To think that people living longer is making quality of life for everyone worse?

Its done quite successfully in Australia. I think it is a good system.

Soylent green?

the real answer is of course improving quality of life with education in life style choices. Easy to say harder to implement

Perhaps use the script of Logan's run.where the government execute anyone over 30 and any who go AWOL are hunted down.
Some of the hate for other sections of society pisses me off.
What's so wrong about a fairer society for all.
You can bet conservative MPs aren't going without.
Remember that line...we are all in this together.

Utter bollox.

A modest one, perchance?

It’s true on many levels , not only the care side but people work longer so less jobs for the younger , less houses as people live longer and as you so well put less opportunities for the young .
The hard answer is more tax

Yes, exactly! I am 50, I was diagnosed with stage 3 ovarian cancer age 49. I have been kept 'artifically alive' by chemo, radiotherapy and other cancer treatments. I can't work atm, so I rely on benefits. Should I be denied my 'artificial treatments' and let nature take it's course ? If not, what age is the cut off?
My mum is 85 and fit as a fiddle, she is totally independent and has never needed any' artificial treatments ' to keep her alive

Don't worry OP. Thanks to austerity life expectancy is now falling.

Yeah, they're currently being a few older people because of the baby boom era.

That is only temporary as births have declined slowly since then.

At what point do we stop though? Are we going to stop with the elderly or are we going to get rid of any kind of person who is defective and needs extra care too?

That just doesn't seem quite right when you think about it.

Yeah for some reason this particular generation of older people get so much hate.

I agree,the vulnerable,the ill, disabled, elderly, benefit claimants.
All have been fair game lately and any of the above could happen to any of us.
Rishi's latest mouthings of stripping GPS of the power to sign people off is so wrong.
I know what would replace it ..a box ticking exercise by a private company that would be result driven.
What company would get the millions pounds contract.
Mmmm PPE contracts does that sound familiar.
And just who would they be connected to.

Advanced directive if you haven't already, I used the website below

For me it's not about elderly, it's about choice
I don't want to live with dementia. Neither does my dad. I want to live and not just survive. If I'm 45 and have a huge brain injury I don't want to be kept alive

But people don't have the choice and sorry if this offends anyone but it's fucking ridiculous
Sat watching my mum die and said to the nurse "why does she have to go through this process of dying? We know she's dying, she won't get better but we can't do what we would do for an animal? And if we didn't PTS an animal it would be cruelty?! Give me strength"

Instead I had to sit listening to her die over the course of a day not to mention the suffering from Alzheimer's before that

compassionindying.org.uk/how-we-can-help/living-will-advance-decision/

You are right to some extent op. I think of the cost of care a family member recently received to keep him alive in pain with no quality of life for those few extra months when I can't get an educational placement for my autistic child. I'm waiting months for treatment for a degenerative health issue that while can't be cured could be slowed. Promt treatment would cost the tax payer less in the long run as I will have care needs much younger due to this delay.

But morally we just can't have rules where some can get care but others can't. I would have supported not pouring thousands into keeping a terminal patient alive just a few extra weeks/ months then a very close friend became termilnally I'll and after waiting years to be a grandmother died just a few weeks before her dd gave birth. With better care she may have died of her illness not the dehydration and infection that killed her

And I agree with what others have said. It's the rich getting richer at the expense of our public services that needs addressing this is the root problem.

My question was whether the advancements in medicine have contributed to the decline. If we continue the trajectory, I don’t know how society supports itself in generations to come.

I suppose you could argue that advancements in medicine mean that people who need support do survive nowadays and use up resources, but that’s not confined to the elderly. A quick Google tells me that in 1920, the child mortality rate for under- 5’s was 141.8 per 1,000. In 2020, it was 4 per thousand.

Back then, if you weren’t fairly healthy, you didn’t make it, and not much was done for you if you did survive with underlying conditions, certainly not if you had poor mental health, for example.

But surely we don’t want to go back to those days? Should we withdraw medical treatment? How do we determine who’s worth saving and who isn’t?

Thank you @fromthegecko Very well said and well thought out 👏

In a couple of decades hence, after climate change really kicks in, after huge populations of insects have died, we won't be worrying about the niceties of things like libraries versus social care for the elderly.

More than half the social care budget is spent on working age adults, many of whom are in employment. That is, 18-65 year-olds with disabilities or illnesses that mean they need help to live normally. This includes people with time-limited diseases like cancer. The medical treatment is free, but if the disease and the treatment leave you frail and needing care for a while, any state provision is strictly means tested (apart from PIP).

By contrast, only one in twenty elderly people need residential care for a significant length of time, and this age group is more likely to have the means to pay for it.

NHS spending on an individual is largely concentrated in the last year of life, whether they die young or old.

And the increase in life expectancy over the last fifty years is down to inter alia fewer neonatal deaths, vaccinations, and improvements in treating cancers and cardiovascular disease. Yes there are more centenarians. But that's not because old people live to be even older. It's because more people survive the perils of childhood and middle age and so get the chance to live out their natural lifespan.

So it's complicated. But my own hunch is that better medical care (and accident prevention/sanitation/nutrition/whatever) should lead to a lower care burden, not higher.

Agree but am too tired now to add to my posts.

Well my interpretation from your post,is that if the elderly are alive,then it affects your generation 🤷‍♀️

The amount of ageism I've seen recently is beginning to make me think when DH and I get to 60 or even 50, we might as well up our alcohol intake, take up smoking, forget about healthy eating and live on cake, pizza, and never exercise.

So then everyone younger (except our DC) will be happy when we have massive heart attacks and don't live 'too long'.

Also I keep seeing threads with people talking about 'the problem of an ageing population', but I'm sure I've heard life expectancy is no longer increasing?

The ageism is shocking.

It is, I agree. I also bet lots of people will change their minds when they get older.

So people work for decades then it's sorry grandma off you pop? They've contributed loads of tax (and still pay tax because everyone pays tax working or not) but there's also more ways to contribute than financially.

Older people are not to blame for lower quality of life. The problem is not older people or any other vulnerable group.

The problem is false economy policies.

Badly funded or managed public services.

Lack of social housing (which increases benefits cost, as many jobs don't pay enough to meet private housing costs).

Declining community (related to lack of social housing as people are moving away from their communities).

Lack of work, education, and training opportunities (another reason for declining community, as lack of jobs is another reason why people have to move away from their communities).

Vicious circle, as lots of displaced people move for housing or jobs, adding pressure on housing and jobs in the areas they move to.

Doesn't help that there's not enough jobs for everyone (and many of the jobs available are low paid, although that wouldn't be so much of an issue if there was more social housing).

There's less total job vacancies in the UK than there are people out of work.

I dread to think, how I’ll end up, 7 yrs in Parkinson’s at nearly 62, there are no ground breaking treatments ( deep brain stimulation for some), and drugs.
Nearly all nuro conditions no real treatments.
Most think Parkinson’s is an oap thing, early onset is before 60, my dad had it late 70s died 85

Only 15% of over 80s go into a care home (4% of over 65s) , and the median stay is under 20 months.

37% are self funding.

Our expectations of medical attention and medical advances are lifelong. From our (scandalously underfunded) maternity services that have driven down the infant mortality numbers. Expensive support of tiny premature babies. IVF. Expensive and prolonged reconstructive and plastic surgery. Cancer treatment is incredibly expensive. And so on.

Before we get started on all the other costs of modern life. To keep everything going. Higher safety specs so that our accident rates fall.

And so on.

It isn’t that there isn’t the money. It’s who accumulates it without contributing.

I fully agree.

OP don’t listen to these people who are goading you. You have no reason to try to defend yourself - your point is 100% valid. However, as is always the case, people on here seem incapable of having a reasonable, measured discussion.

I really hope that you are not using the elderly as a reason for your daughter potentially having a problem with buying a house !

No - that was the OP’s argument not the argument of @VestibuleVirgin