EPT"Hurry up and die" - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
| ||
|
solsken
Sweden182 Posts
| ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On January 25 2013 12:29 solsken wrote: The question is so general, and I believe most people <25 years of age are thinking "AIN'T NOBODY GONNA PAY FO THAT" and are thinking about 90 year olds hanging on. Is there a "cost roof" for your treatment when you find out you have HIV at the age of 25? Is there one if a 40 year old mother of two finds out she got cancer? Do we say "Sorry but the medicines/treatment are way to expensive for you to live"? If they are a 9,999,9999,999,999,999$ is that too much money? I understand that is a ridiculous exaggeration, but my point is you kind of have to draw a line somewhere because we only have finite resources for the world. | ||
|
Ra.Xor.2
United States1784 Posts
| ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On January 25 2013 12:34 Ra.Xor.2 wrote: Bring smoking back into fashion. That'll solve the problem. Except for all of the new people that need treatment for lung cancer and emphysema...that will be expensive. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On January 25 2013 12:36 kmillz wrote: Except for all of the new people that need treatment for lung cancer and emphysema...that will be expensive. The funny thing is, if poor health choices can be proven to cost taxpayers money later, the government will have a right to ban people from making poor choices in the first place. e.g. they'd have a right to ban people from eating fatty foods, not exercising, smoking, drinking, etc. | ||
|
Gesamtkunstwerk
134 Posts
The problem is not that there is not enough for everyone, the problem is that we put more value on things that on life. | ||
|
locke42
3 Posts
| ||
|
solsken
Sweden182 Posts
On January 25 2013 12:33 kmillz wrote: If they are a 9,999,9999,999,999,999$ is that too much money? I understand that is a ridiculous exaggeration, but my point is you kind of have to draw a line somewhere because we only have finite resources for the world. Is one persons life worth all the currency and resources in the world you mean? Most realistic people would say no, but where do you draw a line? The true question should then be how much is a life worth? | ||
|
locke42
3 Posts
| ||
|
solsken
Sweden182 Posts
On January 25 2013 13:01 locke42 wrote: No, the real question is "if people in Africa who are starving could be saved for $500, do we have a right to keep some octagenarian American alive for another month for $1,000,000." The cost of a life is the cheapest life that can be saved. That's how to view it. So the cheapest fixes gets priority? People with advanced rare costly diseases are out of luck then? | ||
|
locke42
3 Posts
| ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On January 25 2013 13:04 solsken wrote: So the cheapest fixes gets priority? People with advanced rare costly diseases are out of luck then? Life is unfair :[ survival of the richest. | ||
|
SamsungStar
United States912 Posts
On January 25 2013 09:41 Spiffeh wrote: That's stretching it. I wouldn't call that immortality. Although, I guess an author can be immortal through the books they write, but I wouldn't classify that as immortality either. I would call that a "personal legacy" or something to that effect. My definition of immortality, and I'm guessing many other people's definitions, is prolonging the lifespan of the original vessel to ceaselessness. It's immortality because the information can then be used to reconstruct you. Your information includes the quantum states and locations of every atom/sub-atomic particle in your body, so that literally a perfect replica of you can be created. Why would it matter if the original vessel continues if you can multiple perfect copies of the original complete with all your thoughts/feelings etc. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
Thanks Obamacare! Thanks Obama! | ||
|
Vessel
United States214 Posts
| ||
|
Zaqwert
United States411 Posts
Nobody is advocating actively KILLING old people or anything. What they are advocating is society not being forced to pay ridiculous costs to keep them alive. If you're 95 and need $100,000 worth of care to get you to 96, the government saying no is not "killing" you. If you have the money yourself and wanna spend it, then feel free. | ||
|
Arcadia92
135 Posts
On January 25 2013 13:49 SamsungStar wrote: It's immortality because the information can then be used to reconstruct you. Your information includes the quantum states and locations of every atom/sub-atomic particle in your body, so that literally a perfect replica of you can be created. Why would it matter if the original vessel continues if you can multiple perfect copies of the original complete with all your thoughts/feelings etc. Because the original you would no longer be conscious. Am I missing something here? | ||
|
NightOfTheDead
Lithuania1711 Posts
On January 25 2013 12:44 Shady Sands wrote: The funny thing is, if poor health choices can be proven to cost taxpayers money later, the government will have a right to ban people from making poor choices in the first place. e.g. they'd have a right to ban people from eating fatty foods, not exercising, smoking, drinking, etc. Or it could simply do nothing about your health, - just hurry up and die, - when you get into such condition, because it was your choice (if it can be proven what was the cause, which is highly unlikely). | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On January 25 2013 15:45 NightOfTheDead wrote: Or it could simply do nothing about your health, - just hurry up and die, - when you get into such condition, because it was your choice (if it can be proven what was the cause, which is highly unlikely). Nah, the government wants to keep you alive, working, and paying taxes. All that hinges on you remaining healthy. | ||
| ||
