We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Is it time access to free NHS care was age limited?
ruperts
Posts: 3,673 Forumite
With the budget today we've seen what I suspect will be a theme over the coming years of working age people being hammered by tax rises to pay predominantly for the aging population to have better even standards of care.
With people living longer and longer and drawing more and more resources from the NHS as they age the only way that can be paid for is by continuing to dramatically reduce the quality of life available to the working age population through tax rises.
From a moral standpoint does there not come a point where forcing young people to work longer and longer hours for and less and less pay just to keep old people alive for a few more years becomes the wrong thing to do? I like to think if/when I am old and demanding huge amounts of money to keep me living in comfort I'd tell them to turn off the machine and use the money to help young people with their whole lives ahead of them instead. For me that would be the morally correct thing to do.
Of course we know not to expect any such displays of outside the box morality from the existing generation of pensioners who have as a collective proven time and time again that they don't care a jot for anyone but themselves, but although it would be a shock to their systems, old people don't always have to get everything they want.
So what I'd propose is age limiting the NHS to something like 75. A grand old age like 75. An age at which nobody could really complain were they not to go on any further. If they wanted expensive care after that age, they could have it only if they were willing to pay for it out of their own pockets.
This would have three substantial benefits:
1) massively reduce the costs of the NHS freeing up money to spend across all of society including giving more to those most in need
2) massively reduce the cost of the state pension freeing up money to spend across all of society including giving more to those most in need
3) massively increase the supply of available homes, bringing prices down and making them more affordable for young families, massively improving lifestyles and prospects for children
While I realise a question like this is loaded with emotion as nobody would want to effectively give up on a person's life, right now we are effectively giving up on millions of children's lives by forcing their parents to work fruitlessly in an economy in which they exist only to fund the lifestyles of the old. Surely a reasonable civilisation would seek to ensure that opportunities for the young and old were at least equal, and it would probably favour the young. But right now in our society we're disregarding the young to pay for the richest generation of pensioners the world has ever seen to have even more of everything.
With people living longer and longer and drawing more and more resources from the NHS as they age the only way that can be paid for is by continuing to dramatically reduce the quality of life available to the working age population through tax rises.
From a moral standpoint does there not come a point where forcing young people to work longer and longer hours for and less and less pay just to keep old people alive for a few more years becomes the wrong thing to do? I like to think if/when I am old and demanding huge amounts of money to keep me living in comfort I'd tell them to turn off the machine and use the money to help young people with their whole lives ahead of them instead. For me that would be the morally correct thing to do.
Of course we know not to expect any such displays of outside the box morality from the existing generation of pensioners who have as a collective proven time and time again that they don't care a jot for anyone but themselves, but although it would be a shock to their systems, old people don't always have to get everything they want.
So what I'd propose is age limiting the NHS to something like 75. A grand old age like 75. An age at which nobody could really complain were they not to go on any further. If they wanted expensive care after that age, they could have it only if they were willing to pay for it out of their own pockets.
This would have three substantial benefits:
1) massively reduce the costs of the NHS freeing up money to spend across all of society including giving more to those most in need
2) massively reduce the cost of the state pension freeing up money to spend across all of society including giving more to those most in need
3) massively increase the supply of available homes, bringing prices down and making them more affordable for young families, massively improving lifestyles and prospects for children
While I realise a question like this is loaded with emotion as nobody would want to effectively give up on a person's life, right now we are effectively giving up on millions of children's lives by forcing their parents to work fruitlessly in an economy in which they exist only to fund the lifestyles of the old. Surely a reasonable civilisation would seek to ensure that opportunities for the young and old were at least equal, and it would probably favour the young. But right now in our society we're disregarding the young to pay for the richest generation of pensioners the world has ever seen to have even more of everything.
0
Comments
-
Wasn't something similar tried in the late 1930's / early 1940's?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T40 -
I love the way you always characterise your homicidal malevolence towards those you envy as being the "moral" position.
I've got bad news for you: eugenics have been out of vogue since May 1945.0 -
what a load of cr*p the OP has posted. seriously who would even read this utter rubbish?0
-
Suggesting we let people die to line your own pocket, and you have the gall to call your proposed victims greedy!After years of disappointment with get-rich-quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme...and quick! - Homer Simpson0
-
This is standard fare from the OP.
Best to just smile and move on tbh.0 -
Wasn't something similar tried in the late 1930's / early 1940's?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4
It 's along the same lines. But the extermination camps were so much more efficient in doing the job.westernpromise wrote: »I love the way you always characterise your homicidal malevolence towards those you envy as being the "moral" position.
I've got bad news for you: eugenics have been out of vogue since May 1945.
Yes, eugenics enjoyed a certain popularity at one time. I think the Nuremberg trials (for one thing) led people to reassess their position.
Personally, I am not in favour of killing people, and I don't think it makes a difference whether the killing is a result of deliberate neglect, or some other act. However I might consider making an exception for the advocates of 'homicidal malevolence'.
0 -
OP,
One day you will get old and I bet that that time comes you will take an entirely different view of things.
I am sure that after contributing towards the NHS for 50 years (I assume you work not just whine) you will not be very content that that qualifies you for no more than 5 more years treatment.
You seem to think that only older people use the NHS, its not true. I dare suggest you were born in an NHS hospital and if you have been unlucky you will have been treated in one, or someone you know will have done this.
You must be a really nice fellow if you are happy to watch your parents denied treatment when they are 75.
But if you want to follow this route maybe you are happy to pay the full cost of your own healthcare, and that of your children, and the cost of their education. After all why should I pay tax to subsidise you? We could then reduce all our taxes.
By the way you do realise that the NHS is funded by taxpayers and a lot of the older generation pay income tax long into our retirement.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
OP is obviously trolling but semi-related we are imo a little bit too hell-bent on preserving life for the sake of it without perhaps giving very much thought to *quality* of life.
So some small changes might be appropriate.
We should have something like dignitas.
We might start to think if there might be a way for us to pause for thought when tossing round treatments for the very old, e.g. my grandad was (no doubt expensively, particularly when factoring in subsequent care costs) resuscitated from the very brink of death after having a heart attack in his late eighties, the couple of extra years of exceptionally poor quality, unhappy, life that it bought him really didn't do anyone, the patient most of all, any favours.
Very widespread dementia throws up another difficult set of issues.
Depression rates amongst nursing home residents are very high.FACT.0 -
So what I'd propose is age limiting the NHS to something like 75.
This is England, not the Brave New World.Depression rates amongst nursing home residents are very high.
FACT.
True. Fully agree with you. There are many reasons why, though...one of the main culprits being the state of said nursing homes.But if you want to follow this route maybe you are happy to pay the full cost of your own healthcare, and that of your children, and the cost of their education. After all why should I pay tax to subsidise you? We could then reduce all our taxes.
Bravo, sir. Bravo.0 -
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards