|
On January 24 2013 14:13 sluggaslamoo wrote:Fuck aging population, has nobody noticed how disturbing this image is? Holy shit. I knew it was bad, but not THAT bad. Pay 2-4 times more for healthcare in America than anywhere else and you will receive the same life expectancy as that of the Czech Republic. If you blame western diet/genetics, well then just look at Australia, Italy, Canada. You may hate socialism but this is the effect when you don't care about it, capitalism gone mad.
That's just it though, we pay 2-4 times more while our economy is what again in terms of GDP? It makes sense. Proportionally we're probably paying LESS than some of those other countries, it's just that we have a larger economy overall.
What's more life expectancy is a load of hokum and hogwash. When it's used in a chart like that it's intended to illustrate the poor health care provided in the United States, when really all it represents is that people in the United States tend to die more violently and early.
Even throwing all that out the window, costs are relative and vary by region. Unless we have numbers which are adjusted for a normative cost, this chart doesn't really tell us anything in detail.
|
On January 24 2013 13:13 Shady Sands wrote:
And if they're such a drain on us--the rational, utility-maximizing, economic agents that macroeconomic history has demonstrated we often are--after sixty-five, shouldn't retirees just hurry up and die?
Sixty-Five is far too old: far too many years draining resources.
how about 30?
|
On January 24 2013 14:55 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 14:13 sluggaslamoo wrote:On January 24 2013 13:13 Shady Sands wrote: Fuck aging population, has nobody noticed how disturbing this image is? Holy shit. I knew it was bad, but not THAT bad. Pay 2-4 times more for healthcare in America than anywhere else and you will receive the same life expectancy as that of the Czech Republic. If you blame western diet/genetics, well then just look at Australia, Italy, Canada. You may hate socialism but this is the effect when you don't care about it, capitalism gone mad. That's just it though, we pay 2-4 times more while our economy is what again in terms of GDP? It makes sense. Proportionally we're probably paying LESS than some of those other countries, it's just that we have a larger economy overall. What's more life expectancy is a load of hokum and hogwash. When it's used in a chart like that it's intended to illustrate the poor health care provided in the United States, when really all it represents is that people in the United States tend to die more violently and early. Even throwing all that out the window, costs are relative and vary by region. Unless we have numbers which are adjusted for a normative cost, this chart doesn't really tell us anything in detail.
The graph is already about the proportions. Read the x-axis; it says 'per capita'.
|
The realist answer to this conundrum is that the quality of care that octogenarians receive is subject to market forces, even when provided in part or fully by the government. Empathy towards the elderly and our aging relatives will be balanced against the cost and strain of keeping them alive beyond the point where they can actually enjoy living. Also, while everyone has a subconscious will to live, you cant equate that with their actual actions. Everyone approaches death differently depending on circumstance, personality, morals, etc. Instinct plays a part, but I'm positive many people simply come to a point where they believe it is time for them to die. I know (hope at least) that's what I would do if I was 80 and putting my loved ones in the poor house so I can continue to live a life of bleak, pointless suffering in a hospital bed. So yeah, don't believe we should think of people as simplistic actors who only seek to maximize their lifespan.
While a slowdown in pop growth is troublesome in economic terms, it isn't a terminal problem. Governments, markets and even attitudes are all fluid - as the quote referenced by the op kind of proves. Societies adapt.
Having said that, the government setting a mandatory age where you have to die would be a terrible, heavy handed, totalitarian solution to a relatively minor problem. Better to just have a variety of insurers (including a public option) with different upper limits on health care spending, and let supply and demand settle things.
Interesting thread though. I've considered this problem myself a few times. Its a lot like the Malthusian problem: given any spare resources, poor people will breed until the resources are expended, therefore any attempt to improve the situation of the poor is pointless. The conclusion seems both bleak and unassailable, but then you start questioning the argument's premises. Right now, it almost seems like the desire to keep old people alive is inherently pointless. However, breakthroughs in biotech could render all our present notions on the subject obsolete, just as breakthroughs in contraception and the development of a middle class invalidated Malthusian economics.
|
lol, the elderly dying faster would definitely solve some problems. if not the next two alternatives are welcoming immigrants by the droves, or trying to force their citizens to give birth.
not too keen on the first, since it would mean japan loses its magic, and the latter is unlikely if the beta male representation of their race is even decently accurate. if they manage to pull it off, then good, at least they have the land to support it.
singapore, on the other hand, is one big headache. for the native population at least. basically what is happening is that the countries that rode on the wave crest of the baby boomer generation are now the backwash, with much less momentum than before.
yeah, economic slowdown wouldn't be the end, but it would be painful. VERY painful. for japan especially.
|
"at any cost" seems a bit loaded. Then again, as I understand it, a good portion american citizens shoulder the cost of their healthcare more directly than citizens of other wealthy nations, which might have something to do with why we die earlier anyway.
+ Show Spoiler +And the pizzahut I ate for dinner. That probably helps too.
So I probably see it differently than a swede would, for instance.
|
On January 24 2013 15:08 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 14:55 Kimaker wrote:On January 24 2013 14:13 sluggaslamoo wrote:On January 24 2013 13:13 Shady Sands wrote: Fuck aging population, has nobody noticed how disturbing this image is? Holy shit. I knew it was bad, but not THAT bad. Pay 2-4 times more for healthcare in America than anywhere else and you will receive the same life expectancy as that of the Czech Republic. If you blame western diet/genetics, well then just look at Australia, Italy, Canada. You may hate socialism but this is the effect when you don't care about it, capitalism gone mad. That's just it though, we pay 2-4 times more while our economy is what again in terms of GDP? It makes sense. Proportionally we're probably paying LESS than some of those other countries, it's just that we have a larger economy overall. What's more life expectancy is a load of hokum and hogwash. When it's used in a chart like that it's intended to illustrate the poor health care provided in the United States, when really all it represents is that people in the United States tend to die more violently and early. Even throwing all that out the window, costs are relative and vary by region. Unless we have numbers which are adjusted for a normative cost, this chart doesn't really tell us anything in detail. The graph is already about the proportions. Read the x-axis; it says 'per capita'.
Fair. I was wrong.
My other points still stand.
EDIT: Wait...no. I was right. That's only how much was spent per person, not how much was spent per person as a proportion of the country's total GDP.
For Example:
US GDP: ~15 Trillion
Health care cost per capita: 8k
Health care cost per capita as a proportion of GDP: 5.3333333333333333333333333333333e-10%
Czech Republic: ~217 Billion
Health care cost per capita: 2k
Health care cost per capita as a proportion of GDP: 9.2165898617511520737327188940092e-9%
So, we're looking at a 300% increase in health care cost per capita between the Czech Republic and the United States. In terms of GDP...that's a 6900% difference.
The US pays less.
Unless that US $ (PPP) means they adjusted for that already, in which case fuck me. xD
|
On January 24 2013 15:34 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 15:08 frogrubdown wrote:On January 24 2013 14:55 Kimaker wrote:On January 24 2013 14:13 sluggaslamoo wrote:On January 24 2013 13:13 Shady Sands wrote: Fuck aging population, has nobody noticed how disturbing this image is? Holy shit. I knew it was bad, but not THAT bad. Pay 2-4 times more for healthcare in America than anywhere else and you will receive the same life expectancy as that of the Czech Republic. If you blame western diet/genetics, well then just look at Australia, Italy, Canada. You may hate socialism but this is the effect when you don't care about it, capitalism gone mad. That's just it though, we pay 2-4 times more while our economy is what again in terms of GDP? It makes sense. Proportionally we're probably paying LESS than some of those other countries, it's just that we have a larger economy overall. What's more life expectancy is a load of hokum and hogwash. When it's used in a chart like that it's intended to illustrate the poor health care provided in the United States, when really all it represents is that people in the United States tend to die more violently and early. Even throwing all that out the window, costs are relative and vary by region. Unless we have numbers which are adjusted for a normative cost, this chart doesn't really tell us anything in detail. The graph is already about the proportions. Read the x-axis; it says 'per capita'. Fair. I was wrong. My other points still stand. EDIT: Wait...no. I was right. That's only how much was spent per person, not how much was spent per person as a proportion of the country's total GDP. For Example: US GDP: ~15 Trillion Health care cost per capita: 8k Health care cost per capita as a proportion of GDP: 5.3333333333333333333333333333333e-10% Czech Republic: ~217 Billion Health care cost per capita: 2k Health care cost per capita as a proportion of GDP: 9.2165898617511520737327188940092e-9% So, we're looking at a 300% increase in health care cost per capita between the Czech Republic and the United States. In terms of GDP...that's a 6900% difference. The US pays less. Unless that US $ (PPP) means they adjusted for that already, in which case fuck me. xD
you should be comparing GDP per capita against healthcare spend per capita, not GDP total against healthcare spend per capita.
|
Oh cant afford to take care of the average worker by using life support?
How about stopping one of those yearly bonuses for a C.E.O or stockmarket owners (who lets face it, earns money by screwing over the workers...)
tadaaaa you suddenly have enough money.
|
On January 24 2013 16:55 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
Oh cant afford to take care of the average worker by using life support?
How about stopping one of those yearly bonuses for a C.E.O or stockmarket owners (who lets face it, earns money by screwing over the workers...)
tadaaaa you suddenly have enough money.
But.... Capitalism.
|
On January 24 2013 15:14 Zahir wrote:
The realist answer to this conundrum is that the quality of care that octogenarians receive is subject to market forces, even when provided in part or fully by the government. Empathy towards the elderly and our aging relatives will be balanced against the cost and strain of keeping them alive beyond the point where they can actually enjoy living. Also, while everyone has a subconscious will to live, you cant equate that with their actual actions. Everyone approaches death differently depending on circumstance, personality, morals, etc. Instinct plays a part, but I'm positive many people simply come to a point where they believe it is time for them to die. I know (hope at least) that's what I would do if I was 80 and putting my loved ones in the poor house so I can continue to live a life of bleak, pointless suffering in a hospital bed. So yeah, don't believe we should think of people as simplistic actors who only seek to maximize their lifespan.
While a slowdown in pop growth is troublesome in economic terms, it isn't a terminal problem. Governments, markets and even attitudes are all fluid - as the quote referenced by the op kind of proves. Societies adapt.
Having said that, the government setting a mandatory age where you have to die would be a terrible, heavy handed, totalitarian solution to a relatively minor problem. Better to just have a variety of insurers (including a public option) with different upper limits on health care spending, and let supply and demand settle things.
Interesting thread though. I've considered this problem myself a few times. Its a lot like the Malthusian problem: given any spare resources, poor people will breed until the resources are expended, therefore any attempt to improve the situation of the poor is pointless. The conclusion seems both bleak and unassailable, but then you start questioning the argument's premises. Right now, it almost seems like the desire to keep old people alive is inherently pointless. However, breakthroughs in biotech could render all our present notions on the subject obsolete, just as breakthroughs in contraception and the development of a middle class invalidated Malthusian economics.
Almost no, if any countries have broken the demographic trend once it's been tripped and I have yet to see a country that has addressed the simple problem of old people no longer working taxing the system more than they put in.
It's a simple and intuitive problem that I completely disagree with as a problem that is readily solvable by the free market, or even the government. If it's resolvable, it's because there is some innate reversal in the demographic decline that is rather unexplainable or social engineering by a combination of private and government forces to have more babies.
|
On January 24 2013 16:55 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
Oh cant afford to take care of the average worker by using life support?
How about stopping one of those yearly bonuses for a C.E.O or stockmarket owners (who lets face it, earns money by screwing over the workers...)
tadaaaa you suddenly have enough money.
took the words out of my mouth =P
On January 24 2013 14:55 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 14:13 sluggaslamoo wrote:On January 24 2013 13:13 Shady Sands wrote: Fuck aging population, has nobody noticed how disturbing this image is? Holy shit. I knew it was bad, but not THAT bad. Pay 2-4 times more for healthcare in America than anywhere else and you will receive the same life expectancy as that of the Czech Republic. If you blame western diet/genetics, well then just look at Australia, Italy, Canada. You may hate socialism but this is the effect when you don't care about it, capitalism gone mad. That's just it though, we pay 2-4 times more while our economy is what again in terms of GDP? It makes sense. Proportionally we're probably paying LESS than some of those other countries, it's just that we have a larger economy overall. What's more life expectancy is a load of hokum and hogwash. When it's used in a chart like that it's intended to illustrate the poor health care provided in the United States, when really all it represents is that people in the United States tend to die more violently and early.Even throwing all that out the window, costs are relative and vary by region. Unless we have numbers which are adjusted for a normative cost, this chart doesn't really tell us anything in detail.
its could also just aswell represent that not everyone in USA cant afford your healthcare. USA probally has some of the best healthcare in the world IF you can afford it.
Anyways overall i think you can pretty much rationalize anything, i mean we could kill off pretty half of the human race and actually be better off economically...but in the énd it just isnt right.
|
On January 24 2013 16:58 Angry_Fetus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 16:55 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
Oh cant afford to take care of the average worker by using life support?
How about stopping one of those yearly bonuses for a C.E.O or stockmarket owners (who lets face it, earns money by screwing over the workers...)
tadaaaa you suddenly have enough money. But.... Capitalism.
Yeah... I really want to link a song here but unfortunately its a very old swedish singer/songwriter song, bah I'll link it anyways, spoiler tag:
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +Basically, its about how capitalism, most of the time, screws over the workers, those who cant afford a business of their own thus ending up doing the work for somebody else.
Anyways overall i think you can pretty much rationalize anything, i mean we could kill off pretty half of the human race and actually be better off economically...but in the énd it just isnt right.
Pretty much this.
Its nice to see that other swedes care about their fellow human beings, perhaps the world isnt coming to an end^^.
|
Thinking from the aspect of eco-system and future of mankind as species, morality can go to hell. You are using too much of limited resources against the needs of many. Rights do not grant you survival even more so when you are being stupid.
It isnt the morality of humans, it is the morality of ego of one man. If you think from the broad perspective, at all costs is too much greedy and egoistic. Limited lifespan, deal with it.
|
I find this incredible. You have managed a small majority of a forum with largely liberal beliefs, including the sacredness of human life and happiness, some of the same people that believe that guns should be banned if they cause even a 1% drop in murder rate, some of the same people that believe that the death penalty is absolutely immoral, of a fairly conservative point, with the ultimate conclusion of, "old people should have to pay for their own healthcare, and if that involves their demise, so be it."
Logically, assuming that you believe in the greatest happiness for the greatest number, old people should not be allowed to extend their lives past a point that their own means can support. I however, would never attempt to convince anyone of this, particularly if they are aware that they too will some day be old.
|
The grim nature is that unfortunately a majority of the elderly wants to live long and avert their death. Thinking about having them "hurry up and die" doesn't sit well with me. Unfortunately the reality is that cost will continue to soar. Combined with the fact that we have fewer kids per family and adults are having kids later in their life makes it exponentially harder for the newer generation. This comes back to a smaller work force, an increasing aging population that the newer generation has to support and having to support the next generation may make it a vicious cycle (because affording to have kids at a younger age when you have to support your parents earlier is usually not financially ideal).
Problems are never quite simple to solve, especially once you factor morals in.
|
On January 24 2013 16:55 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
Oh cant afford to take care of the average worker by using life support?
How about stopping one of those yearly bonuses for a C.E.O or stockmarket owners (who lets face it, earns money by screwing over the workers...)
tadaaaa you suddenly have enough money.
No, they earn money by keeping the company in a prime position, securing the jobs of those who aren't laid off. They do what's necessary, much of the time, just because of how the market works. And yes, those layoffs are often absolutely necessary for the *long-term* viability of the company.
Don't get me wrong, they probably lack empathy when they do it. Which is why I couldn't do it myself, I feel you'd have to be heartless to do it. And ya, they're also massively overcompensated. But it still has to be done (not the overcompensation necessarily, but the choices they make).
|
Overpopulation will be the cause of many evils in the future , both directly man made or as a result of man action. I see this as the biggest problem of our times, not climate change , that's only one of the side effects. Why do we need to higher and higher levels of population ? In the past (and even now) population increase is the biggest generator of conflict on this earth(and so will be in the future).As population increases most resources do not so the competition increases, they say that science will provide a counterbalance but it cant keep up with the rate of population increase.
"Hurry up and die ! " This is one of the signs of things to come.
|
On January 24 2013 14:12 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 14:04 docvoc wrote:On January 24 2013 14:01 Larkin wrote:On January 24 2013 13:56 Parnage wrote:
You know, I..I don't even know what the hell is wrong with a person to think that it's okay to say "Yeah no, we can't waste resources on you, time for you to die" Screw the money, how about the morality. Who's got the nads to be the one to say who can live and who can die and at what point is it just "too much of a burden"? Whoever they are I can only hope they never get any real power because history is littered with despots and madmen who thought that he had the right to judge who lives and dies and rather or not someone was useful to society. 1. Morality isn't real. 2. It's not about the person in charge deciding, it's about democracy. The will of the people. Should people decide a "cut off point" for the elderly. Are you kidding me? Morality isn't real? Are you going to neglect thousands of years of philosophical works on the subject in 3 words? Give me a break dude. It isn't about democracy either (democracy only exists with the morals of people, that is to say people have to have the moral reasoning to demand they have a say in their representation). Democracy doesn't decide if there is a cut off point, backroom politics does that. [ ... ] Brilliant thing about philosophy is that it's constantly being argued against. Trust me, I study it. I bet you won't accept that our actions are predetermined, either. [ ... ]
That's what you get with such a vague / open to interpretation field like philosophy, there's a lot to argue.
So what do you mean by 'our actions are predetermined'? You are saying there is no such thing as free will, right? If I were to suddenly decide today that I am going to emigrate to Australia you'd say that's not a spur of the moment thing but rather, was predetermined my entire life? If so, then I am very skeptical about that statement.
Regarding that 'cut-off point', yes in a (utopian) democracy the government should do what the majority of people want. Though I would be highly surprised if a majority of people would vote in favor of a law like 'no form of health care is provided to those who have passed the age of 85'.
|
I've had this idea a long time ago. There definitely should be a point where, if you're not healthy, society doesn't artificially keep you alive at a giant cost.
Whenever I go to a doctor the line is crammed with what are basically cadavers, and the poor kid with the broken femur needs to wait 90 minutes because some 90-year-old is falling apart at the seams.
You've had a good run, make room for the next generation please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2011/04/us%20health%20care%20costs-thumb-600x326-47611.png)
