Your thoughts on aging? - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #61 01-02-2011, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Okay, I think we're in agreement here so far, except possibly on the extremes of gestation and mental capacity. In both cases, sentience is probably ultimately the issue. But let's take it in small steps.

What if that starving Haitian, dying of cholera, is insensate? In that case determining sentience is not possible.

Wouldn't that be considered to not be sentient? Much like the lump of flesh that a brain damaged person is?

Botnst · #62 01-02-2011, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Wouldn't that be considered to not be sentient? Much like the lump of flesh that a brain damaged person is?

That's the direction I was headed -- is insensate the same as insentient? I don't think so, if insensitivity is reversible. Like when a patient is given general anesthesia -- he maybe indistinguishable from a person near-death unless one is aware that the anesthesiologist can revive the patient. Thus, the observer/decider cannot be a pure observer, he must also have some knowledge unavailable to a pure observer. Right?

kerry · #63 01-02-2011, 11:12 PM

I think there are clear cut cases and difficult cases. With the fetus, I'd go with the mother. With the retarded person, I'd go with the parents, or sibling or close relative. If my aging memory serves me correctly there was a father convicted in Canada a number of years ago for killing his daughter who had medical or mental problems. I hope none of us ever have to face that kind of decision, but I don't think I'd second guess it. I'd much prefer a parent make the decision than the State.

I was talking to a friend tonight who's mother spent her final 5 yrs in a nursing home suffering from Alzheimer's disease. It cost $300 a day for her care. Her father had bought long term care insurance but it only covered $100 per day. He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on care for the woman who no longer knew who he was.

aklim · #64 01-03-2011, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

That's the direction I was headed -- is insensate the same as insentient? I don't think so, if insensitivity is reversible. Like when a patient is given general anesthesia -- he maybe indistinguishable from a person near-death unless one is aware that the anesthesiologist can revive the patient. Thus, the observer/decider cannot be a pure observer, he must also have some knowledge unavailable to a pure observer. Right?

Sure. I can see that point. I guess I wasn't thinking of a reversible situation.

aklim · #65 01-03-2011, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I was talking to a friend tonight who's mother spent her final 5 yrs in a nursing home suffering from Alzheimer's disease. It cost $300 a day for her care. Her father had bought long term care insurance but it only covered $100 per day. He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on care for the woman who no longer knew who he was.

Could he have put her on palliative care or hospice?

SwampYankee · #66 01-03-2011, 09:02 AM

Personally, I'm against aging.

My paternal grandfather (died @ 87), great-grandfather (@ 93), great-grandmother (@ 94), great-uncle (@ 92), great-great uncle (@ 93) were all quite active until their very last year or two and they all died at home. In fact, with each of the males, they worked into their 90's when they had their cars taken away from them to keep them from coming into work (even though they "retired" at 70), except for my grandfather who died "prematurely" at 87. He was still coming to work every day but caught the flu and died two weeks later.

I'm hoping to dispose of my assets, stretch it out as long as possible and drain the system as much as I can. I figure it's the only way I'll get out what I'll have put in.

#67 01-03-2011, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

I'm hoping to dispose of my assets, stretch it out as long as possible and drain the system as much as I can. I figure it's the only way I'll get out what I'll have put in.

I assume you are (somewhat) joking, but I have never understood that attitude. People who work all their lives, complain about everyone who lives off the system, then have no problem collecting geezer welfare for 30 years when they should still be contributing. I think it's time to increase the SS eligibility age significantly, which would fix several problems. I can't imagine being retired for 5 years, never mind 20 or 30 years like some people.

el presidente · #68 01-03-2011, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Could he have put her on palliative care or hospice?

This is going to be a huge growth industry in the next several decades as the boomers enter nursing homes.

el presidente · #69 01-03-2011, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I was talking to a friend tonight who's mother spent her final 5 yrs in a nursing home suffering from Alzheimer's disease. It cost $300 a day for her care. Her father had bought long term care insurance but it only covered $100 per day. He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on care for the woman who no longer knew who he was.

...and when the money runs out, Medicare pics up the tab here in the U.S.

raymr · #70 01-03-2011, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

I assume you are (somewhat) joking, but I have never understood that attitude. People who work all their lives, complain about everyone who lives off the system, then have no problem collecting geezer welfare for 30 years when they should still be contributing. I think it's time to increase the SS eligibility age significantly, which would fix several problems. I can't imagine being retired for 5 years, never mind 20 or 30 years like some people.

The expectations of SS should change. Right now it is an entitlement for everyone who paid in and everyone wants their 'fair share' back out of it. I think it should only be a safety net, so you are only eligible to collect if your income is below a certain level. Above that level it gradually gets phased out. It should ensure a dignified retirement, with a roof over your head and some food, nothing more, nothing less. I don't really understand the concept or why its overall good for millionaires to receive SS.

SwampYankee · #71 01-03-2011, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

I assume you are (somewhat) joking, but I have never understood that attitude. People who work all their lives, complain about everyone who lives off the system, then have no problem collecting geezer welfare for 30 years when they should still be contributing. I think it's time to increase the SS eligibility age significantly, which would fix several problems. I can't imagine being retired for 5 years, never mind 20 or 30 years like some people.

I honestly haven't given it much thought. Maybe when I hit 50 it'll enter into the rotation. My father is actually the first involved in the business to even consider semi-retirement before 70 (now 66). At least in the "real" aspect as opposed to the "accounting" aspect. But unlike his predecessors, he actually has hobbies and interests beyond work. He and my mother are into boating, traveling and seeing the sights and could easily fill 6 months of the year (although probably not concurrent) visiting their fully-retired friends throughout the U.S. and world. But unlike his fully-retired friends, he really needs that other 6 months of business involvement, which he thoroughly enjoys, to maintain his (and my mother's) sanity. He is very much a busy-body, incapable of sitting still and just watching the world go by.

I can see myself following a similar path.

#72 01-03-2011, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

I honestly haven't given it much thought. Maybe when I hit 50 it'll enter into the rotation. My father is actually the first involved in the business to even consider semi-retirement before 70 (now 66). At least in the "real" aspect as opposed to the "accounting" aspect. But unlike his predecessors, he actually has hobbies and interests beyond work. He and my mother are into boating, traveling and seeing the sights and could easily fill 6 months of the year (although probably not concurrent) visiting their fully-retired friends throughout the U.S. and world. But unlike his fully-retired friends, he really needs that other 6 months of business involvement, which he thoroughly enjoys, to maintain his (and my mother's) sanity. He is very much a busy-body, incapable of sitting still and just watching the world go by.

I can see myself following a similar path.

Same here, I might slow down (if I live that long) but I can't imagine being fully retired. I'm currently at the end of a little two month "vacation" due to my schedule and I'm more than ready to get back to work.

sfloriII · #73 01-03-2011, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Clk Man

I want to live as long as the Lord needs me on this earth.

I'll second that for me too!

But it's hard watching my father-in-law who, like Kerry's father-in-law, led a very active life and exercised regularly wither before our eyes. He's now confined to a hospital bed and sleeps most of the day after suffering a massive stroke two months ago. He has a tracheotomy tube to breathe and a hose through his nose to his stomach to eat. He can't talk and also lost his sight. And in two weeks the socialized health care system in Perú will send him home where his wife will have to care for him herself, mostly at her expense.

He never wanted to go this way....

SwampYankee · #74 01-03-2011, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

The expectations of SS should change. Right now it is an entitlement for everyone who paid in and everyone wants their 'fair share' back out of it. I think it should only be a safety net, so you are only eligible to collect if your income is below a certain level. Above that level it gradually gets phased out. It should ensure a dignified retirement, with a roof over your head and some food, nothing more, nothing less. I don't really understand the concept or why its overall good for millionaires to receive SS.

I think folks should have the option of taking that mandatory "contribution" percentage and investing it themselves, in what ever retirement-based account they see fit. At 40, I'm not sure I'll see any of that money I was required to "invest" so I'm planning (and hoping) for alternatives. Not the least of which is a hope to never really retire in the traditional sense.

But like any pyramid scheme, S.S. counts on a steady influx of cash to finance those on the levels above. Not only that, those of S.S. age are probably the single-most reliable voting base. There isn't a career politician out there that dares turn that base against them. And since they've been promised those benefits, few dare even suggest changing the system nevermind actually doing something about it to fix it.

#75 01-03-2011, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

I think folks should have the option of taking that mandatory "contribution" percentage and investing it themselves, in what ever retirement-based account they see fit. At 40, I'm not sure I'll see any of that money I was required to "invest" so I'm planning (and hoping) for alternatives. Not the least of which is a hope to never really retire in the traditional sense.

But like any pyramid scheme, S.S. counts on a steady influx of cash to finance those on the levels above. Not only that, those of S.S. age are probably the single-most reliable voting base. There isn't a career politician out there that dares turn that base against them. And since they've been promised those benefits, few dare even suggest changing the system nevermind actually doing something about it to fix it.

I think you are correct, it would be tough to fix SS. At this point, I just think of it as another tax, I doubt I will ever get much return.