3 ms·

This may explain why sexually-transmitted diseases get so much attention. They're probably the only kind of diseases that hit younger population much harder tha

by b0rsuk 7y ago

This may explain why sexually-transmitted diseases get so much attention. They're probably the only kind of diseases that hit younger population much harder than senior citizens. THOSE are the diseases that make the rich earn less money. From an ethical point of view, governments owe seniors the money and care, because they had worked for state prosperity. Also, if young people had more foresight, they would realize the way seniors are treated today will be more less the way they themselves will be treated. But old age and death is a depressing topic and no one likes to dwell on it.

michaelt 7y ago
> This may explain why sexually-transmitted diseases get so much attention. At least in my country, we spend radically more per-capita on healthcare for the old than we do for the young [1] simply because the old need more of it. For men age 5-45 we spend less than £1000, for men age 80-85 we spend more than £4500. It's a similar story for women, but with a bump for women of childbearing age. I don't see any evidence of a bias in favour of the working-age population. [1] http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/135407/ http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/135407/
- b0rsuk 7y ago
  As with many things, there are two ways of looking at this. One is that old people need it the most. Another is that helping younger people is more cost-effective because they have more life ahead of them and if you cure them they're unlikely to get another disease soon. The latter is more heartless, but you can't deny there's some merit to it.
Shmebulock 7y ago
"This may explain why sexually-transmitted diseases get so much attention. They're probably the only kind of diseases that hit younger population much harder than senior citizens. THOSE are the diseases that make the rich earn less money." This seems implausible to me. Given that the rich tend to be of rather old age themselves, I'd wager that they'd invest in preventing their own deaths

by b0rsuk 7y ago

michaelt 7y ago

> This may explain why sexually-transmitted diseases get so much attention. At least in my country, we spend radically more per-capita on healthcare for the old than we do for the young [1] simply because the old need more of it. For men age 5-45 we spend less than £1000, for men age 80-85 we spend more than £4500. It's a similar story for women, but with a bump for women of childbearing age. I don't see any evidence of a bias in favour of the working-age population. [1] http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/135407/ http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/135407/

b0rsuk 7y ago
As with many things, there are two ways of looking at this. One is that old people need it the most. Another is that helping younger people is more cost-effective because they have more life ahead of them and if you cure them they're unlikely to get another disease soon. The latter is more heartless, but you can't deny there's some merit to it.

Shmebulock 7y ago

"This may explain why sexually-transmitted diseases get so much attention. They're probably the only kind of diseases that hit younger population much harder than senior citizens. THOSE are the diseases that make the rich earn less money." This seems implausible to me. Given that the rich tend to be of rather old age themselves, I'd wager that they'd invest in preventing their own deaths