|
I love how so many people are saying they would rather die than live without their bodily functions; in theory, sure you would, but you're also showing a deep ignorance of how strong the survival instinct is. The vast majority does NOT chose death whatever the circumstances and whatever you think right now, chances are you're a part of that vast majority.
As for the original question and follow-ups; letting people pay for their own life-sustain is perverse. Period. It is also impossible in any non oppressive, fascist society. Right now, there is an evaluation going on in the dark; who lives, who dies. Doctors already decide that. The evaluation is necessary due to the huge costs, not every measure can be afforded or risked in every circumstance. You can't say you would do anything for your grandparents or whatever since it's a matter of resources, "anything" is not available.
The problem is the arbitrary nature of the decision, and that it needs to take place in the dark.. If healthcare could be open about what options they have available they could also do actual economic evaluations, open for scrutiny, accountable for malpractice etc, noone could be denied reasonable treatment (as is the case today), and noone would be allowed unreasonable treatment (as is the case today). It's a very difficult are to be open and crass in but exactly that is needed. The potential and expense of medicine has increased a lot over the years. A hundred years ago, there were no ultra expensive procedures available, doing "everything" for "everyone" was possible (although of course not done, much worse healthcare system), this is not the case anymore and that fact must be accounted for.
|
On January 24 2013 18:13 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 17:32 dani` wrote:
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'.
That's because you're only presenting the downside, you need to complete the proposal with "and the money saved will be spent on X / Y forms of welfare / infrastructure instead!" EDIT: also no one is proposing no health care AT ALL to old people, just that the government should not subsidise it. In fact, old people / their families spending out of their own pocket on health care is a good thing for the economy
youre basically saying that moneys more important than human lives.
|
On January 24 2013 18:46 Kickboxer wrote:
It's not a "right" when you can't be alive without the aid of chemicals and machines man. All this obsessive clinging to life is just a reflection of the altogether materialistic society we live in.
Most people would die before 40years old without chemicals and machines, that cant be right either.
|
After I die at a ripe old age we should implement age measures immediately. Gotta save society!
|
On January 24 2013 18:57 CYFAWS wrote:
I love how so many people are saying they would rather die than live without their bodily functions; in theory, sure you would, but you're also showing a deep ignorance of how strong the survival instinct is. The vast majority does NOT chose death whatever the circumstances and whatever you think right now, chances are you're a part of that vast majority.
... It doesn't fucking matter how the majority feels. Every one person should be able to decide for himself whether he lives or dies. If the majority wants to die, he should be free to live, and vice versa. And it is the responsibility, of course, of every one person to address the reality he's living in, and enable and carry out his own decisions. It's that simple!
|
On January 24 2013 14:01 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
How do you define "real"? I would say that morality is real in the sense of being a real phenomenon.
|
I hope a lot of you guys will start to notice why democracy is not all good. People have voted in privileges at the expense of the future generations with no consideration to sustainability. More benefits than any reasonable, possible income. The current paradigm of society and economy, that infinite growth is required does not come from capitalism, but socialism and government policy, voted in democratically.
There is a worldwide war on youth, I have to warn you. The youth unemployment and underemployment is engineered by the older generations. It starts from something as simple as minimum wage laws and labor laws and regulations that in fact don't allow the young inexperienced people to work for what they are worth. Young people are encouraged to get more and more education for no productivity gains, therefore keeping them stuck in adolescence. Today most western countries are breeding 21 year old 18 year olds.
The birthrate drop comes from several directions, I would note that there is a significant difference in wealth between generations, but not aspirations. Kids want to be financially stable like their parents before having children. Easy credit actually makes it harder to buy stuff like real estate since prices inflate in response to the larger and larger amount of money generated through credit. Then there is feminism, that nowadays makes women have very male-like aspirations, of a successful career, therefore they waste their most fertile years.
|
Health care costs are not rising because of "the free market" but government policy. Some of you might be apalled by this statement, but if the governments stopped managing the people's health care drug prices would go down significantly. If you would have to buy your own health care yourself and not have government provide any benefits at all, there would be less money in the market and prices would have to go down due to competition. Big pharma today is the most profitable business in the world.
|
I totally disagree that people are subconsciously hard wired to cling to life. There are plenty of people who don't feel that way. My parents have both put it in their wills that if their lives dip below a certain quality that I should be given the choice to pull the plug. My grandpa killed himself. A few aunts as well. Not everyone is scared of death. Look at kamikaze pilots. There are plenty of examples of people who willingly entered suicidal situations. Maybe the majority of people are scared of death, but it's by no means universal or hard-wired. Otherwise, people could not commit selfless acts, which they very much can.
Also, I really like 50bani's points. I agree that democracy is a broken system and it's the older generations who are enslaving us. They continually vote in policies that benefit themselves and horribly rape us and our opportunities for the future. The baby boomer generation pretty much wtfpwnt the millenials.
|
On January 24 2013 13:39 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 13:37 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
People should only have the "right" to live in these latter stages of life if they can afford it. Lord knows we can't. Keeping everyone's grandma on chemo is just becoming impossible. I mean, it would be nice if extremely expensive life-prolonging operations and medicines were available to everyone, but as life goes on these procedures become more and more expensive and give less and less time to the patient. So life-prolonging healthcare is the right of the rich? Try suggesting that in a democracy, and watch as those old people vote you out of office
Prohibit poor old people from voting. Problem solved!
In all seriousness though, I see this as a subset of the dependency ratio problem, where as the number of economic dependents increases, the greater the resources used to keep them alive and the greater the pressure on the labor force. Many European countries are going to hit a similar problem with their population pyramids in 20-30 years as well, so I'm willing to bet that it isn't just Japan that is going to consider this.
I'd like to hope that other methods to "solve" this problem take effect first such that this is unnecessary. I mean stuff like:
-Keeping older, potentially retired people in the labor force and productive, somehow
-Advancing the hell out of healthcare enough so that keeping people alive and healthy requires less resources
along with the more basic ideas like improving societal productivity, reallocation of resources from other areas of expenditure, improving education of existing population so that job demand better matches labor supply, etc.
Having them die would definitely be a quick and dirty economic solution and a solution I don't mind. Then again I'm one of those guys that plans to die once I'm disabled enough.
The next 30 or so years will be pretty interesting when the "demographic window of opportunity" closes and gets farther away for some highly developed countries. I don't exactly look forward to it but I expect this, and more extreme measures, to be potentially considered by lawmakers. Either that or we can look forward to the current and future labor force getting slammed with lower living standards.
|
The demographic dilemma in Japan is interesting. Unlike Russia, where they literally had one of modern history's greatest economic disasters (during the 1990s) where people literally didn't have money to even support themselves, nevermind having children, Japan has such an incredibly expensive standard of living that it becomes impossible to afford children.
Meanwhile, a lot of the population of Japan is in old age, and as they die, Japan will have a significant population decrease.
IMHO, when I die, I'll die. Could be tomorrow, could be at 70. If there is an afterlife, that'll be cool. I'd like to have a good amount of free time so I can get back into StarCraft XD. If there isn't, well, I lived a good life. But no use in living past my time.
|
My dad died in 2010 from cancer and he was 67, his health costs were paid by insurance. He was not 90 years old yet his healthcare costs exceeded 1 million. Mostly because multiple surgeries, extended stays in the hospital - paying surgeons and specialists is very expensive. What would the OP like to see done about this? Have him hurry up and die as well ? I would hate to think I would have had even less time than him, but thankfully 67 is many more years than others will have, with people dying from cancer in their 50s. So to be addressed is the highly inflated cost of medical care. Since "insurance will pay" the cost is hell to bear for society because everyones insurance premiums are so high to cover this inflation. One more example I will give, a simple urine drug test. I was tested last week for drugs and it cost $1,360. The lab billed $91 * 10 units for each drug that they tested for, plus $220 and +185 + 45 for some other things that I cannot understand based on this insurance statement. Strangely, insurance only covered $263 of this, and the laboratory credited $1100 back and just accepted the $263. My point is that prices need to be kept under first and foremost.
|
I love how a bunch of people between 15 ad 30 talk about how they are against life preservation at a ceratin point and they surely would rather die then sit in a wheel chair, and how life itself is not viable at some point.
Sure. Maybe, you're right, on a theortical level. I won't even go into that, especially not on an english website, where i cannot make my points in my native language. But I'm 100% positive that most of the guys who clicked the NO button, will have a VERY diffrent perspective on the subject, once they are past 60 years or so, and maybe had a heartaatack or suffering from a chronic disease lke diabetes and parkinson, which will make them dependant on medication. I assure you, when it comes to their own life, or to one of those you love, it becomes a diffrent story. And you shouldn't be so quick to decide for those you don't know and love.
EDIT: also no one is proposing no health care AT ALL to old people, just that the government should not subsidise it. In fact, old people / their families spending out of their own pocket on health care is a good thing for the economy
I mean. Look at this. Some people are literally saying. Human life should end at the point where it's no longer good for the economy to exist. That's ludacris. It would lead to a world where you're bank account determines the right to life. (I know that in some extreme situations that's already the case, but in general it's not. And holy Fuck. It should not be the case)
|
On January 24 2013 18:57 NEEDZMOAR wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 18:13 S_SienZ wrote:On January 24 2013 17:32 dani` wrote:
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'.
That's because you're only presenting the downside, you need to complete the proposal with "and the money saved will be spent on X / Y forms of welfare / infrastructure instead!" EDIT: also no one is proposing no health care AT ALL to old people, just that the government should not subsidise it. In fact, old people / their families spending out of their own pocket on health care is a good thing for the economy youre basically saying that moneys more important than human lives.
No, the argument is that the money is better spent elsewhere improving the lives of other people. Rather than keeping people who have already lived for a very long time alive for a little while longer, at great expense.
Think of money as a resource allocation (because that's what it is). Where should we allocate our resources? Where does it do the most good?
|
On January 24 2013 18:57 NEEDZMOAR wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 18:13 S_SienZ wrote:On January 24 2013 17:32 dani` wrote:
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'.
That's because you're only presenting the downside, you need to complete the proposal with "and the money saved will be spent on X / Y forms of welfare / infrastructure instead!" EDIT: also no one is proposing no health care AT ALL to old people, just that the government should not subsidise it. In fact, old people / their families spending out of their own pocket on health care is a good thing for the economy youre basically saying that moneys more important than human lives.
It is. Human life has a price value, the only controversy is actually assigning what the value is.
|
And then in 40 years from now we are either recovering from a WW3 or we are part of the Brave New World. Go read it if you haven't already.
I'd rather die when I am no longer able to take care of myself or others, but the root of the problem is that globally religion has too much power - and they are the ones overpopulating the world with their 'life is sacred' bullshit.
On January 24 2013 19:43 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 18:57 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On January 24 2013 18:13 S_SienZ wrote:On January 24 2013 17:32 dani` wrote:
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'.
That's because you're only presenting the downside, you need to complete the proposal with "and the money saved will be spent on X / Y forms of welfare / infrastructure instead!" EDIT: also no one is proposing no health care AT ALL to old people, just that the government should not subsidise it. In fact, old people / their families spending out of their own pocket on health care is a good thing for the economy youre basically saying that moneys more important than human lives. No, the argument is that the money is better spent elsewhere improving the lives of other people. Rather than keeping people who have already lived for a very long time alive for a little while longer, at great expense. Think of money as a resource allocation (because that's what it is). Where should we allocate our resources? Where does it do the most good?
At the beginning of life, raising and educating the few children that are still born.
By the way, this OP is one of the reasons why I am enjoying my study and taking my time, I know that when I am old (in about 45 years) the system may have changed so drastically that I can no longer enjoy any pension.
|
I don't think we should deny elderly people health care in their old age, but I think we should do a much better job of informing people what living on a breathing machine in an ICU actually feels like, or how bad living with alzheimer's is.
Hopefully when I'm 80 I still feel this way, but I don't want to extend my life by 5 years when it will be a living nightmare for me and my family. IMO people should think about end of life care, while they are still of sound mind and body, and make a decision about how they want to die when the time comes.
|
On January 24 2013 19:43 Gimmeurladderpoints wrote:Show nested quote +EDIT: also no one is proposing no health care AT ALL to old people, just that the government should not subsidise it. In fact, old people / their families spending out of their own pocket on health care is a good thing for the economy I mean. Look at this. Some people are literally saying. Human life should end at the point where it's no longer good for the economy to exist. That's ludacris. It would lead to a world where you're bank account determines the right to life. (I know that in some extreme situations that's already the case, but in general it's not. And holy Fuck. It should not be the case)
But do you agree that old/disabled can be a resource drain?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On January 24 2013 19:57 50bani wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 19:43 Gimmeurladderpoints wrote:EDIT: also no one is proposing no health care AT ALL to old people, just that the government should not subsidise it. In fact, old people / their families spending out of their own pocket on health care is a good thing for the economy I mean. Look at this. Some people are literally saying. Human life should end at the point where it's no longer good for the economy to exist. That's ludacris. It would lead to a world where you're bank account determines the right to life. (I know that in some extreme situations that's already the case, but in general it's not. And holy Fuck. It should not be the case) But do you agree that old/disabled can be a resource drain? + Show Spoiler +
Do you agree that old/disabled people were not always old and disabled and many of them have contributed more to society than you or I ever will, so it maybe a bit ungrateful to just let them die, when they can't look out for themselves anymore?
As too the question. Yes. They can be a resource drain. But is that really a valid point? Should we let anybody die who is a resource drain. Cuz by that logic. Fucking stopp supporting anyone who does not contribute enough. People who are unemployed? Fuck em. Sick people? Ahh just let them die, we have a lot of new people in the wings, ready to take the spot. What about whole areas of the world, who basicly couldn't sustain without help from USA/Europe and other industrial nations, I am talking about Africa for example. They fucking drain our resources. Let's just go over their, take the country, let them die, harvest their shit and get rid of these parasites. I sure as hell don't think so.
|
On January 24 2013 20:00 Gimmeurladderpoints wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 19:57 50bani wrote:On January 24 2013 19:43 Gimmeurladderpoints wrote:EDIT: also no one is proposing no health care AT ALL to old people, just that the government should not subsidise it. In fact, old people / their families spending out of their own pocket on health care is a good thing for the economy I mean. Look at this. Some people are literally saying. Human life should end at the point where it's no longer good for the economy to exist. That's ludacris. It would lead to a world where you're bank account determines the right to life. (I know that in some extreme situations that's already the case, but in general it's not. And holy Fuck. It should not be the case) But do you agree that old/disabled can be a resource drain? + Show Spoiler + Do you agree that old/disabled people were not always old and disabled and many of them have contributed more to society than you or I ever will, so it maybe a bit ungrateful to just let them die, when they can't look out for themselves anymore?
Yes, and are you aware that many of them want to pass away, because they are losing sanity/having constant enourmous pain?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
