Share
clock Created with Sketch.
16/02/15
23:08
Share
Originally posted by Marketinfo
↑
Alan,
"it's inevitable that as life expectancy increases, and useful working life increases, that eligibility for the pension will be postponed. Taken to the extreme if people can live to 150 do you think it fair or reasonable or even common sense they collect a pension from age 65? 65 is the new 50 so shoulders to the wheel silver foxes"
The trouble with that statement is this:
Currently average life expectancy is built on getting an extra 10 to 15 years out of old people through excessive medication and hospitalization. The ability of a +65 year old to function in the work place is probably the same as it was 50 years ago other than it is now an officially sanctioned and "heavily drug assisted" event.
Stats lie!
How can you compare average life expectancy from the year 1900 where people had 7 kid with the first wife then she dies having the 8th child which also dies and the second wife has 2 children and then one of the other currently living 7 children dies and then you die and so on and so on. Then there is a war or two and some pandemics.
Living to 150 will bring forward the next war/extermination of those that don't want to fight to survive. Go find a benevolent worker that wants to fund the artificial maintenance and financial support of some old codger that want's to get an extra 80 years of free carry.
It's not a question of how old people will live and at what age they will stop working. It's a question of who will be lucky (or unlucky as the case might be) to be around to prove how much they can do and how long they can live.
MI
Expand
Not sure I would put it in those terms but there does need to be a serious debate re: the role of healthcare for people who have high care needs and little prospect of survival / quality of life. Currently the system focuses on life and all costs rather than the quality of life.
I see a number of parallels between this issue and border control. The system which champions and individual's "rights" is unsustainable when applied to the population context.