grow old:
AARP The Magazine has named the Netherlands the leader in providing a high quality-of-life for its older citizens. This news, among other findings, was derived from an exclusive survey of 16 industrialized nations on key issues such as: health care, benefits, pension coverage, taxes and social programs. Through this survey, AARP The Magazine hopes to shed light on the benefits retirees enjoy elsewhere in the world as a reference point for America’s own policies
Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media had some interesting comments about AARP's apparent direction:
AARP also gave an award to Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, a European Socialist and former director of the U.N.'s World Health Organization (WHO). Brundtland participated in AARP's "Global Aging Program" to help develop its policies in this area.
Nobody in their right mind wants to suffer from a terminal illness. Medical treatments that only prolong the dying process and continue suffering don't make any sense. But in the name of "sustainable development," popularized by Brundtland, the U.N. and much of Europe are moving toward population control measures, including those that target the elderly for elimination. Brundtland, once labeled "The Mother of Sustainable Development," believes there are too many people in the world.
While many people might accept the idea of planning their own death, in the sense that a "living will" avoids prolonged suffering, the embrace of the Netherlands model by AARP seems to suggest it wants us to move toward embracing government intervention into our lives for the purpose of facilitating of causing our deaths.
The WHO is reformulating a "new ethics" which emphasizes the importance of "economic" resources and the likelihood of success in treating people. Analyst Marguerite Peeters says, "The system of priorities in the new WHO paradigm will necessarily lead to the marginalization of certain people. There will be no available resources for certain 'categories' of patients, those deemed less important to public health: the elderly, the handicapped, and perhaps even the members of minority groups."
It is noteworthy that, 50 years ago, the Nazis were prosecuted for war crimes for their government-sponsored euthanasia program. Now, the Nazi program is being accepted under the cover of "sustainable development." How can they "sustain" the earth when there are so many people on the planet? The obvious answer is to get rid of some of them, especially those who are sick and elderly or handicapped.
The WHO, under the leadership of AARP favorite Brundtland, the former leader of Norway, implicitly supports this practice.
It is significant that AARP also supported Hillary Clinton's socialized medicine scheme. Once the health care system has been completely nationalized, it can be easily linked to a global network under the supervision of the U.N.'s WHO, in which the "new ethics" can be used to guide the Social Security and health care systems, including Medicare. In this context, it must be recalled that the WHO played a role in developing Hillary's original plan.
On the Social Security front, the most likely political outcome is stalemate, with the liberals using the ongoing crisis as a pretext to seize even more government control over the health care system, ration treatments to the elderly, and then eventually implement a government-sponsored euthanasia program to target and eliminate some of the most "nonproductive" and "useless" people. This will "solve" the Social Security "problem" and the government will remain in charge of the system. Taxes will continue to rise and we will live in a full-fledged socialist state. That is, if we live.
According to the orginal article cutting costs is the key to the Netherland's "success":
How do the Dutch do it? How do their euros stretch further than our dollars? The key factor is lower costs. Although medicine isn't completely socialized—physicians and pharmacists, for example, aren't state employees—the government regulates almost all health expenses. That helps explain why, in the view of Professor Gerard F. Anderson of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, "in the U.S. we pay a lot more than anybody else for pretty much the same stuff." In analyzing health systems in the Netherlands and other industrialized nations, Anderson found that drugs, hospitals, and physicians' services were from 30 to 50 percent more expensive in the U.S., "and their health status is as good or better than ours."
Although economics is widely cited by the right-to-die movement as a justification for assisted suicide and euthanasia, and is certainly a factor in the Netherlands, nowhere is this mentioned in the article.
This sharpens the focus a bit, and the "final solution" to the crisis of the aging baby boomers and Social Security and other health benefits becomes more apparent. You can bet your nest egg that any national healthcare system will eventually incorporate right-to-die policies like those in Oregon and the Netherlands. And unless their membership wakes up to see they are being lead to the slaughter, AARP will be the Pied Piper of the boomers.
Nov 1995 - Soros' foundation hosts conference at Project on Death in America headquarters: Cummings, RWJF, Commonwealth, AARP and others
Sept 2000 - American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) $560,000 (for a special companion piece in Modern Maturity. The title of the lead piece was "The Last Taboo.")[to support Bill Moyers "One Our Own Terms" documentary]
March 2002 - NHPCO receives $100,000 grant from AARP Andrus Foundation for NHPCO's National Quality Partnership Program.
March 2003 - AARP's Modern Maturity magazine publishes article supporting assisted-suicide.
Based on the background information, guess which European country AARP recently picked as the best place for people to grow old:
AARP The Magazine has named the Netherlands the leader in providing a high quality-of-life for its older citizens. This news, among other findings, was derived from an exclusive survey of 16 industrialized nations on key issues such as: health care, benefits, pension coverage, taxes and social programs. Through this survey, AARP The Magazine hopes to shed light on the benefits retirees enjoy elsewhere in the world as a reference point for America’s own policies
Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media had some interesting comments about AARP's apparent direction:
AARP also gave an award to Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, a European Socialist and former director of the U.N.'s World Health Organization (WHO). Brundtland participated in AARP's "Global Aging Program" to help develop its policies in this area.
Nobody in their right mind wants to suffer from a terminal illness. Medical treatments that only prolong the dying process and continue suffering don't make any sense. But in the name of "sustainable development," popularized by Brundtland, the U.N. and much of Europe are moving toward population control measures, including those that target the elderly for elimination. Brundtland, once labeled "The Mother of Sustainable Development," believes there are too many people in the world.
While many people might accept the idea of planning their own death, in the sense that a "living will" avoids prolonged suffering, the embrace of the Netherlands model by AARP seems to suggest it wants us to move toward embracing government intervention into our lives for the purpose of facilitating of causing our deaths.
The WHO is reformulating a "new ethics" which emphasizes the importance of "economic" resources and the likelihood of success in treating people. Analyst Marguerite Peeters says, "The system of priorities in the new WHO paradigm will necessarily lead to the marginalization of certain people. There will be no available resources for certain 'categories' of patients, those deemed less important to public health: the elderly, the handicapped, and perhaps even the members of minority groups."
It is noteworthy that, 50 years ago, the Nazis were prosecuted for war crimes for their government-sponsored euthanasia program. Now, the Nazi program is being accepted under the cover of "sustainable development." How can they "sustain" the earth when there are so many people on the planet? The obvious answer is to get rid of some of them, especially those who are sick and elderly or handicapped.
The WHO, under the leadership of AARP favorite Brundtland, the former leader of Norway, implicitly supports this practice.
It is significant that AARP also supported Hillary Clinton's socialized medicine scheme. Once the health care system has been completely nationalized, it can be easily linked to a global network under the supervision of the U.N.'s WHO, in which the "new ethics" can be used to guide the Social Security and health care systems, including Medicare. In this context, it must be recalled that the WHO played a role in developing Hillary's original plan.
On the Social Security front, the most likely political outcome is stalemate, with the liberals using the ongoing crisis as a pretext to seize even more government control over the health care system, ration treatments to the elderly, and then eventually implement a government-sponsored euthanasia program to target and eliminate some of the most "nonproductive" and "useless" people. This will "solve" the Social Security "problem" and the government will remain in charge of the system. Taxes will continue to rise and we will live in a full-fledged socialist state. That is, if we live.
According to the orginal article cutting costs is the key to the Netherland's "success":
How do the Dutch do it? How do their euros stretch further than our dollars? The key factor is lower costs. Although medicine isn't completely socialized—physicians and pharmacists, for example, aren't state employees—the government regulates almost all health expenses. That helps explain why, in the view of Professor Gerard F. Anderson of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, "in the U.S. we pay a lot more than anybody else for pretty much the same stuff." In analyzing health systems in the Netherlands and other industrialized nations, Anderson found that drugs, hospitals, and physicians' services were from 30 to 50 percent more expensive in the U.S., "and their health status is as good or better than ours."
Although economics is widely cited by the right-to-die movement as a justification for assisted suicide and euthanasia, and is certainly a factor in the Netherlands, nowhere is this mentioned in the article.
This sharpens the focus a bit, and the "final solution" to the crisis of the aging baby boomers and Social Security and other health benefits becomes more apparent. You can bet your nest egg that any national healthcare system will eventually incorporate right-to-die policies like those in Oregon and the Netherlands. And unless their membership wakes up to see they are being lead to the slaughter, AARP will be the Pied Piper of the boomers.
papijoe 7:14 AM
|