JimmyT wrote:
To make a conscious choice not to extend one’s life significantly is a freedom which everyone has. And I respect and defend that freedom to the utmost. But I don’t understand why anyone would maintain that they have the right to limit the right of anyone else to extend their life significantly if they so choose.
After all, the future I envision may be all wrong. It may not turn out anything like I envision. And with some of my more pessimistic predictions I hope it doesn’t!
Oh well, I just had to vent. This post has been worth every penny you paid for it.
Speaking of pessimistic predictions, the HC Bill contains provisions for denying treatment on a sliding age scale, if not ‘cost-effective’.
There’s a certain actuarial rationale, there; “retirement” age equaled life expectancy (65) when it was first established. So the “wealth explosion” I predict/hope for from FF’s implementation is an economic matter of life and death. Literally.
