[CPLX]

You’re going to be really upset then when you find out what happens to the elderly if you just wait a few years.

This stuff always involves complicated choices.

For example, would you advocate a policy of taxing all restaurant owners at a 90% marginal rate forcing most into bankruptcy to pay for a very expensive new medical treatment that only works on the elderly and extends their life just a few years?

If you proposed that do you think it would be unanimous or controversial?

[mlthoughts2018]

Describing sheer abandonment of elder care as “a complicated trade-off” is utterly disgusting.

[CPLX]

Did anyone propose that?

Do you believe that, in normal circumstances, we should repurpose all money typically spent on primary education and firefighting to go to elder care instead?

If you weren’t arguing for that last year then you believe in complicated trade-offs too.

The concept of trade-offs is the absolute core basis of all major public policy decisions.

It’s also the basic of many personal decisions. If you’re familiar with hospice care or a DNR order then you know that end of life questions have trade-off calculations as well, even within families or between life partners.

Pretending this is a binary decision is just nonsensical.

[rsecora]

One day youngers will be elders too, and the future youngers will apply the same rules.

Marines say "no one left behind", for a reason, because it creates a group... A society.

The UK decision smells like eugenics.

[mlthoughts2018]

> “ Did anyone propose that?”

In rereading your post carefully, the answer is yes. You did describe it that way and offer a reason to think it’s not so bad. Doing so is shameful.