You are correct. And as people start living longer and longer this is a problem we will have to address....it's uncomfortable but calling people names who even dare bring it up is ridiculous.
I'm just stating a fact when I say that the money that is spent just to keep bodies alive is astronomical. That is not a comment on whether or not that money should be spent..it's just a fact..a fact that people don't want to talk about.
And this notion that "we paid in.." Anyone who has taken care of an elderly person knows that one long hospital visit more than takes up what was put in..and that's the truth.
If we say we will do this ... whatever it costs, than we're going to have to decide as a nation what is going to have to go...because we just won't be able to afford it.
Watch, I give you 10 posts before someone calls me a Nazi.
Poor put-upon Hildy. She manages to choose the side of death every time a life issue comes up, but darn it, nobody should criticize her!
You're not a Nazi. I'm still trying to come up with a name for your kind, something like "necrophiliac" only without the sexual connotation.
But it's a serious distortion to assume that your only options are (A)gazillion-dollar high-tech futile care, or (B) the geriaticide bullet (or its equivalent.)
Whatever happened to "ordinary care"?
You have a right to refuse ALL expensive "extraordinary" care and you have a right to live to the end in decent simplicity --- clean, warm, sheltered, and fed --- which doesn't cost much; costs much less, I daresay, than the care and feeding of a golden retriever.
Even if, in my case, you add a couple beers to the daily geriatric regimen.
But the natural conclusion here is socialized medicine. And my first hunch is that there's going to be a lot of placebo administered to certain groups or specific individuals.
Phony flu-shots for seniors, etc..
Don't say it couldn't happen under a RAT trifacta AND a LIBERAL/SOCIALIST SCOTUS.