Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms Thought for the day - revisited

It's been an interesting week, my dad is failing quite rapidly after a bout of pneumonia two months ago, and visiting him in the care home is challenging. In parallel with this, the news channels and papers are trailing the upcoming debate in "the other place" (House of Lords) on assisted dying later this week.

In many ways, especially at the moment, I can see the pros for assisted dying legislation, as has been said many times we wouldn't allow our pets and animals to suffer like this. However, like many others, I'm worried that any such legislation could be abused in the future, and not just by individuals with, for example, misplaced financial motives.

I took early retirement in 2005, secure in the knowledge that pension arrangements had remained the same for >40 years, and post Murduch, had been protected in law by the government of the day. Since then there have been more changes to private and state pension arrangements by the government of the day than in my lifetime previously, private pensions schemes have been decimated, and the state pension age is drifting inexorably into the distant future... a demographic time bomb set ticking in the space of a little over one parliamentary term.

So, "Where is all this going?" I here you ask.

Well, as a result of privatising bank profits whilst nationalising bank losses in order to protect shareholder values and bankers bonuses, we now have an underfunded NHS creaking at the seems, apparently overloaded by obese, alcohol swigging baby boomers who've caused global warming by driving their polluting cars and living a life of excess on their unaffordable gold plated pensions, sitting secure in their appreciating house assets. These same baby boomers are now a serious threat to the NHS as, due to their excesses, they will all soon be in need of unaffordable dementia care.

So, what solutions could a future government comprised of twenty or thirty somethings who've been through school, university, then straight into politics as advisers and onto a life as career politicians, MPs and Ministers come up with?

Compulsory euthanasia?

Lets look at the cost benefit analysis...

Compulsory euthanasia introduced from 2015 set at 100 (no real problem, not many affected) with a sliding scale to 85 by 2050 (gives us plenty if time to get used to it and prepare), the pension age gradually ramped up to 85 by 2050 (total elimination of the state pensions bill in one generation), further reductions in the euthanasia age limit step by step to be determined by NHS dementia care costs.

Imagine what this could do for the NHS... With no age related drain, then Botox, facelifts, tummy tucks, breast augmentation, teeth whitening, gastric bands, etc., etc. could all be provided to allow younger people (the country's future!) to keep up with their celebrity lifestyle aspirations, free at the point of issue... A result

All very tongue in cheek... but would you back your life savings and pension against it?

Totally agree with your first paragraph. Totally disagree with your second paragraph.

Totally agree with your first paragraph. Totally disagree with your second paragraph.

And it showed quite clearly what common sense would have suggested, that moving from a total life of 70 years and a working life of 50 years in the 50s to a total life approaching 90 years and a working life of 40 years now doesnt work without an expanding working population ie immigration. In the final analysis and on average, what you produce in your working life has got to support you for the whole of your life. We used to work for 50 years to support us for 70 years, now we work 40 years to support us for 90 years.