Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. government budget ends fiscal year with a more than $3T deficit

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–37 of 37 posts

Re: U.S. government budget ends fiscal year with a more than $3T deficit

#31

Post by effingwewt »

legerdemain wrote: post #28
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meaning, I presume, move the retirement age, rather than moving the life expectancy. OK, that makes some sense. I'm not sure that "below" is quite correct - when Social Security was started, retirement was 65 and average life expectancy was 67 or 68. I'm pretty sure it wasn't below 65. But still, it was close - not 80 but keeping retirement at 65. So, yes, that would work. It would make Social Security solvent very w…

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…

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?

Re: U.S. government budget ends fiscal year with a more than $3T deficit

#32

Post by AnimalMuppet »

effingwewt wrote: post #31
legerdemain wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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?

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.

Re: U.S. government budget ends fiscal year with a more than $3T deficit

#33

Post by legerdemain »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #32
effingwewt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.…

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.

Re: U.S. government budget ends fiscal year with a more than $3T deficit

#34

Post by whack »

legerdemain wrote: post #3

We waste so much money on initiatives and social programs that can be administered much more sensibly and cheaply by local communities. Community leaders can custom-tailor their approach to what their community needs, instead of a blanket, one-size-fits-all nationwide programs that waste money. Many of them could be run as community charities or even profitable businesses, if national government would just get out of…

I'm genuinely curious and a yes/no answer would be sufficient: is your post intended to be a parody?

Re: U.S. government budget ends fiscal year with a more than $3T deficit

#35

Post by legerdemain »

whack wrote: post #34
legerdemain wrote: post #3

We waste so much money on initiatives and social programs that can be administered much more sensibly and cheaply by local communities. Community leaders can custom-tailor their approach to what their community needs, instead of a blanket, one-size-fits-all nationwide programs that waste money. Many of them could be run as community charities or even profitable businesses, if national government would just get out of…

I'm genuinely curious and a yes/no answer would be sufficient: is your post intended to be a parody?

If I limit myself to yes and no: yes.

Re: U.S. government budget ends fiscal year with a more than $3T deficit

#36

Post by dang »

legerdemain wrote: post #3

We waste so much money on initiatives and social programs that can be administered much more sensibly and cheaply by local communities. Community leaders can custom-tailor their approach to what their community needs, instead of a blanket, one-size-fits-all nationwide programs that waste money. Many of them could be run as community charities or even profitable businesses, if national government would just get out of…

Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. An internet forum like HN can't do anything interesting with that—it just turns into tedious, nasty flamewar.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

Re: U.S. government budget ends fiscal year with a more than $3T deficit

#37

Post by effingwewt »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #32
effingwewt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.…

Fair points all,and I agree. My comment wasn't meant as a critique, I meant it as an honest question.
Post reply on HN