In todays latest justification for wanting the poor to just die quietly

They have to pay because a child born today will live to 150.


Quote:

Treasurer Joe Hockey has raised the prospect of people living until 150 to explain why Australians should accept cuts to government benefits and pay a greater share of their health costs. The Treasurer said his five-year old son had broken his leg over the Christmas break. Although his son attended multiple consultations and X-rays, Mr Hockey only had to contribute $40 to pay for a waterproof cast. "That is wrong," Mr Hockey said, noting he is a high income earner who could afford to contribute more. The government still plans to introduce a $5 optional co-payment for GP visits. "There's great news on the horizon for Australia," Mr Hockey said. "The fact we are living longer is great news. It's kind of remarkable that somewhere in the world today, it's highly probable that a child is being born that is going to live to 150. That's a long time. "The question is how we live with dignity and ensure we have a good quality of life the whole way through. This is the conversation we are going to have with Australia over the next few months." The government will release the latest Intergenerational Report early this year, which is expected to show that the ageing population will make it difficult for the government to pay for the services Australians have come to expect. Some researchers have said that drugs that can slow the ageing process are likely to become available within 10 years, raising the prospect of people eventually living to 150 or more. http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/joe-hockey-raises-prospect-of-australians-living-until-150-to-justify-budget-cuts-20150119-12t3m1.html

Grab your tin foil folks

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 1:58pm:

They have to pay because a child born today will live to 150.

What exactly  do they have to pay for?

Shock, horror.....not themselves?  :o  Surely not.... ;D

Swagman wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 2:04pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 1:58pm: They have to pay because a child born today will live to 150. What exactly  do they have to pay for? Shock, horror.....not themselves?  :o  Surely not.... ;D

We already do via the medicare levy & our progressive taxation system.

Don't want to pay stay poor.

Want to be rich & safe in an comfortable society, pay up.

We'll need to bring Longy in on this one.

It involves maths.

Hockey is on $250,000? So... sure, he can pay more!  Change the $5 co-payment to be a simple tax increase for those on > 180,000. 

Great move, Hockey.

Living to 150, poppycock!

Recent studies suggest that age expectancy may have topped out and slight reductions expected due to worse lifestyle habits of the young.

Curing cancer might help but that only leaves room for other illnesses to get us.  Living to 150 and spending the last 60 years in a dementia ward doesn't sound like fun - or sustainable.

Absolute terror for government - paying a pension for 85 years......

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 2:41pm:

Recent studies suggest that age expectancy may have topped out and slight reductions expected due to worse lifestyle habits of the young. Curing cancer might help but that only leaves room for other illnesses to get us.  Living to 150 and spending the last 60 years in a dementia ward doesn't sound like fun - or sustainable.

Don't forget natural attrition created by raising the cost and lowering the availability of health care.... that'll have a Darwinian effect on the lesser beings....

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 2:41pm:

Recent studies suggest that age expectancy may have topped out and slight reductions expected due to worse lifestyle habits of the young. Curing cancer might help but that only leaves room for other illnesses to get us.  Living to 150 and spending the last 60 years in a dementia ward doesn't sound like fun - or sustainable.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4014272.htm

And he's not the only one working on this.  There is no reason to ignore this medicine, and very likely such anti-ageing pills will be made available at least within the next few decades.

But I'm curious why you're again ignoring latest science - Is that what your engineering maths book said?

Hockey has a son?  The world weeps...

Sad that he only had to cough up $40 - I ave to see a specialist next month - a consultation will cost me $130 and I get $72 back - I'm already paying more than Joe.

I agree that HE should be paying more - easy enough - FREE treatment at all levels for those with an income up to $XX k - then you pay proportionately until at a certain point you pay full fee....  easy.

Now all we need to do is extend this to education.......

If we live to 150 it will be in a dystopian world.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 2:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 2:41pm: Recent studies suggest that age expectancy may have topped out and slight reductions expected due to worse lifestyle habits of the young. Curing cancer might help but that only leaves room for other illnesses to get us.  Living to 150 and spending the last 60 years in a dementia ward doesn't sound like fun - or sustainable. http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4014272.htm And he's not the only one working on this.  There is no reason to ignore this medicine, and very likely such anti-ageing pills will be made available at least within the next few decades. But I'm curious why you're again ignoring latest science - Is that what your engineering maths book said?

curing cancer hasn't exactly worked out and that is a major issue.  dementia and alzheimers are just as big.  And let's not forget general fitness and skeletal integrity.  These are all issues that need to be worked out.

The key is in cell division error and in stopping it, but that is something that literally occurs at the quantum level and we are  way, way, way away from being able to manipulate the quantum level.

I would suggest, there are quite a few factors  involved in this issue, many of which may not be overly apparent.

In any event, for a number of reasons, I would see not much higher movement in the average Age, particularly on a Global basis!

And, I will also agree with Longy, in so far as there are other issues to just living longer, as can be seen in the ballooning levels of Alzheimers & similar age related issues.

There are also issues, such as what is the limit on the number of humans that can be "supported" by the planet, in terms of Food, Water & Energy and as already stated previously, I suggest we are already close to those limits and I expect an actual Decline in Global Population, for those & other reasons, over the rest of this century!

Oh & btw, this is also "likely Spin/Misdirection", by a Politician, looking for some assistance, in getting certain things done. 

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 2:12pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 2:04pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 1:58pm: They have to pay because a child born today will live to 150. What exactly  do they have to pay for? Shock, horror.....not themselves?  :o  Surely not.... ;D We already do via the medicare levy & our progressive taxation system. Don't want to pay stay poor. Want to be rich & safe in an comfortable society, pay up.

The poor don't pay the medicare levy

Swagman wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 5:45pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 2:12pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 2:04pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 1:58pm: They have to pay because a child born today will live to 150. What exactly  do they have to pay for? Shock, horror.....not themselves?  :o  Surely not.... ;D We already do via the medicare levy & our progressive taxation system. Don't want to pay stay poor. Want to be rich & safe in an comfortable society, pay up. Yes, as smith pointed out. If you don't wish to pay, stay poor. The poor don't pay the medicare levy

There is no indication that a human can live longer now than what they could a 1000 years ago. The maximum age a person can live for is not the same as the average life expectancy. Yes more people are living longer now than in the past, but there are plenty of people in history who lived to over 100 while the majority of people were dropping in their 60's or even younger. Modern lifestyles and medicine have simply increased average age by saving people from injuries and illness that would have resulted in death in the past. But that doesn't mean that it has actually slowed down aging. More people are living closer the the maximum age limit, but not nessacerly increasing the actual age limit.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 1:58pm:

In todays latest justification for wanting the poor to just die quietly They have to pay because a child born today will live to 150. Quote: Treasurer Joe Hockey has raised the prospect of people living until 150 to explain why Australians should accept cuts to government benefits and pay a greater share of their health costs. The Treasurer said his five-year old son had broken his leg over the Christmas break. Although his son attended multiple consultations and X-rays, Mr Hockey only had to contribute $40 to pay for a waterproof cast. "That is wrong," Mr Hockey said, noting he is a high income earner who could afford to contribute more. The government still plans to introduce a $5 optional co-payment for GP visits. "There's great news on the horizon for Australia," Mr Hockey said. "The fact we are living longer is great news. It's kind of remarkable that somewhere in the world today, it's highly probable that a child is being born that is going to live to 150. That's a long time. "The question is how we live with dignity and ensure we have a good quality of life the whole way through. This is the conversation we are going to have with Australia over the next few months." The government will release the latest Intergenerational Report early this year, which is expected to show that the ageing population will make it difficult for the government to pay for the services Australians have come to expect. Some researchers have said that drugs that can slow the ageing process are likely to become available within 10 years, raising the prospect of people eventually living to 150 or more. http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/joe-hockey-raises-prospect-of-australians-living-until-150-to-justify-budget-cuts-20150119-12t3m1.html Grab your tin foil folks

I thought you Labor/Lefties already had??

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 6:23pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 1:58pm: In todays latest justification for wanting the poor to just die quietly They have to pay because a child born today will live to 150. Quote: Treasurer Joe Hockey has raised the prospect of people living until 150 to explain why Australians should accept cuts to government benefits and pay a greater share of their health costs. The Treasurer said his five-year old son had broken his leg over the Christmas break. Although his son attended multiple consultations and X-rays, Mr Hockey only had to contribute $40 to pay for a waterproof cast. "That is wrong," Mr Hockey said, noting he is a high income earner who could afford to contribute more. The government still plans to introduce a $5 optional co-payment for GP visits. "There's great news on the horizon for Australia," Mr Hockey said. "The fact we are living longer is great news. It's kind of remarkable that somewhere in the world today, it's highly probable that a child is being born that is going to live to 150. That's a long time. "The question is how we live with dignity and ensure we have a good quality of life the whole way through. This is the conversation we are going to have with Australia over the next few months." The government will release the latest Intergenerational Report early this year, which is expected to show that the ageing population will make it difficult for the government to pay for the services Australians have come to expect. Some researchers have said that drugs that can slow the ageing process are likely to become available within 10 years, raising the prospect of people eventually living to 150 or more. http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/joe-hockey-raises-prospect-of-australians-living-until-150-to-justify-budget-cuts-20150119-12t3m1.html Grab your tin foil folks I thought you Labor/Lefties already had??

The climate change deniers took them all.

Swagman wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 5:45pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 2:12pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 2:04pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 1:58pm: They have to pay because a child born today will live to 150. What exactly  do they have to pay for? Shock, horror.....not themselves?  :o  Surely not.... ;D We already do via the medicare levy & our progressive taxation system. Don't want to pay stay poor. Want to be rich & safe in an comfortable society, pay up. The poor don't pay the medicare levy

I say ditch the levy and go with the Grappler United Party of Shirtfronted Leaners and Slackers (that's a mouthful) and have a sliding scale related directly to income.... REAL income pre perks.....

That'll fix 'em...