|
On January 24 2013 21:59 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 21:25 Domus wrote:On January 24 2013 20:55 SamsungStar wrote:On January 24 2013 20:49 Domus wrote:
I think that making this an age discussion is wrong/short-sighted. One 80 year old can be a lot more healthy than another 60 year old. An operation on one 80 year old could prolong life by 10 years, while on a 20 year old it could only prolong life by 5 years. I think taking someones value/productivity into the equation is even more wrong and shows a glaring flaw in neo liberalism/kapitalism. People work to live a good/better live. People dont live to provide productivity/generate money.
So, if there truly needs to be a debate about if we can "afford" to take care of our own elderly. I don't think the debate should be based on age, but on quality of life. As in, end-of-life procedures often only extend the life by a couple of months, those months are spent in a hospital instead of with family and the patient is often not happier in these last couple of months and would have been better off dying a bit earlier at home, at peace. End-of-life procedures are not age-bound. It can be the last couple of months of the life of a 20 year old cancer patient as well. These last months happen to be very expensive as well, but I still think it is up to the physician and the patient to decide if the procedure is wanted. 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  . Actually, one is reality and the other belongs in the dreams of puff the magic dragon.
Actually, both are reality. We compete and cooperate with each other all at once. There are benefits to both you know.
|
What`s the next step? Are those that cannot get jobs and therefore live on the expense of the community supposed to hurry up and die, too?
|
On January 25 2013 00:44 RavenLoud wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 21:59 SamsungStar wrote:On January 24 2013 21:25 Domus wrote:On January 24 2013 20:55 SamsungStar wrote:On January 24 2013 20:49 Domus wrote:
I think that making this an age discussion is wrong/short-sighted. One 80 year old can be a lot more healthy than another 60 year old. An operation on one 80 year old could prolong life by 10 years, while on a 20 year old it could only prolong life by 5 years. I think taking someones value/productivity into the equation is even more wrong and shows a glaring flaw in neo liberalism/kapitalism. People work to live a good/better live. People dont live to provide productivity/generate money.
So, if there truly needs to be a debate about if we can "afford" to take care of our own elderly. I don't think the debate should be based on age, but on quality of life. As in, end-of-life procedures often only extend the life by a couple of months, those months are spent in a hospital instead of with family and the patient is often not happier in these last couple of months and would have been better off dying a bit earlier at home, at peace. End-of-life procedures are not age-bound. It can be the last couple of months of the life of a 20 year old cancer patient as well. These last months happen to be very expensive as well, but I still think it is up to the physician and the patient to decide if the procedure is wanted. 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 . Actually, one is reality and the other belongs in the dreams of puff the magic dragon. Actually, both are reality. We compete and cooperate with each other all at once. There are benefits to both you know.
And I don't think they're mutually exclusive either. You can believe in capatalism as a way to govern world economics and still believe in helping eachother out and cooperating and all that 'socialist' ideal. In fact, it works like this in most of Western- and Northern Europe (the so called 'socialist states')
|
On January 25 2013 00:44 RavenLoud wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 21:59 SamsungStar wrote:On January 24 2013 21:25 Domus wrote:On January 24 2013 20:55 SamsungStar wrote:On January 24 2013 20:49 Domus wrote:
I think that making this an age discussion is wrong/short-sighted. One 80 year old can be a lot more healthy than another 60 year old. An operation on one 80 year old could prolong life by 10 years, while on a 20 year old it could only prolong life by 5 years. I think taking someones value/productivity into the equation is even more wrong and shows a glaring flaw in neo liberalism/kapitalism. People work to live a good/better live. People dont live to provide productivity/generate money.
So, if there truly needs to be a debate about if we can "afford" to take care of our own elderly. I don't think the debate should be based on age, but on quality of life. As in, end-of-life procedures often only extend the life by a couple of months, those months are spent in a hospital instead of with family and the patient is often not happier in these last couple of months and would have been better off dying a bit earlier at home, at peace. End-of-life procedures are not age-bound. It can be the last couple of months of the life of a 20 year old cancer patient as well. These last months happen to be very expensive as well, but I still think it is up to the physician and the patient to decide if the procedure is wanted. 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 . Actually, one is reality and the other belongs in the dreams of puff the magic dragon. Actually, both are reality. We compete and cooperate with each other all at once. There are benefits to both you know.
He wasn't describing competition and cooperation. He was making up some retarded parallel between "kapitalism" and the laws of scarcity, and socialism and unlimited welfare. In essence, he was making a strawman which alluded to a completely irrelevant debate. You should read more carefully. Not everything is a basic 3rd grader debate about Commies vs Free Markets, you know.
|
On January 25 2013 00:45 Irrational_Animal wrote:
What`s the next step? Are those that cannot get jobs and therefore live on the expense of the community supposed to hurry up and die, too?
The fundamental difference between them and old people is that the point of assisting them is to get them on their own feet. Old people are assisted only in living longer...because they will no longer give back or really get back on their own feet after a certain point.
Not that I agree with telling old people to hurry up and die or anything but people have this gongho notion of life such that people aren't even allowed to off themselves in a hospital setting. If someone wants to die let them do so in peace.
|
No.
I don't wish to live forever myself. Unless i could do so in perfect mental and physical health, thus not needing help in terms of manpower, medicine, money.
|
I think it's inevitable that the elderly eventually be looked at in this realistic way. They're not supposed to live this long, so, as stated, hurry up and die. You're costing resources and time, and while it sounds dark, you're not worth anything but your memories and company.
|
United Kingdom12037 Posts
On January 25 2013 00:45 Irrational_Animal wrote:
What`s the next step? Are those that cannot get jobs and therefore live on the expense of the community supposed to hurry up and die, too?
This.
I cannot believe half the opinions in this thread. My goodness.
They're not supposed to live this long
I mean really? Are you serious? Says who?
|
Being dead seems like it kinda sucks tbh
I mean wtf is there to do after you die? It just sounds so boring...
|
No matter how efficient your healthcare delivery system, you obviously cannot provide all life-extending care without regard to cost. Efficiency doesn't solve this problem for Japan or any other country, all it does is shift where the hard choices occur from say 80 to 85 or 90. At some point cost-benefit analysis with respect to human life will apply.
|
United Kingdom12037 Posts
I must admit, although I sounded sceptical I think it'll be great living in world where someone can commit legal murder because they're in power. Sounds like a perfect, wonderful dystopian society. I'm also looking forward to when these people decide who can and can't have children and any unauthorized babies get killed infront of their parents as they didn't have a lisence or permission from said power to have the child.
Let's not forget the fantasmical time when only the rich get to live any form of decent life as poor people may as well die as they contribute nothing to society.
|
I'm sorry, but what do you expect with mass consumption of unhealthy food and the unhealthy life style that is apparently also common in the US?
|
holy check shady sands with his "seems logical" mumbo-jumbo again. and a majority of TLers failing to grant other people the right to live!
Great thread! 10/10!
[/sarcasm]
1) "Put simply, old people are now a burden because we don't have enough money in the financial system to take care of them, and because we don't have enough young people to support their overwhemlingly spendthrift consumptive habits."
There is enough "money in the financial system" to keep fighting wars, flying to mars and other things of debatable use to society, but not for caring for our old? are you serious?
Not enough young people? Has unemployment gone down suddenly?
2) your graph shows clearly that health-care-expdentiture is not really correlative to life expectancy. ofc, when nothing is spent on healthcare it stays very low, but spending much doesn't always give a high expectancy. murrica, being the best, most advanced country in the world (right? ) spends the most and still got an average life expectancy. the money isn't invested cleverly enough. i'm no expert, but i think it is because of too many different insurences and the bureaucrazy that follows this.
3) " As the elderly draw down their savings, they add stress onto the financial system and increase the cost of capital, lowering the rate of accretion for labor-saving, capital-intensive investment for workers and decreasing labor productivity--the root of a working person's prosperity."
OH NOES! The elderly draw down their savings and add stress to the financial system! They want their savings! How selfish, they wanting the money they saved and give it to the young when they want (or die), and not automatically. Incredible behaviour, they deserve capital punishment!
The decision when to leave this world should stay in the hand of the individual.
Mr Sands, congratulations on having the ultimate knowledge what hurts "the economy" and what is good for it.
Too all those denying everyone the right to live, have fun pulling the plugs from your parents. Don't forget: the sooner you do it the better!
See you all at Logan's Run, gl & hf!
|
On January 25 2013 01:07 Qikz wrote:
I must admit, although I sounded sceptical I think it'll be great living in world where someone can commit legal murder because they're in power. Sounds like a perfect, wonderful dystopian society. I'm also looking forward to when these people decide who can and can't have children and any unauthorized babies get killed infront of their parents as they didn't have a lisence or permission from said power to have the child.
Let's not forget the fantasmical time when only the rich get to live any form of decent life as poor people may as well die as they contribute nothing to society.
This is such a crock of shit. How do you even write this with a straight face?
It is NOT murder to choose not to provide a limited and finite amount of care to someone who can't care for themselves. If a dozen people are at the bottom of the ocean and there are only enough oxygen tanks for 3, it is NOT murder to leave the 9 oldest and weakest behind. It is just a hard fact of life. It is necessity.
I don't know why basic kids keep trying to create these false analogies for the actual debate at hand. Do you guys enjoy wasting time spouting nonsense or are you really that bad at reading?
|
On January 25 2013 00:50 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 00:44 RavenLoud wrote:On January 24 2013 21:59 SamsungStar wrote:On January 24 2013 21:25 Domus wrote:On January 24 2013 20:55 SamsungStar wrote:On January 24 2013 20:49 Domus wrote:
I think that making this an age discussion is wrong/short-sighted. One 80 year old can be a lot more healthy than another 60 year old. An operation on one 80 year old could prolong life by 10 years, while on a 20 year old it could only prolong life by 5 years. I think taking someones value/productivity into the equation is even more wrong and shows a glaring flaw in neo liberalism/kapitalism. People work to live a good/better live. People dont live to provide productivity/generate money.
So, if there truly needs to be a debate about if we can "afford" to take care of our own elderly. I don't think the debate should be based on age, but on quality of life. As in, end-of-life procedures often only extend the life by a couple of months, those months are spent in a hospital instead of with family and the patient is often not happier in these last couple of months and would have been better off dying a bit earlier at home, at peace. End-of-life procedures are not age-bound. It can be the last couple of months of the life of a 20 year old cancer patient as well. These last months happen to be very expensive as well, but I still think it is up to the physician and the patient to decide if the procedure is wanted. 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 . Actually, one is reality and the other belongs in the dreams of puff the magic dragon. Actually, both are reality. We compete and cooperate with each other all at once. There are benefits to both you know. He wasn't describing competition and cooperation. He was making up some retarded parallel between "kapitalism" and the laws of scarcity, and socialism and unlimited welfare. In essence, he was making a strawman which alluded to a completely irrelevant debate. You should read more carefully. Not everything is a basic 3rd grader debate about Commies vs Free Markets, you know.
Seems to me that you're the one making strawmans.
When did I say anything about commies vs free market?
On the topic, I support the legalization of euthanasia for terminally ill patients. However, I also think that preventive care and the promotion of healthy lifestyles before retirement deserves more focus. It makes little sense to sacrifice your health for money when you're young just to...spend it on your health when you're old.
|
It feels to me like the more we move ahead the more we end up in territory we tried to get out of. All the time spent trying to extend life and now it appears that a bunch of people believe that living a long time is too expensive and older people should hurry up and die. No matter what the cost, probably not, but currently it's a non issue almost all the time. If the cost of saving one average person that's in their 80s+ would somehow prevent treatment of multiple younger people then okay at that point the cost is probably too high.
On January 25 2013 01:10 thezanursic wrote:
I'm sorry, but what do you expect with mass consumption of unhealthy food and the unhealthy life style that is apparently also common in the US?
I don't see that being related to the thread, this is about the cost of healthy people that live to a ripe old age, not about the cost of unhealthy people.
|
Being dead seems like it kinda sucks tbh
I mean wtf is there to do after you die? It just sounds so boring...
It still is better than lying in a bed, probably in pain and discomfort, waiting to inevitably die some day.
On January 25 2013 00:59 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 00:45 Irrational_Animal wrote:
What`s the next step? Are those that cannot get jobs and therefore live on the expense of the community supposed to hurry up and die, too? This. I cannot believe half the opinions in this thread. My goodness. I mean really? Are you serious? Says who?
Says who? Common sense. As has been said before, nobody is killing anyone. Get off this notion that people here are mass murderers. People die. They die sooner or later, this cannot be prevented, although it can be postponed, and in some cases, for too long.
At some point, health care stops adding quality to your life, just quantity. I read half of this thread just now and I am so tired of the 'morality heroes' coming in here and saying 'You're not god you can't decide who lives!'. The thing is, we can do a certain extend. No, we can't kill people (without being punished for it), but what we can do is stop mindlessly prolonging every single life as long as we possibly can at all costs.
We (society, tax payers, medical staff, etc) are keeping the elderly alive as long as we can. But a limit will be reached some day, wether we decide to do something about it ourselves, or wether we come to the point where we simply can't afford to keep everyone alive anymore.
Due to health care getting better, people get older. In fact, more people get much older. Two keywords right there: the amount of older people increases exponentially as, simply put, there are much more people entering the world than leaving it.
Once again, no one is asking for older people to be killed. But what in my opinion should happen in this near future is the end of mindlessly increasing the duration of people's lifes. The problem is, how do you this in a humane way?
|
United Kingdom12037 Posts
On January 25 2013 01:13 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 01:07 Qikz wrote:
I must admit, although I sounded sceptical I think it'll be great living in world where someone can commit legal murder because they're in power. Sounds like a perfect, wonderful dystopian society. I'm also looking forward to when these people decide who can and can't have children and any unauthorized babies get killed infront of their parents as they didn't have a lisence or permission from said power to have the child.
Let's not forget the fantasmical time when only the rich get to live any form of decent life as poor people may as well die as they contribute nothing to society. This is such a crock of shit. How do you even write this with a straight face? It is NOT murder to choose not to provide a limited and finite amount of care to someone who can't care for themselves. If a dozen people are at the bottom of the ocean and there are only enough oxygen tanks for 3, it is NOT murder to leave the 9 oldest and weakest behind. It is just a hard fact of life. It is necessity. I don't know why basic kids keep trying to create these false analogies for the actual debate at hand. Do you guys enjoy wasting time spouting nonsense or are you really that bad at reading?
I would class choosing to kill off the entire population over 80 as we supposedly cannot support them is murder. It's choosing deliberately to let someone die. Euthenasia is classed as murder for exactly that reason correct?
Also what's to stop them there. Why not just kill anyone who gets to retirement age as they're now apparently not giving to society at all and the money they put into the system doesn't deserve to go back to them? The reason the entire pension system works in the majority of countries is that you pay into it your life, to secure a healthy future for yourself when you're forced to retire.
Now going back to the not supporting people. Should my mother who is 53 die purely for the fact she is severely disabled and cannot physically work anymore? She's in constant agony the majority of the time and you're basically trying to say that as she's weak and cannot contribute to society, she should die? It sickens me that anyone can think like this. I mean, all she does is cost society money with the cost of her medication, so why should we allow her to live anymore?
|
On January 25 2013 01:19 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 01:13 SamsungStar wrote:On January 25 2013 01:07 Qikz wrote:
I must admit, although I sounded sceptical I think it'll be great living in world where someone can commit legal murder because they're in power. Sounds like a perfect, wonderful dystopian society. I'm also looking forward to when these people decide who can and can't have children and any unauthorized babies get killed infront of their parents as they didn't have a lisence or permission from said power to have the child.
Let's not forget the fantasmical time when only the rich get to live any form of decent life as poor people may as well die as they contribute nothing to society. This is such a crock of shit. How do you even write this with a straight face? It is NOT murder to choose not to provide a limited and finite amount of care to someone who can't care for themselves. If a dozen people are at the bottom of the ocean and there are only enough oxygen tanks for 3, it is NOT murder to leave the 9 oldest and weakest behind. It is just a hard fact of life. It is necessity. I don't know why basic kids keep trying to create these false analogies for the actual debate at hand. Do you guys enjoy wasting time spouting nonsense or are you really that bad at reading? I would class choosing to kill off the entire population over 80 as we supposedly cannot support them is murder. It's choosing deliberately to let someone die. Euthenasia is classed as murder for exactly that reason correct? Also what's to stop them there. Why not just kill anyone who gets to retirement age as they're now apparently not giving to society at all and the money they put into the system doesn't deserve to go back to them? The reason the entire pension system works in the majority of countries is that you pay into it your life, to secure a healthy future for yourself when you're forced to retire. Now going back to the not supporting people. Should my mother who is 53 die purely for the fact she is severely disabled and cannot physically work anymore? She's in constant agony the majority of the time and you're basically trying to say that as she's weak and cannot contribute to society, she should die? It sickens me that anyone can think like this. I mean, all she does is cost society money with the cost of her medication, so why should we allow her to live anymore?
This is a huge distortion of the actual points being debated. Why are you doing this? It doesn't make your argument any more effective. In fact, it makes me want to just skip over any future post by you in this thread because what you've just said is so outrageous there's no point to continue any further.
And sadly, if you and your mom completely cannot afford to care for her and she is in agony all the time, then yes, I don't think there's much reason to keep her alive anymore. She has no quality of life, she's a drain on resources, there is no foreseeable change in her condition, what exactly would be the point to keeping her alive? To spare you emotional anguish? You do realize if we use prevention of emotional anguish as a justification for actions our society would be a giant clusterfuck right?
|
If the costs of healthcare are rising, that just means that supply and demand will fulfill those needs by creating more jobs for people in the healthcare industry. There are plenty of human activities that aren't really 'productive'. But why not gradually slow down the social contract with people. Let the free healthcare have finite limits and let the old who wish to take care of themselves use some of the money they are saving by not spending.
In other words, the free market will take care of things as long as the government doesn't bankrupt itself trying to redistribute all the wealth of the young towards the old. There should be some limits on how much care the elderly can receive without paying out of pocket. If they want the best care forever eventually they should pay for it. Though I am an American I thoroughly support free healthcare, but at some point there has to come a limit. When providing for the elderly becomes a serious existential threat to the young, the social contract must change.
Our generation needs to begin to understand that now. There will come a time when we are the elderly and we will need to have some money saved up to continue our healthcare, or we must learn to live (or die) without. In my philosophy death is not something to be feared. A life well-lived will mean a death with dignity, well-earned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
