Replies

the question of, as he put it, “whether our consumption is worth our contribution.”

Does the same rule apply to a segment of the population that hang out on the streets of LA, San Francisco, Detroit, Chicago, etc. regardless of age?

That aside, I watched medical technology torture my F-I-L for two years keeping him alive at incredible expense and in pain. So, in some sense, I do agree with some of what he is saying.

BUT!

It was not my call to decide what treatments my F-I-L got. It was his, and he chose every available treatment. Even with the horrible quality of life that it produced (again my perception of Q-O-L, not his). His experience will not be forgotten when I find myself in his position some day.

Then, what will I decide? Don't know.

It was not my call to decide what treatments my F-I-L got. It was his, and he chose every available treatment

This comment is not directed at you or your F-I-L personally, don't take it that way. It's not you or your F-I-L being improvident (or wealthy), it's "the system".

If your F-I-L was like most people, "his call" and "his choice" were funded with other people's money, statistically speaking, almost all of it the taxpayer's money.

So, the question for all is, "at what point, if any, do the taxpayers get to weigh in on F-I-L's choices?"

So far, we have chosen $20 trillion in debt to avoid this question.

Sooner or later, we will have to make a decision.