"Hurry up and die" - Page 16

On January 28 2013 03:51 farvacola wrote:

Two people having sex can be very special. Just ask the last girl I took to wine night.

On January 28 2013 03:34 farvacola wrote:


To be frank, no one cares that you "would rather an individual save the money for retirement themselves", the reality we live in makes such a declaration rather childish and narrow.

On January 28 2013 04:36 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
The sickest part is that some of the youth is complaining about the costs of health for the older, or just the straight up old. How convenient, that those who are in the healthiest span of years in their life, think they can determine in an unbiased manner how to deal with health treatment and costs of age groups that are at much higher risk! I especially dismiss these people when someone utters something related to social Darwinism, which they would advocate for because they aren't the ones who be cut down.

How many of you will change your tune when you age...

On January 28 2013 04:12 Campitor wrote:
We can't just let old people die and here is why - the economy would suffer. We are all going to get old - we are all going to die - the question is the when and how we die. Most of hope to live to a ripe old age. And all of us I'm sure want to be relatively healthy when we start getting near the end of our lives. If we suddenly adopted the "screw you if you have no money to take care of yourself if you get old and sick", how do you think that would affect humanity's economic behavior? Most of us living in high GDP countries have a good statistical chance of living past 70. If I'm going to live past 70 (or my parents) I'm not going to be spending money and instead I'll be saving my money to pay for my care or my parent's care. I know I have to die but I want to die with some dignity and not like a gutter-rat in a cold empty street.

This policy of "just let them die" would essentially remove money from the economy causing markets to crash or grow slowly because people would start hoarding money for healthcare/end-of-life care. In the US we are trying to cut the cost of healthcare for many reasons but part of the reason is that the spiraling cost of healthcare is a serious economic threat. The money spent on healthcare means less money for other industries. And even if you took a "I don't care about aging I'm blowing it all now" attitude, it doesn't mean your kids, if you have any, will let you just die or suffer in a hospital. Your kids would try to pay for your care. Your children's money will be spent on healthcare thereby siphoning money from other businesses vital to sustaining our standard of living. And even if you had no one or no money for healthcare, and we let you die, we still have to provide for the proper disposal of your body - it's not like we are going to let your corpse just rot and spread disease - someone will need to pay for the disposal.

And in an information based economy being old isn't bad. As long as your mind is sharp you can still contribute greatly to society - even if you are sucking up some dollars from dialysis treatment, heart bypass surgery, etc. In all honestly we are all expendable because we can all be replaced by someone else therefore there is no need to spend money to prolong any individual life - we should only be spending money on diseases that cause pandemics/mass deaths since that hurts GDP. See what a slippery slope we can get into when we start basing healthcare decisions on someone's productivity?

On January 28 2013 04:36 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
The sickest part is that some of the youth is complaining about the costs of health for the older, or just the straight up old. How convenient, that those who are in the healthiest span of years in their life, think they can determine in an unbiased manner how to deal with health treatment and costs of age groups that are at much higher risk! I especially dismiss these people when someone utters something related to social Darwinism, which they would advocate for because they aren't the ones who be cut down.

How many of you will change your tune when you age...

On January 28 2013 03:58 feanor1 wrote:
That's modern medicine. Advances that keep people alive that should have died a long time ago, back when they lost what made them people.

On January 28 2013 02:45 Dagan159 wrote:


If the obesity is self inflicted (ie not diesese related) then that person is ASKING to have health issues. It is not hard to take care of yourself.

Most sane people put away money in case they get sick or buy insurance.

On January 28 2013 03:48 decado90 wrote:
Their is no such thing as a right. You are entitled nothing.

You aren't alive because you're special-- you're a live because two people had sex. Your existence is just another meaningless part of the inexorable universe.

Of course people shouldn't have the right to life.

On January 28 2013 08:52 Zahir wrote:


This troll post brought to you by the right to free speech.

On January 28 2013 03:58 feanor1 wrote:
That's modern medicine. Advances that keep people alive that should have died a long time ago, back when they lost what made them people.

On January 28 2013 09:08 SamsungStar wrote:


? That makes no sense dude. What he says is completely correct. Life is not an entitlement, as children in Pakistan and Mali will tell you. His post was brought by the internet, electricity, and a computer. Not the right to free speech. Or are you trying to say people in China can't go on the internet and post in a forum? Because they don't have a "right" to free speech, but I'm pretty sure they can do what he just did.

On January 28 2013 09:50 Zahir wrote:


Ill clarify, his posts medium contradicted its message. "There is no such thing as a right" denies that societal constructs can have meaning. A fairly absurd point as most people alive today live in modern nation states, enjoying the benefits of rights codified in laws - most notably, the right to protection from violence - usually in exchange for some level of responsibility. Without the invention of rights as a meaningful basis for organized thought and action, societies would never have advanced beyond prehistoric levels, let alone produced the computers and electricity that made his post possible - an inconsistency I felt obliged to point out.

I believe what he probably was getting at is that people should earn what they get... But people do, in fact, earn their rights. Sometimes by fighting for them, other times by working for them. A person works to support a society so he can have the right to not have his life taken away from him by some random aggressor ... That is earning a right. Whether that principle should carry over into the right to not die of old age, is doubtful, since the cost of keeping someone alive continually rises, and therefore it's impractical for any government to pretend it can guarantee such a right. However, the point is each case needs to be examined on its own merit. Simply dismissing all rights is a garbage argument; rights are one of the foundations without which civilization can't exist.