3 ms·

No, I actually mean proactively pursuing national public health policies that allow all of us to lead fuller, shorter lives. A disproportionate amount of medica

No, I actually mean proactively pursuing national public health policies that allow all of us to lead fuller, shorter lives. A disproportionate amount of medical spending is incurred in the last three years of the lives of Americans.[1] For many, those last years are spent in pain, or in a hospital, or in a sedated state, at astronomical expense. Anecdotally, many people will tell you that they wouldn't want to live forever, that mortality is what gives life meaning and urgency. No one wishes to go on... [1] https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0174 https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2017....

effingwewt 6y ago
Honest question- would you feel the same if the life expectancy in your scenario maxed out at your current age? I've thought about this quite a bit. If you mean to say people would all be rich and have 'the luxe life' but they had to tap out at 30, how many would reach that point and regret their decision?
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  I don't think that's a fair question. legerdemain is talking about denying medical care late, not killing people early. For example, if life expectancy was 80, and you stopped offering treatment for cancer and pneumonia at 80. That's significantly different from tapping out at 30, or even 60. But if we actually did that, then life expectancy would probably drop. So we'd lower the age at which we cut off medical care. Then the life expectancy would probably drop some more. Mind you, I'm not saying that I agree with legerdemain. I'm just saying that I think that your particular criticism of his idea is off base.
  - legerdemain 6y ago
    And I don't even mean that. Let's not fantasize about Logan's Run here. If your genetics and physical conditioning will let you reach 120 and stay fit and sharp, more power to you. You don't have to stop offering treatment. You can selectively incentivize research into proactive and prophylactic interventions. Set a higher bar for quality-adjusted life years late-life treatment should provide before becoming the standard of care. Or, as the current US administration is signaling, just minimize pandemic precautions with the expectation that the burden of death will fall predominantly to the very old, regardless of the simplistic measures their families remember to take. Can't get to herd immunity without at least some "collateral damage" to the elderly.
  - effingwewt 6y ago
    Fair points all,and I agree. My comment wasn't meant as a critique, I meant it as an honest question.

effingwewt 6y ago

Honest question- would you feel the same if the life expectancy in your scenario maxed out at your current age? I've thought about this quite a bit. If you mean to say people would all be rich and have 'the luxe life' but they had to tap out at 30, how many would reach that point and regret their decision?

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
I don't think that's a fair question. legerdemain is talking about denying medical care late, not killing people early. For example, if life expectancy was 80, and you stopped offering treatment for cancer and pneumonia at 80. That's significantly different from tapping out at 30, or even 60. But if we actually did that, then life expectancy would probably drop. So we'd lower the age at which we cut off medical care. Then the life expectancy would probably drop some more. Mind you, I'm not saying that I agree with legerdemain. I'm just saying that I think that your particular criticism of his idea is off base.
- legerdemain 6y ago
  And I don't even mean that. Let's not fantasize about Logan's Run here. If your genetics and physical conditioning will let you reach 120 and stay fit and sharp, more power to you. You don't have to stop offering treatment. You can selectively incentivize research into proactive and prophylactic interventions. Set a higher bar for quality-adjusted life years late-life treatment should provide before becoming the standard of care. Or, as the current US administration is signaling, just minimize pandemic precautions with the expectation that the burden of death will fall predominantly to the very old, regardless of the simplistic measures their families remember to take. Can't get to herd immunity without at least some "collateral damage" to the elderly.
- effingwewt 6y ago
  Fair points all,and I agree. My comment wasn't meant as a critique, I meant it as an honest question.