|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Sept 26, 2024 0:44:40 GMT
In the late 80s .. at a time when treatment for the over 70s was limited ... there was "concern" about the "rising cost" of their treatment. In 1995 The Evening Standard declared: "The country cannot afford to support both the elderly and the youth ... a choice has to be made". Then Labour got in ... and arranged for the elderly to receive all the support they needed. Doctors could no longer say:"You're too old" ... they could no longer remove elderly people from their lists (as they had been doing!). Life expectancy began rising by 3 months every year as the elderly were being kept alive longer. It has been mooted that maybe there should be a maximum age people should be allowed to live to. I once read about an Amazonian native tribe that, when it was decided someone had "become old", arranged their funeral ... a couple of days of festivities ... then drove them out into the jungle to die. One interesting fact is that it wasn't until the early 90s that families here in the UK were legally obliged to ensure their dependent elderly got enough food. People could, and sometimes did, not feed them. There was a discussion on the television in the early 90s in which doctors, nurses, care and social workers discussed whether it would be ethical to terminate the majority of people with Alzheimer's ... "Just keep a few for research".
Currently it's costing the state around £800 a week to keep me alive and kicking (the cost of my treatment, my pension and my housing allowance).
|
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Sept 26, 2024 9:12:27 GMT
This is an important message about being old, as i am and many. Being an observer of politics its an easy thing to pick out the failings of individuals and parties, and be able to identify good things. The downfall is that the best person never gets to be boss. Frank Field should have been a Labour prime minister, and amazingly, the best person does rise to the top sometimes, like Thatcher.
If the Conservatives and Labour were run by 65 plus year olds, everything would be different, that all the life experience, wisdom, maturity is binned.
For the likes of Gordon Brown, Blair, Sunak and the f ckr Johnson. The list is endless. As for the cost of being kept alive, every old person, or the vast majority have issues, to withold medication treatment to keep someone alive would be wrong.
Only a psycho would withold it. If we start judging who lives and dies, where does it stop? A higher power decides who lives and dies.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 26, 2024 10:37:42 GMT
In the late 80s .. at a time when treatment for the over 70s was limited ... there was "concern" about the "rising cost" of their treatment. In 1995 The Evening Standard declared: "The country cannot afford to support both the elderly and the youth ... a choice has to be made". Then Labour got in ... and arranged for the elderly to receive all the support they needed. Doctors could no longer say:"You're too old" ... they could no longer remove elderly people from their lists (as they had been doing!). Life expectancy began rising by 3 months every year as the elderly were being kept alive longer. It has been mooted that maybe there should be a maximum age people should be allowed to live to. I once read about an Amazonian native tribe that, when it was decided someone had "become old", arranged their funeral ... a couple of days of festivities ... then drove them out into the jungle to die. One interesting fact is that it wasn't until the early 90s that families here in the UK were legally obliged to ensure their dependent elderly got enough food. People could, and sometimes did, not feed them. There was a discussion on the television in the early 90s in which doctors, nurses, care and social workers discussed whether it would be ethical to terminate the majority of people with Alzheimer's ... "Just keep a few for research". Currently it's costing the state around £800 a week to keep me alive and kicking (the cost of my treatment, my pension and my housing allowance). Do not be fooled by costs being down to old people alone. Of those between 26 and 39 with Type 2 diabetes some 40% are from ethnic minorities and they will need treatment for the symptoms and associated illnesses for the rest of their lives. Since 10% of the NHS budget is the cost of diabetes treatment this is a sizeable cost that is being increased wilfully by each government as increasing numbers of ethnic minorities are encouraged to come and if they arrive illegally usually allowed to stay. Proportionally these people are a much greater health risk than white people and the treatment costs start at an earlier age. So the anti baby boomer propaganda so eagerly produced by many is just a process of demonization in order to milk them for taxes some time soon and appears to have already started. |
|
