No, I think I understand the discussion. But, what you are talking about doesn’t only apply to old people.
A homeless person is found almost frozen to death. Should you unthaw him and treat his injuries? A drug addict OD’s. Do you take steps to save them? Eventually, you get down to only treating the healthy productive people. Those that aren’t productive get recycled.
Getting hit by a train. There is so little to bury. Lots of respectable people have been hit by a train.
Well, if all you care about is saving money, then one could make a plausible argument that the actual goal of the health care isn’t saving lives so much as keeping the cash flowing in (and some flowing out as a justification for the program). Under that, then yeah, there’s no point in treating people who aren’t paying into the system.
Which is not to say that that’s my personal opinion, but as far as I can tell, it’s the natural conclusion one reaches about the goals when killing off the (non-paying) old people is proposed as a method of saving money.
Ditto, but as I said earlier, if you cure aging, rather then killing off the old, then the issue is moot.
Only if they keep working forever. If they life forever but don’t work forever the problem gets serious - assuming you don’t cure all illness and injury too.
Cite?
Not to hijack the thread’s declared focus on finding cost-effective ways to mass-murder the elderly, but I would kind of like to see some reliable and realistic estimates of the actual extent of this projected problem, not just the OP’s vague doomsaying.
Yes, I know that the costs of healthcare nowadays are steeply rising as new and expensive technologies become standard medical practice and as populations age. However, the OP has not offered anything like convincing evidence that the problem is actually serious enough to warrant considering mass euthanasia as a realistic solution. Got anything along those lines, or are you just here to vent some spite about old people consuming “government goodies”?