We are being told by various politicians, our Welfare bill is increasing exponentially, and one of the reasons given is we're all living longer ? Someone recently inferred, there'll come a time soon, when the number of people receiving some sort of welfare, will eclipse the number of taxpayers who are financially supporting that welfare ? Should we be worried about that ?

Will there come a time when some radical measures need to be introduced, in order to correct this fiscal disparity ? One such proposition I've heard;

When an individual attains a certain chronological age (eg. seventy?) and medical records reveal, that person hasn't enjoyed good health for some considerable period of time. Therefore it should be mandated he or she is required to appear before a medical assessment tribunal. Comprising of a physician, psychiatrist and a gerontologist for the purpose of determining whether that individual should be permitted to continue to receive government welfare for a further 12 months ? Provided that person is found to be sufficiently well enough, NOT to become a financial burden on society, welfare should be extended for another period, not exceeding 12 months, when another annually mandated assessment is required.

However if that person's health is concluded to be so inferior, and the treatment thereof so expensive, to the point of being completely unreasonable, then the tribunal must immediately cease any further welfare payments to that individual. Should that happen, that person must fund any further medical care and personal subsistence they may require in the future, entirely from private means.

The only other option available to such an individual, who finds themselves in such an invidious position, and unable to support their own medical care. Is to seek a government funded euthanasia combination that will allow them to painlessly, relinquish their life of agony and misery, at no cost to themselves. And in so doing, preserve their dignity in perpetuity.

Dear O Sung Wu,

You are contradicting yourself:

If they depend on the government for the euthanasia combination, then they already lost their dignity, so they may as well stay alive.

Anyway, once one appears before that tribunal they have also lost their dignity, but you failed to mention the penalty for not appearing!

All this shows why no medical records should be kept with the government. I certainly am going to opt out of this draconian scheme.

Oh dear O Sung Wu, what a dreadful scenario!
I am thinking of my parents in their mid 80's who are both still happily traveling and cruising, with no thought of euthanasia yet.

I would think that the day society considers non-voluntary euthanasia is the day the world should end.
Where would it all end?

If we agreed to the above conditions, it would only be a short step to also doing this with all welfare recipients, including mental and physical disabilities of all ages, smokers, drinkers, druggies, obese, too thin, and all people with any chronic disease or disability.

I guess it would help the population numbers, as there wouldn't be many people left standing!

o sung wu,

the philosophy of your scheme would of put Nick to death a along time ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKTg_INHgpc

My god, I hope you never get into politics.

If a person works and needs help in there older years you want to deny them that.
Go after the dole bludgers first, go after the welfare for lifers (in excess of 50,000 attributable to Labor alone), go after the people with millions of dollars in offshore accounts who are also on welfare.

Get rid of the useless public servants there is quite a few millions dollars to be saved there.
get rid of the politicians perks.

There are lots of wasted programs that need trimming.

Hi all...

Oh dear, a story re-told, is like 'Chinese whispers', full of inaccuracies ? OK, I'm sorry.

YUYUTSU, of course you're completely correct, I often contradict myself, in fact my entire existence, is one big contradiction ? That aside.

The proposition goes something like this ;

Once an individual reaches a certain age (established by legislation), that person must appear before a duly established 'Tribunal'. Thereat, their entire medical history is examined, and if a certain $ cost has be reached or exceeded, then that individual is given several options.

It should be noted herein: If that individual is found to be sufficiently healthy, and the total expenditure for health purposes, has not yet been reached or exceeded, that person shall continue to enjoy further payment of government benefits for a period not exceeding twelve months, whereupon another mandated examination is required ?

(i) If however an individual has exceeded that $ amount, all government welfare payments are to cease immediately. Thereafter the individual must sustain their own existence, until the natural expiration of their life. ALTERNATIVELY, that individual may elect to have a 'State Funded Euthanasia Package' (SFEP) with all costs, including the apposite disposal of that persons earthly remains. In all such cases, this expenditure is borne by government;

(iii) Should any person, without reasonable excuse, fail to attend such Tribunal when legally summoned in writing or, engage in conduct of a kind, calculated to deceive the Tribunal, that person shall be guilty of an offence pursuant to this Act. Furthermore as an economic imperative, all appellant rights in this section, are herewith extinguished.

A person who's been found guilty of an offence against any part of this Act, shall be punished, by Involuntary (painless) extirpation.

We need to address the social and economic implications
of ageing and longevity. Unfortunately, our governments
seen reluctant to do this. There's a lot of noise but
very little action.

I remember the ABC airing its Lateline investigation into
Australia's Aged Care System. It was horrific.
People being dehumanised. People the system was meant
to protect. People whose spirits were dead and their
bodies were waiting to catch up.

What is needed seems to be national standards of aged-care
training and accreditation. There seems to be
a huge difference between facilities and their staff.
Some aged-care workers receive only minimal training -
and are not qualified to cope with problems like dementia.

Aged care workers are some of the lowest paid in Australia
and there is often insufficient support for informal
carers.

People are not going to consider a career in Aged Care if
they're going to earn more elsewhere.

Families also have to take responsibility for their elderly.
They need to visit often and make sure that their family
member is being cared for - whether they are living at home
or in a facility. Families have to get involved.

I think a few have the wrong idea here o sung wu, being against the death penalty even for really nasty crims, I can't imagine you are personally pro a death penalty for oldies. This is a report I believe.
I am inclined to be more like Philip S in my choice of savings.

I would have grandfather clauses in all other welfare. Supporting parents, unemployment & disability should all have a time limit with no extension until an equal period on no payment had expired.

Public housing occupation should be limited to 2 years, offering short term help, not a life time subsidy, & all government funded superannuation payments should be cut to 150% of the age pension.

A cut of 50% of funding to universities, & the closing of all quangos, & government boards would save heaps. We could then start the reintroduction of various boards we really need.

o sung wu - Congratulation your idea has been adopted, we need to save more money who is next, we can save billions by exterminating everyone who is going to be covered by the NDIS. We are on our way to a surplus.

Since your scheme partially depends on time frames think how much we will save by exterminating anyone who has been on welfare more than 1 year but that will only happen after a panel of experts determines that they would be unlikely to be employed by any organization in the future.

Our Aged Care System needs reform.
We need governments who are socially
aware as well as financially responsible.

Governments who are capable of balancing
the two. Currently we have a government
who makes noises of being socially aware -
but they love a surplus. The Opposition appears
to be socially aware but their economic management
has yet to be tested. We ned a government that can
balance the ledger and balance things socially.
We don't do hung Parliaments or minority parties
very well.

Where can we find what we need?

Of course ladies and gentlemen, this bizarre proposition emanated from one with a somewhat esoteric and arcane mind that tended more to reside in an abstract world of delusion and fallacy. Rather then being firmly riveted in a world of reality and authenticity !

Who's to say though there may surely come a day, where there's a completely new way of analysing the many complications that are now emerging in our new world, where there's a need for a pre-determined mandated life-span, one that's been regulated by law ?

Too many people; too fewer vacancies of adequate housing; insufficient availability of qualified doctors; and an inordinately high demand on available Doctor's time,; Chronic shortages of basic food staples ? And so it goes on ?

Maybe the government of the day has no other viable option, than to 'thin out' the human population somewhat ? Who knows ?

Can anybody on this Forum state categorically that some future government, won't decree one day, that it's now necessary to carefully cull or 'thin-out' the older population, in order to make way for the younger, more productive and resilient inhabitants to come through, and assist in helping to strengthen the new society ? In order to better spread the remaining meagre resources and the more important food staples, among the younger, more productive folk ?

One thing is for sure. Given my age and level of health, I would expect to be identified as one of the first candidates in line, for selection to be culled ? But knowing governments and politicians like I do, I'd bet they'd more then likely bugger it up, the first couple of times they'd try to introduce such a practice ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

If I may improve on your suggestion, perhaps people should be called to the committee as early as when they turn 30 - that's old enough, nay why do you even need a committee, just vapourise anyone who gets to be 30... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan%27s_Run_%28film%29

Having a service FOR Age Pensioners at (and those that don't comply but simply want to plan their retirement USING their Super) it is my job to know the facts and not the spin about all these matters, and I smile every time we get another "Captain Smirk" alert from a politician as it is always a diversion that says another (illegal) Future Fund FOR politicians and fat cats in under way.

The truth is that the Keating reforms for compulsory Super of 20 years ago are starting to kick in whereby those retiring now will have an amount of Super that will surely prevent them getting FULL Age Pension and more probably less than half.

Moreover the dirty Abbott trick of Grandfathering from 1 Jan 2015 says that half will fade to zip at about 75.

The commonality here is that under Grandfathering the govt actually USES the ABS stats on Life Expectancy in the equation of how much income from your Super (as an Allocated or now Account Based Pension) is EXEMPT from testing, SO I need to keep updating that info in my system.

I can tell you now that the Life Expectancy has gone up by about 1 year in the last 10 years so not as the spin is telling us, and the great inequality here is that because females live longer the equation under Grandfather says they get about 10% less Age Pension than men (hence no wonder that legislation had to be "grandfathered out" under the cover of lies.

It's all smoke and mirrors
If we listen to Government we have this aging crisis, Where we need more participation and older people to stay in workforce.
2 problems with this 1. How about youth unemployment and a future for young People ? RETIRE PEOPLE NOW 17-25% youth unemployed
2nd fir-pie We need more People to participate ? WHY we have over 800,000 unemployed people with 170,000 jobs on offer. People cant work there is no jobs.
This is all a smoke screen to push through ideological proposals

Dear O Sung Wu,

The scenario that you're proposing reminds me
of "Logan's Run." A novel by William F. Nolan and
George Clayton Johnson published in 1967 and later
made into a film.

Wikipedia sums it up beautifully and I quote:

"It depicts a dystopic ageist future society in which
both population and the consumption of resources are
maintained in equilibrium by requiring the death of
everyone reaching a particular age. The story follows the
actions of Logan a "Sandman" charged with enforcing the
rule as he tracks down and kills citizens who "run" from
society's lethal demand - only to end up "running"
himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logans_Run

"I can tell you now that the Life Expectancy has gone up by about 1 year in the last 10 years so not as the spin is telling us, and the great inequality here is that because females live longer the equation under Grandfather says they get about 10% less Age Pension than men (hence no wonder that legislation had to be "grandfathered out" under the cover of lies."

---

And therein lies the other consequence of the Greer small f feminist takeover in 1970, ie because there was a mandatory requirement for "equality" it became a bit silly with women having to open car doors and pay at restaurants but it took over 20 years for Keating to ask WHY can women retire at 60 when men have to work 5 years more (especially as women were living 4 years more) so we had the absurd "graduation to equality" from 1994 to 2014 of the female retirement age increasing by 6 months every 2 years.

Then IN 2014 once women "became equal" BOTH joined hands and waltzed off together to 67 in 8 years time. Like just how equal can you GET?

But now by hoodwinking both men and women to STAY with Grandfathering there is a $200 billion bonus to the Government over next 20 years but women are worse off than men in the RIPOFF of their Age Pension.

The big worry for the Government is people (men and women) MAY start to think and "Throw Grandfather Overboard" en masse and reclaiming the $10 billion each year.

But I DON'T think that will happen and the Murray Report tells that pensioners TRUST BigSuper and lose "cognitive skills"

Like if the Creme de la Creme "chattering classes" on forums like this missed the whole deal (even when explained to them) what hope is there for the oldies?

But the new cab on the block of Facebook must be a worry to Government because of the snowball effect of just one or two crinklies telling their friends and the cat getting out of the basket.

Watch this space.

o sung wu,
In your quest to be 'devils advocate' some may have missed a sentence in your first post. quote "One such proposition I've heard"

Comon, from whom and where did you hear this proposition?

Hi there FOXY...

The entire concept or proposition, is truly frightening if it ever came about ? As I'd fall squarely into that group of people who'd be earmarked for mandated, age-related destruction, as would my wife ?

Do any of you good people who bother to read this banal topic think that in the fullness of time this type of human 'culling' will ever come to pass ? We saw recent evidence of systematic racial culling by Hitler, not a century ago ? Is it possible do anyone think that as a consequence of 'everything' a scenario similar to that of FOXY'S film, 'Logan's Run' may, might, or quite likely, occur ? And the 'enlightened' government of the day undertakes a process of systematic culling of the older generation ? A case of discarding 'worn-out' human beings.

Does anybody think, those who're born in that particular era, will they be made aware, once they're sufficiently mature to fully understand the ramifications, that their own longevity depends entirely on how carefully they take care of their health ? Should they fail in looking after themselves, their destruction will be advanced prematurely ? In any event, once they reach a pre-determined age, they're destroyed, albeit painlessly and humanely ?

What a truly awful future, humankind may/will face ?

G'day there HASBEEN...

I (again) reiterate, this particular scenario is NOT mine, in reality it was suggested to me and others, during a recent social event ? Having stated it though, I would like to explore the views and opinions of others - Accordingly I'd particularly like to extrapolate this scenario just a little further ? Essentially because I honestly believe that such a bizarre proposal could gain some considerable traction in the future, as medical science determines that we humans do eventually, 'wear out' therefore render us redundant ?

As usual HASBEEN, everything you've stated in your latest thread I totally endorse, though most of your suggestions will never see the light of day. Notwithstanding they're both pragmatic and invariably sensible, but largely illusionary, which is a great pity in my opinion ?

Interestingly, while listening to the radio as I type this, I heard someone lamenting on the amount of debt we have here in Oz, all the while marvelling at the amount of success the British and NZ governments enjoy, by reducing excessive debt, and increasing their economy ? Of course it's easier for them, neither have a Senate, a Senate that incessantly blocks every tiny initiave the ABBOTT government tries to introduce, in order to reign in debt and get our economy working positively again ?

Speaking of the stark contrasts that you drew attention to, where you described the excessive number of superfluous and redundant boards and committees that are choking governments in their quest to save money ? You simply can't do that ? Labour thrives of huge governments HASBEEN !

Dear O Sung Wu,

I'm a bit more optimistic about our future.

I believe that new economic systems must emerge
that will allow us to share the world efficiently
but also justly. A world in which as stated on
another discussion (similarities between
capitalism and communism) some people die
systematically from malnutrition while others throw away
the necessary food to feed them will not work any
longer.

Our values must change to base one's self-worth on
the quality of one's relationships and experiences instead
of the number of their possessions. Access to quality
resources for all of the world's people must take
precedence over satisfying insatiable desires of the few.

If we, the middle-class can have the life-saving and
life-rewarding tools of modernity, so can everyone. As
long as there are not too many of us. That is a
fundamental caveat. The planet we have come to inhabit is very
small. The experts who measure human demands on the planet
suggest if - by some miracle of economics - everyone living
today was to have a middle-class lifestyle, we would need
immediately two or three more planet earths.

Humans have the intelligence, the tools and the natural resources
to provide for a good, sustainable life as long as there are not
so many humans that we exceed the globe's carrying capacity.

All the evidence suggests that we must turn around population
growtn and aim for a much smaller population than we have today.
That is something worth debating.

Hi there BANJO...

A very legitimate question I'm sure ! It was just a quiet time after the tumult of ANZAC day, and we're all just sitting around quietly all very tired, when one of our number said he was getting too old to consider marching in future ANZAC Marches, to which we all agreed. He then went on and opined as it were, what he reckoned would happen to older people in the generations to came. What government support would older citizens expect, and it went on from there ...? I might add, of our small group, only two of our number managed to 'form-up' and half complete the March, both retiring (dropping out) about Market Street.

You see BANJO, it's not so much the length of the March, it's all the standing around during the forming up process, in our various Battalions, that many of us find particularly tiring ? Remember if you will, most of the blokes are now in their late sixties early seventies and are no longer fit enough to stand around for prolonged periods ? Anyway, that's how this weird Topic was raised !

In any event, this Topic can certainly precipitate significant discussion, when one considers the problems governments of the future will need to embrace. If they don't well...?

With increasing populations, the fact we're living much longer, food shortages, climate change, the advent of another protracted world conflict (Muslims Vs. Christian devotees), and many other complications and problems yet to afflict our modern society. Decisions will need be made concerning the overall welfare of our aged ? Like it or not, we have to accept, that we human beings also wear out and, become redundant ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

I dislike greatly the reliance on negative
stereotypes about any minority - but especially
the one that insists on that one age category
is in some respects inferior to other age
categories and that unequal treatment is therefore
justified.

Specifically, where it is held that the mental or
physical abilities of the aged are so diminished that
they are unable to play a full role in society and
may therefore be excluded from significant
participation. This ideology takes no account of
individual differences and instead treats all old
people as though age were their single most important
characteristic.

For example it is widely believed that the old are not
such productive workers as the young (actually, they
have better job-attendance and productivity records);
that many or most of them are infirm (more than 80
percent of the population over sixty-five are fully
capable of getting around on their own); that a high
proportion of the aged are senile (only a very small proportion
of the aged under seventy-five display symptoms of senility);
or that many of the elderly are confined to nursing
homes or old-age homes (again only a small proportion of those over sixty-five are in this situation).

In addition there are a variety of beliefs about the
typical personalities of the aged - that they are cranky,
forgetful, sexless, highly conservative, and the like -
beliefs that either ignore the vast differences among older
people (for, after all, individuals grow more different, not
more similar as they age), or have no basis in fact whatsoever.
But no matter how inaccurate the public stereotype of older
people may be, it provides an implicit justification for
excluding them from significant roles in the economy, the
family, and other areas of society.

No wonder people insist on lying about their age
"Don't trust anyone over thirty!"

Yeah right!

Hi FOXY...

I'm in complete agreement with EVERYTHING you've said in your last thread, absolutely. However, older folk are very much like cars ? As they age, they become much more unreliable (our physical well being) and in order to keep them on the road, costs an inordinate amount of money (the cost of our health care). There comes a point when it becomes uneconomical, to repair the old vehicle, and it's later scrapped ? A sad reality, nevertheless a reality FOXY.

That said, I'm in complete agreement with everything you've stated in your most recent contribution. Somewhere FOXY there's an IMPORTANT Topic just waiting to be introduced to this Forum? " The socio/economic impact of natural aging, and the effect it has on an individual" ? Or a similar title ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

Why don't you start a new discussion on the
problems involved with the ageing process.
Problems like health, medical expenses,
work, retirement, depression, isolation,
and dependence on society - living in
an unfamiliar environment where one relies
for medical and other needs on professional staff
rather than on friends or relatives.

This is such a broad topic but it would make for
an interesting discussion.

I think it's just a bunch of lies and scams.

And so do I LUCA !