EPT"Hurry up and die" - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
| ||
|
CYFAWS
Sweden275 Posts
On January 24 2013 19:07 zobz wrote: 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! way to go with the misreading i'll break it down for you: If you say now that you will rather die than live like a vegetable in the future, chances are you will change your mind about that when the time comes. | ||
|
Domus
510 Posts
On January 24 2013 20:55 SamsungStar wrote: The problem is whether or not society should pay for these operations. We wouldn't give two figs if the person could afford it on their own. You're missing the point of the debate. People work to live a good/better life, but society doesn't exist for that. Society exists to maintain a stable, mutually agreed system in which people can compete to live good/better lives. Note the compete part. It's not guaranteed. Otherwise, we would all just sit on our asses playing SC2 and letting someone else guarantee our comfortable lifestyle. That's why the Constitution says PURSUIT of happiness, not GUARANTEE of happiness. yes, that is kapitalism for you in a nutshell. Kapitalism views society as something to compete in, while a more social(ist) view is that it is society is a system to cooperate in. I prefer the latter, clearly you prefer the former. But they are world views, not absolutes, and you cant call either right or wrong. Although maybe you can call one more pleasant than the other  . | ||
|
50bani
Romania480 Posts
Fun fact: exchanges of goods and services are done such that both parties feel better off, like they value what they get more than what they give. The most competitive is in fact the most cooperant. | ||
|
Frigo
Hungary1023 Posts
| ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On January 24 2013 16:42 Shady Sands wrote: you should be comparing GDP per capita against healthcare spend per capita, not GDP total against healthcare spend per capita. Irrelevant. Society still ends up paying for it, which is one of the main argument for healthcare reform being more focused on preventative care. The current US system tends to toss people out on their asses when there's a problem only to usher them into the doors at the eleventh hour. These eleventh hour procedures tend to cost more than the preventative care, driving the overall health care costs for the country way up. Not saying you're wrong, just that going per capita on both points isn't going to address the main issue: The US already functions like a socialized healthcare system, just the single shittiest incarnation that could possibly exist. Free healthcare for everyone, when you're on the table for the time it takes for the procedure to complete (free for a limited time, lol), and nothing before hand. | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
Our population basic needs will tap in all those ressources. An active adult will have a positive balance, someone (whatever the age) under heavy medical care or a young will have a negative balance. To have a stable sustainable model, you need your ressources production/consumption do be at least balanced on average for each member of your society. This means you have an absolute limit to the ressources that can be channeled to keeping your elderly alive, an absolute limit to what can be invested in the education of your youth. The sum of average investment on youth education/elderly care must be less than the average ressource provided during active life. To answer the initial poll: no, we cannot keep someone alive regardless of costs. I think our current medical technology allows us to invest more ressources on successfully keeping a single human being alive than what is provided on average by each worldwide during his active life. Basic ways to survive an imbalance is population growth (keep your active population growing to match the needs of your elders) or betting on productivity growth (through technology) to match the growing costs of higher technology health care and an older population. I believe both have their limits. | ||
|
SamsungStar
United States912 Posts
On January 24 2013 21:25 Domus wrote: yes, that is kapitalism for you in a nutshell. Kapitalism views society as something to compete in, while a more social(ist) view is that it is society is a system to cooperate in. I prefer the latter, clearly you prefer the former. But they are world views, not absolutes, and you cant call either right or wrong. Although maybe you can call one more pleasant than the other .Actually, one is reality and the other belongs in the dreams of puff the magic dragon. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On January 24 2013 21:59 SamsungStar wrote: Actually, one is reality and the other belongs in the dreams of puff the magic dragon. Nothing unreal about a society where cooperation is considered more important than competition. Welcome to scandinavia. | ||
|
Doctorasul
Romania1145 Posts
Who can possibly care about economic calculations if the bottom line doesn't translate into better lives for the people involved? No calculation can make talking about people like they are expiring products acceptable. How can anyone be this out of touch? | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
On January 24 2013 21:59 SamsungStar wrote: Actually, one is reality and the other belongs in the dreams of puff the magic dragon. True, REAL capitalism doesnt exist anywhere, TRUE consumerism/capitalism where the market truly would work the way its supposed to work, would be awesome but unfortunately, its a dream of puff. Socialism on the other hand, works well, Cuba being a prime example of it, Compare Cuba to other equally poor south american countries who have not been able to trade with the US, and they are doing very well. Sweden were another great example of what socialism can create, unfortunately, thats long gone and nowadays were witch-hunting the weak while the rich are getting richer. Norway! A great example of a country where socialism works very well, without any kind of european union etc. why? Because of the fact that everyone is sharing the benefits from their export. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
there are studies out there, made by PhD's and such, like 'Quality-Driven Efficiency in Healthcare' http://www.utwente.nl/en/archive/2012/12/mathematics_the_key_to_better_and_cheaper_healthcare.doc that shows how costs can be reduced by 20% only by optimizing the logistic part. if you go into patent laws and shit, research expenditures (which dictate the price on meds), i am pretty sure you can get it down to ~50%. but hey, lets just kill people, it's cheaper and doesn't even have to make us change the way we do things. | ||
|
SamsungStar
United States912 Posts
What I did say is there is a clear line to be drawn between the reality of a world in which resources and labor are scarce, and a dream world in which as long as everybody shares there is enough to go around. Your broken examples of Cuba, Sweden, and Norway are meaningless, because the situation in those countries are caused by a vast number of factors that go far beyond whether they are socialist or capitalist. | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51481 Posts
 I love Japan <3 and this was a great read, i will not be surprised if what the deputy prime minister has said actually takes effect in, people who need "end of life care" choose not to have it and die knowing they helped their country. If my country was run by people who actually care about it and lead from the front, in this case the deputy prime minister saying he has already told his family he does not want the care, then i would do it too. But that would never happen in UK as all our leaders do not care about what is being left behind just themselves and what is going on "now" Also the population to GDP is pretty good as I see a 127,817,277 for Japan and 141,930,000 for Russia, a 14,112,723 difference. Yet still out does Russia's GDP by x4! | ||
|
Dreamer.T
United States3584 Posts
| ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On January 24 2013 22:56 Dreamer.T wrote: People can decide whether they want to die or not. Imagine if one day some guy told you your parents needed to go. Would you say yes to that? But what if that person was paying your parent's hospital bills? Like I mentioned in the OP, this is an icky and sticky issue. No easy answers here--but this is going to be one of the biggest tests of sociopolitical cohesion in the 21st century. It would be wise to think about it sooner than later. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
People say things about morality, how can we not let people die, how life should be paramount ... but only when they are confronted with these situations directly, or in discussion. At any instance when these topics are not epxlicitly brought up, they are being largery ignored - because thinking about death is not very convenient, isn't it. So, if you consider yourself moral and ethical, why do you allow public money to be spend on anything but healthcare. People are obviously dying, so we could be doing more. Why are we building parks and renovating historical buildings from public money, when we could have put these money into healthcare? Do we consider "having nice things" more valuable then human life. If you realise this, you have to realise, that we have already given up on the absolute morality. That we are already consciously killing ill people off. We are only not doing it by putting a bullet through their head, but by limiting the amount of effort that we put into healthcare and medical research. It looks different, but the difference is largely hipocritical. | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On January 24 2013 22:08 Doctorasul wrote: Economics is supposed to enable us to live better lives. Some questions are hard to answer, like what is more important, paying for an incapacitated 97 year old to barely make it to 98 or funding research to find the cure for male baldness?? da fuq? More like enhancing younger people's lives, be it something simple like having enough food to being healthy or help/cure their diseases. i.e. Paying for a young child to live to adulthood, and hopefully, a contributing member to society. I have no idea how the numbers will work out since I do not have the knowledge but at least I know the right direction to be moving in. I found your train of thought to be hilariously unexpected hahaha | ||
|
NightOfTheDead
Lithuania1711 Posts
On January 24 2013 20:31 SamsungStar wrote: And yes, it is a valid point. Wtf? Resource drains should be allowed to exist? Do you realize at a certain point, old people will be stealing food out of the mouths of babies? You seem to act as if it's a difference between greed and charity. It's NOT. Simple truth is there ain't enough to go around. So why the hell would the human race want to keep a few decaying sacks of meat alive long after their usefulness? You realize the human race already allows vast swathes, in fact the majority, of the human population to live in abject poverty? Oh, poor grandma is half-dead, but it'd be a crime against humanity to pull the tube out her mouth! But it's not a crime to watch 5-6 year old Ethiopian children stumbling around the dusty street with bellies distended from starvation, right? The whole point of the monetary system is that it is a decent approximation of a person's contribution to society. When you're old, use your own money to buy healthcare. If your savings, and the incomes of your children, can't afford the level of care needed to keep you alive, that is the point you should die. The end. There is no ethical or logical justification for why society should be obligated or even willing to maintain a parasite. And that's what you are when you dip into public resources to pay for your own health. It is the height of selfishness. All your arguments are based on emotional appeals with little to no understanding of what's actually going on. And why exactly would it be a bad thing for your bank account to be your right to life? I don't understand this diseased mentality of entitlement. Every other living organism on earth dies when they cannot feed themselves. But what? Humans are special and entitled to a decent life as long as someone somewhere down the road decided to carry you in their belly for nine months? Couldnt have said better myself; that is exactly my thoughts. To add upon that it isnt the question whether or not we WANT, but rather whether or not we CAN (having such luxury rights). Because clearly like everything in eco-system, there isnt perpetum mobile where all problems get solved. You can have all the rights in the world, but in the end that doesnt ensure anything, because it is artificial.. Every artificial/legal/social/moral barrier that exists will be brought down with fire, when the question of survival of mankind will be on the line. And the sooner we do something about it, the better. That completely involves resources and allocation. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On January 24 2013 22:56 Dreamer.T wrote: People can decide whether they want to die or not. Imagine if one day some guy told you your parents needed to go. Would you say yes to that? Doesn't matter what you say, if HE is the guy paying for them to live. Why would he be obligated to continue? If you want your parents to live, plenty okay - pay for it yourself. It's a delicate matter, don't feel offended - but feel free to tell me that you would pay the hospital bills for my parents. Of course, charity is something different, if i had the money, and was touched by something, i would pay for someone elses bills - but that's because i want to. Not because i'm forced to. And, maybe that sound stupid (could even be wrong, even though i doubt it) - there is no advantage in letting elderly people vegetate in hospitals. In fact, you only have drawbacks. It reduces the time we have to find solutions for serious problems like water, food, energy, space. I don't say "kill them", but i would say "don't try everything to keep them alive". If their time has come, it's time to go. And not time to plug in another device to cheat death for another couple of months, wasting money, time and ressources to, well.. What? In the end you may get a year, plugged into whatever machine. That year you got is (alot of the times) full of pain, or even worse - you don't even realize it because of medical conditions or even coma. Don't get me wrong - i would be devastated, and i would hate the guy (even wishing him harm, to say the least) who tells me that my parents need to go - but if you're completely objective, it would be the right thing. Even if it's not for you (or me in this case). | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2011/04/us%20health%20care%20costs-thumb-600x326-47611.png)
