Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee.
If I had to choose between paying higher taxes/living a bleaker life or my son dying to cancer, I know which option I'd go for. It's a hideous disease that destroys families; cancer doesn't discriminate, it doesn't just victimise the old or infirm, it also picks on the young and innocent who deserve a chance at life.
|
I'm obviously aware that young people get cancer, although, it's not true to say that it doesn't discriminate. More than half of cancer deaths are in people aged over 75, and over 80% are in those over 65. Under 40 the rate drops dramatically. Anyway, that's not really the point: I'm not talking about what we would or wouldn't do for our children. I am (loosely) socialist in nature and totally agree that people SHOULD be willing to have their taxes ramped up in order to support an aging population. I'm also a realist, though, and I know that people gripe like crazy when taxes go up by a penny, let alone by the significant amount it would take to make this a reality.
Also when I say "bleaker lives" I'm not talking about higher taxes / less money - I'm talking about the fact that the vast majority of people would, in effect, have to "work themselves to death". I'm just looking at that from a personal perspective, I guess. I would rather retire at 60 and die at 75, than retire at 89 and drop at 90.
No one is disputing that young, vibrant people dying of cancer is an absolute tragedy. I just sometimes wonder, should there be an upper age limit (like 70?) when trying to help people to live forever becomes a bit more morally ambiguous.