Charlie Gard

[LBJefferies]

Too many smart people working on the treatments/cures sleeve to remain locked up for profit motives.

Bill Gates is one, and besides, if I could offer a genetic based treatment that got rid of your melanoma, how many other people do you think would beat a path to my door?

I just heard a lecture on medical knowledge and technology. Medical knowledge (my numbers are suspect but you get the drift) doubled from 1875 to 1950, doubled again by 2000. doubled again by 2010, again by 2015, and is now doubling every 180 days, all due to tech.

Moore's law

[gwb72tii]

I am not so sure about this, I really think the expensive cancer treatments we have today are going to be status quo for a long time due to the fact there is so much money to be made from them. (one palliative treatment for my mother was 12k) I think its one of the down sides of the double edged sword that is for profit medical technology in general.

Too many smart people working on the treatments/cures sleeve to remain locked up for profit motives.

Bill Gates is one, and besides, if I could offer a genetic based treatment that got rid of your melanoma, how many other people do you think would beat a path to my door?

I just heard a lecture on medical knowledge and technology. Medical knowledge (my numbers are suspect but you get the drift) doubled from 1875 to 1950, doubled again by 2000. doubled again by 2010, again by 2015, and is now doubling every 180 days, all due to tech.

[mrsleeve]

Perhaps, but certainly not a permanent status quo.

Age related diseases will mostly be treatable in the next 10 years, and being able to control those diseases will lengthen life spans dramatically. Cancers are no longer going to be a death sentence.

I am not so sure about this, I really think the expensive cancer treatments we have today are going to be status quo for a long time due to the fact there is so much money to be made from them. (one palliative treatment for my mother was 12k) I think its one of the down sides of the double edged sword that is for profit medical technology in general.

[gwb72tii]

Life expectancy has plateaued. Actually it's slightly dropping in the US due to obesity and such. They think we might have hit some sort of natural limit actually. Maybe it will go up again but it looks like life expectancy is going to be more or less the same for years to come.

Perhaps, but certainly not a permanent status quo.

Age related diseases will mostly be treatable in the next 10 years, and being able to control those diseases will lengthen life spans dramatically. Cancers are no longer going to be a death sentence.

[mrsleeve]

Life expectancy has plateaued. Actually it's slightly dropping in the US due to obesity and such. They think we might have hit some sort of natural limit actually. Maybe it will go up again but it looks like life expectancy is going to be more or less the same for years to come.

yes the western life style and diet are playing into this a lot. I think if we were to see a shift in lifestyle and less shit in our food in general you would see that Plateau pushed up higher.

[BraveUlysses]

But most social pfograms don't work effectively. The ACA is a joke, except for the un-insureable, and there were better ways to solve that issue.

the aca sucks but that's because it's an effort to make a market based system with patient protections and little cost controls

the GOP sucks at figuring out how to fix healthcare, and their pursuit of a repeal with no real solution is proof of it.

[LBJefferies]

My god I will have to partially agree with brave. Holy shit!

But your math is partially wrong. Life expectancy at SS start was close to normal retirement age, 62. At that time way more people paying in than getting benefits, less so today.

But Sleeve is spot on, as usual, SS was never a retirement plan. That has morphed over the years and now is a big par of most people's retirement funding.

The hardest part is people like maniac and brave. You all have a much longer life expectancy than older people, so your normal retirement age is going to go to 70+ years. It will be common for my kids generation to live and maniac to live way past 100 yrs.

And maniac, my kids went to public school. It's a great district education wise. We would have paid for private if necessary.

But yes, we conservatives are for some social programs that we approve of, like public schools where they work.

But most social pfograms don't work effectively. The ACA is a joke, except for the un-insureable, and there were better ways to solve that issue.

Life expectancy has plateaued. Actually it's slightly dropping in the US due to obesity and such. They think we might have hit some sort of natural limit actually. Maybe it will go up again but it looks like life expectancy is going to be more or less the same for years to come.

[gwb72tii]

no shit 1400 dollars a month isnt going to be a good sole source of income

and no shit again that the program had a higher ratio of contributors to collectors back when it started and average life expectancy was over 30 years less than it is today

both of these problems, in addition to z31's complaint that it's a 'ponzi scheme' (it's not) is to simply fund it better instead of trying to privatize it or cut benefits, simply remove the 200k ceiling and fund it well enough that it's no longer a problem.

My god I will have to partially agree with brave. Holy shit!

But your math is partially wrong. Life expectancy at SS start was close to normal retirement age, 62. At that time way more people paying in than getting benefits, less so today.

But Sleeve is spot on, as usual, SS was never a retirement plan. That has morphed over the years and now is a big par of most people's retirement funding.

The hardest part is people like maniac and brave. You all have a much longer life expectancy than older people, so your normal retirement age is going to go to 70+ years. It will be common for my kids generation to live and maniac to live way past 100 yrs.

And maniac, my kids went to public school. It's a great district education wise. We would have paid for private if necessary.

But yes, we conservatives are for some social programs that we approve of, like public schools where they work.

But most social pfograms don't work effectively. The ACA is a joke, except for the un-insureable, and there were better ways to solve that issue.

[BraveUlysses]

^

you know as well as the rest of us that S.S.I. was NEVER intended to be a retirement plan/sole soruce of income, or was ever really designed to even be collected by the bulk of society

no shit 1400 dollars a month isnt going to be a good sole source of income

and no shit again that the program had a higher ratio of contributors to collectors back when it started and average life expectancy was over 30 years less than it is today

both of these problems, in addition to z31's complaint that it's a 'ponzi scheme' (it's not) is to simply fund it better instead of trying to privatize it or cut benefits, simply remove the 200k ceiling and fund it well enough that it's no longer a problem.

[z31maniac]

^

you know as well as the rest of us that S.S.I. was NEVER intended to be a retirement plan/sole soruce of income, or was ever really designed to even be collected by the bulk of society

Hello there, it's obvious you are incapable of letting your faux right wing dogma operate in the real world.

All of you hard righties refuse to respond to what I said. NEWS FLASH it's because you can't defend it.

[mrsleeve]

^

you know as well as the rest of us that S.S.I. was NEVER intended to be a retirement plan/sole soruce of income, or was ever really designed to even be collected by the bulk of society

[BraveUlysses]

because elderly poverty is fucking terrible, do you think states would ever bother to implement their own social security programs if it didnt exist for the entire country? how would it be handled if you moved from one state to another partway through your working life?

its okay we get it, you're gonna cash those social security checks.

[z31maniac]

As usual, you continue to deflect.

I never said the Feds HAVE to be involved. I said Republicans like Socialism when it's something they want.

So you moved where you did, because of publicly funded schools (socialism) why didn't you put them in private schools ($$$$?)

Never said I thought Social Security was good. It's a ponzi scheme, I'm 35, that money is going to the elders, it's not going to be there for me or any of my peers.

[gwb72tii]

You know exactly what I'm getting at, but you can't defend it, so you deflect.

Let me put it plain terms since you are pretending to not get it.

Public education is socialism. If it weren't for everyone paying in that not everyone needs, the vast majority couldn't afford to educate their children.

I don't have children. Why should I pay to educate yours or anyone elses?

Just like you shouldn't have to pay tolls on a road you don't drive on.


I'll wait why you try to come up with a response to post on the government funded Internet.

You know, because the gov't always sucks and never does anything worthwhile.

ahh, there you go again. With a few exceptions, almost everything the federal government gets involved in the free market does better.

Public education is a great example, thanks for bringing it up. For the most part, private schools are better at education. We located where we are in large part because of the local school district. It's top notch and the teachers care. But please tell me why the feds have to be involved? Why is some nameless mid level manager in DC better than local politicians (schools board) at setting education standards?

maybe we can debate why you believe social security is better at the federal level?

[z31maniac]

Not sure what you're getting at re public/private schools? FWIW I was responsible for helping start a charity to help support our local public schools when our kids attended them and ran a number of auctions to raise dollars for teachers to use in their classrooms. Our local education budget is north of $10k/child.

You know exactly what I'm getting at, but you can't defend it, so you deflect.

Let me put it plain terms since you are pretending to not get it.

Public education is socialism. If it weren't for everyone paying in that not everyone needs, the vast majority couldn't afford to educate their children.

I don't have children. Why should I pay to educate yours or anyone elses?

Just like you shouldn't have to pay tolls on a road you don't drive on.


I'll wait why you try to come up with a response to post on the government funded Internet.

You know, because the gov't always sucks and never does anything worthwhile.