Living Forever - our near future

[CarolAnnSFO]

Did your teacher explain why Massachusetts enacted universal health care by forcing people to buy health insurance – and taxing them heavily if they don’t?

Tell me, if people can’t afford to buy health insurance, how does increasing their taxes make them more able to buy it?

Good point. I just had a look at a document showing costs for proposed insurance plans for MA residents. In Eastern MA, uninsured people will be able to get coverage for $175 (that was the cheapest quote). Oh, if you’re 56 or older, that cost rises to $347. I guess that seems “affordable” to wealthy legislators. Heck, they’ll pay $347 for a meal (with wine) for a group of 4.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Good point. I just had a look at a document showing costs for proposed insurance plans for MA residents. In Eastern MA, uninsured people will be able to get coverage for $175 (that was the cheapest quote). Oh, if you’re 56 or older, that cost rises to $347. I guess that seems “affordable” to wealthy legislators. Heck, they’ll pay $347 for a meal (with wine) for a group of 4.

What Massachusetts is doing is spreading the pool. Lots of people make a rational decision not to have health insurance – if you’re young and healty, you spend less out-of-pocket on medical care than the insurance would cost.

So Massachusetts makes those people buy insurance – even though they don’t want it – to bring down the overall cost.

But things like true Medical Savings accounts would do more to both provide coverage and bring down health care costs.

True tort reform would work wonders – in this country, there is nothing like a Grand Jury in civil law. In most countries, before you can file a suit, you have to show you have good cause. In this country, you just file. Many a lawyer makes his living by filing suits, then settling with the insurance company for less than it would cost to fight the case. The insurance company passes on the cost to doctors, who pass on the cost to patients.

Allowing people to shop for health insurance across state lines would improve matters – as would allowing small businesses to band together to bargain for health insurance for their employees.

 

[BryPGuy89]

Did your teacher explain why Massachusetts enacted universal health care by forcing people to buy health insurance – and taxing them heavily if they don’t?

Tell me, if people can’t afford to buy health insurance, how does increasing their taxes make them more able to buy it?

And did your teacher tell you about the Rule of 78? Has he told you about the Social Security surplus? Ask him what the cumulative Social Security surplus is over the last 10 years.

Not according to our text, the United States claims that the Social Security is out of money, more runnning on debt and IOU’s no actually money there, but again it’s just the most recent text book offered to college students, maybe your source is more accurate…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Not according to our text, the United States claims that the Social Security is out of money, more runnning on debt and IOU’s no actually money there, but again it’s just the most recent text book offered to college students, maybe your source is more accurate…

My source is the Social Security Administration. You can go to their website and see the surplus documented.

Social Security is currently running a surplus – that surplus amounted to more than a trillion dollars in the last decade. But you are correct when you say that surplus has been converted to IOUs. The money has been ripped off and spent by the government.

Had workers been allowed to keep and invest that money, all of us would retire millionaires.

P.S. Did you ask your teacher to explain the Rule of 78?

 

[jc-servant]

Some of us might rather die than eat turnip greens!

Hey now. I love turnip greens. They taste nothing like the actual turnip! They are tender and flavorful when well-cooked. I don’t have the knack, so I buy them in the can from the “Glory” company which has lots of cool Southern seasoned food. I’m sure the added sodium is preserving me just like a pickle, so I won’t need a program for living longer!

I think a desire to live a ridiculously long life on this Earth is probably evidence of a lack of faith in God and an afterlife. I’m ready to blow this pop stand whenever I get the call.

 

[BryPGuy89]

My source is the Social Security Administration. You can go to their website and see the surplus documented.

Social Security is currently running a surplus – that surplus amounted to more than a trillion dollars in the last decade. But you are correct when you say that surplus has been converted to IOUs. The money has been ripped off and spent by the government.

Had workers been allowed to keep and invest that money, all of us would retire millionaires.

P.S. Did you ask your teacher to explain the Rule of 78?

I asked about the rule of 78 and he said you need to specify which part of it you are reffereing to as it is rather broad.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I asked about the rule of 78 and he said you need to specify which part of it you are reffereing to as it is rather broad.

Now that had me rolling on the floor laughing!

Here, let me whisper to you – and you can go back and ask him again.

Seventy-eight is 1+2+3 . . . . +12 = 78. It is used to calculate compound interest. This “broad” rule simply states "The number of years required to double an investment is calculated by dividing expected rate of return into the number 78."

Let’s assume you invest $10,000 at 6% interest. How long will it take for you to double your money? Simple – 78/6 = 13. Thirteen years.

Now go back and ask him again, and let’s see what he says.

And by his answer to this simple question, you can gauge his reliability in **other **matters.

 

[ricmat]

It looks like this thread has gone somewhere else, but here’s an essay I wrote a while back on…

Living to be 1000 years old

How real is this? Can genetic engineering actually take us there? Nobody knows. But if you could live to be very very old, would you want to? I don’t see a lot of benefit to living to age 1000. However, there may be some side effects of this research which could help more people live to the current standard age 75, or live a more healthy life than they do now. So what is it, you ask, that could be bad about living to 1000?

Retirement. Can you imagine working for 975 years at more or less the same job, then retiring? No? But perhaps if you go back to college every 10 years or so, and get another degree, then you could do something different. Actually, you would probably need the retraining just to keep up, if you wanted to stay in the workforce. And you’d need to do it many, many, many times. OK - I do know some “professional students”, and maybe this would be their version of heaven.

OK then, suppose we could work until age 65, as we do now, then live in retirement for another 935 years. I just can’t imagine this either. If there is a demographics problem NOW in terms of paying for social security (too many retired people, not enough working people), then this new increasingly larger group of retired people would make the situation much worse. You couldn’t retire at 65, or 650, you’d probably HAVE to work to age 935, instead of (currently) HAVING to work until 65. And if you actually had a few hundred years to goof off, what would you actually do? Really. Hundreds of years would be a long time to (continue to) find fulfillment in your golden years. There’s the old saying that “Nobody on their death beds wishes they had spent more time at the office.” Can you imagine hundreds or thousands of years at the office?

If nobody dies of natural causes for the next 950 years, that leads to another problem, population growth. With nobody dying, and births still occurring, then the world’s population is going to get much larger. Much much larger. And 900 years later it’s going to be dang hard to remember the names of all those grand grand grand grand grand grandkids. I hope they’re not upset when they don’t get something for their birthdays.

And one final point. Perhaps such long life would be actually become less valuable, than our current 75 years. If you live in the desert, you appreciate rain much more than those who live in the jungle.

Have you heard of “may flies”. Or 17 year cicadas? These are insects which have very short lifespans, on the order of a few days or weeks. They emerge from their eggs, frantically eat, mate, then die, all in this short period of time. But every second is important to them, and I’m sure they don’t get bored. They have enough time to do what needs done, and every action they take is meaningful. Every second of their lives is valuable, and valued. We currently have 75 years to figure out what is meaningful, and do it. For some people this is not enough time. For some people, 1000 years might not be enough time. But for those who need only 75 years, what are they truly going to do for the last 900?

The current “rush” to do all in 75 years and then be replaced by new generations leads to a relative vigor in our current society. If your society consists of people who have almost limitless lifespans, then I could see that they might waste most of their lives (e.g. until 950 or so) before finding the meaningful and acting on it. And those that find it earlier either commit suicide or spend a lot more time at the office. This couldn’t be good for society as a whole.

But as I said at the beginning, if a side effect of all this research can help people live a more healthy 75 years, I’m all for it. And I’m sure there are more sides to this story. I tend to be pessimistic, or at least skeptical about these things

 

[vern_humphrey]

First of all, if it is possible to extend human life span, we’ll ease into it. Currently, we live no longer that earlier generations, but we can be healthier – witness my wife’s knee replacement.

Secondly, there is no reason to suppose we will work at the same job for scores and scores of years (let alone hundreds.) A person who started behind the counter at McDonald’s will probably be Chairman of the Board in a century or so – assuming he doesn’t simply go into some other field.

Third, we would have plenty of time to learn – I would expect most older people to have advanced degrees, picked up a few hours at a time.

Fourth, as we age, we grow wiser. An old society would be a wise society and better run than our current world.

 

[BryPGuy89]

Now that had me rolling on the floor laughing!

Here, let me whisper to you – and you can go back and ask him again.

Seventy-eight is 1+2+3 . . . . +12 = 78. It is used to calculate compound interest. This “broad” rule simply states "The number of years required to double an investment is calculated by dividing expected rate of return into the number 78."

Let’s assume you invest $10,000 at 6% interest. How long will it take for you to double your money? Simple – 78/6 = 13. Thirteen years.

Now go back and ask him again, and let’s see what he says.

And by his answer to this simple question, you can gauge his reliability in **other **matters.

Well he brpought up the whole legislation and it covered that and many other things. So I’m not sure what is going on.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well he brpought up the whole legislation and it covered that and many other things. So I’m not sure what is going on.

Legislation?!?!

You’re killin’ me here!

Mathematics doesn’t require legislation. We never passed a law to make 2 + 2 equal 4, nor to make 10 the square root of 100!

You’ve got a teacher who doesn’t know what he’s talking about and is trying to bluff.

 

[BryPGuy89]

First of all, if it is possible to extend human life span, we’ll ease into it. Currently, we live no longer that earlier generations, but we can be healthier – witness my wife’s knee replacement.

Secondly, there is no reason to suppose we will work at the same job for scores and scores of years (let alone hundreds.) A person who started behind the counter at McDonald’s will probably be Chairman of the Board in a century or so – assuming he doesn’t simply go into some other field.

Third, we would have plenty of time to learn – I would expect most older people to have advanced degrees, picked up a few hours at a time.

Fourth, as we age, we grow wiser. An old society would be a wise society and better run than our current world.

We live much longer than other generation… befre these aging baby boomers people lived much less… that has many factors and we might even see that others will make my generation live shorter because all the things the air and food supply and all. A generation or two of long livers doesnt mean much in contrast to time.

 

[BryPGuy89]

Legislation?!?!

You’re killin’ me here!

Mathematics doesn’t require legislation. We never passed a law to make 2 + 2 equal 4, nor to make 10 the square root of 100!

You’ve got a teacher who doesn’t know what he’s talking about and is trying to bluff.

No got the whole thing brought up on his computer, unless I said the wrong thing and thus leading him to lok at the wrong thing. It did talk about who is ably to receive what and how much and things like that though, so it must have been close 78 of somethng else, lol.

 

[BryPGuy89]

Long life will make our society worse actually I think. Someone said wiser society, but people have less to fear, the big death factr woould be greater diminished and we already have people saying shouldnt kill prisoners and that we need to give all this same treatment to criminals as other people.

 

[4HisChurch]

I think a desire to live a ridiculously long life on this Earth is probably evidence of a lack of faith in God and an afterlife. I’m ready to blow this pop stand whenever I get the call.

I’ve been thinking lately, of this very issue. Where do faith-ful people draw the line at life extension? Are things to improve one’s appearance or health wrong…after a certain age? All the time?

I tend to agree with you–too much focus on living on earth forever shows a lack of faith.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We live much longer than other generation… befre these aging baby boomers people lived much less… that has many factors and we might even see that others will make my generation live shorter because all the things the air and food supply and all. A generation or two of long livers doesnt mean much in contrast to time.

Actually we don’t live longer. We live healthier, and hence more of us make it to old age, but we still have the same brick wall around 120 – very few live that long, and virtually no one lives beyond that age.

Let me point out in a nation of 300 million people, you are going to see some people who are way above average, so you’d naturally expect to see a very few people with extremely high IQs, a few people over seven feet, and maybe one or two over 120.

And take heart – we’re not going to breathe up all your air.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’ve been thinking lately, of this very issue. Where do faith-ful people draw the line at life extension? Are things to improve one’s appearance or health wrong…after a certain age? All the time?

I tend to agree with you–too much focus on living on earth forever shows a lack of faith.

We don’t draw any line. No one has an obligation to die.

In the case of the incurably ill, we have no obligation to prolong life with “heroic” measures – but we do have an obligation to provide ordinary care.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No got the whole thing brought up on his computer, unless I said the wrong thing and thus leading him to lok at the wrong thing. It did talk about who is ably to receive what and how much and things like that though, so it must have been close 78 of somethng else, lol.

In another thread, people were talking about a “duty” to institutioinalize people who were “a danger to themselves.”

A grown man, who is gainfully employed and who doesn’t understand the Rule of 78 is truly “a danger to himself.” He’s not planning for his retirement – and that’s both dangerous and irresponsible.

 

[4HisChurch]

We don’t draw any line. No one has an obligation to die.

In the case of the incurably ill, we have no obligation to prolong life with “heroic” measures – but we do have an obligation to provide ordinary care.

Oh, I totally agree–absolutely. I guess I was just wondering about things that we do to “live longer”, like, eating healthy, exercising etc. Or, things like cosmetic procedures to “look younger” or even function better in areas that may not be necessary…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Oh, I totally agree–absolutely. I guess I was just wondering about things that we do to “live longer”, like, eating healthy, exercising etc. Or, things like cosmetic procedures to “look younger” or even function better in areas that may not be necessary…

We can examine that question by applying reductio ad absurdum and ask, “Do we have a duty to eat unhealthy foods? Do we have an obligation to be obese, smoke, take drugs, not exercise and drink so we will die sooner?”

I suggest our obligations are in the opposite direction – we have an obligation ot keep ourselves as healthy as we can. We must eat properly, abstain from drugs, tobacco and alcohol, exercise, and get regular checkups.