Are old people an unfair burden on society?
August 23, 2010 - 2:13pm
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
I don't trust anyone over 30
I don't trust anyone over 30
<joke>
Haha
Yeah, unless you want someone to do a thorough job, not cut corners, and be prepared for a screw-up which isn't in the book, and remember to put their harness on straight... in which case I wouldn't trust anyone under 45.
</joke>
(edit)
Seriously though, If you were to check the median ages of a lot of farmers, contractors and other people doing skilled work, I think the question of who is carrying whom might not be so clear-cut.
Hi alien, your thread title, while perhaps satirical, is offensive. Since thread titles are uneditable, what would you like me to change it to?
ETA. And I see that the Canadian Medical Association is at it again. I guess the only solution is to move to a private, for-profit model!
Comment, please!
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/08/23/cma-health-care-boomers-poll.h...
It would be nice to see some input from you on the subject rather than you just posting a link telling us to comment.
Since I am an old people myself, the title is, of course, satirical.
Please change it to: "Are old people unfairly subsidized by Society?" or something to that effect.
The adjective "unfairly" is very important -- without it, there would be no issue at all.
I keep hearing more and more often from every direction that we the baby-boomers (the aging population) will break the bank and make younger people have to pay higher taxes, as if we had not raised them, put them through school, started them in life AND paid a lot of taxes ourselves into our healthcare and pension system, the money which is being gambled away in questionable mutual funds and undefined derivatives by our leaders. However, 16 billion for fighter planes and 1.2 Billion for pointless 2-day Gxx meetings are, apparently, affordable.
I hear you, alien. And I suspected you were a member of this burdensome demographic. I think it's the question mark that makes it sound like a "When did you stop beating your wife" title. It's just hard for me to locate the grounding for the satire. I might prefer "Old People: an unfair burden on society" in order to keep the satire but lose the offensiveness. This could be quibbling on my part, though. Thoughts?
Catchfire, your version is OK with me.
I find the second title recommendation by catchfire more offensive than the original question one, as really catchfire yours is a statement of fact, is it not?
Great!
Instead of discussing the issue, we are talking, again, about who is offended by what!
Political correctness on steroids!
are elders a "burden"? well the short answer is yes in that someone needs to take care of them at the point they cant take care of themselves, but is it an "unfair" burden? of course not!
seeing as we will all be at that point in our lives eventually, its sort of a part of life unless you're an a hole who only cares about themselves since the older person you're caring for likely took care of you at some point.
is caring for a child an "unfair burden"??
the underlying sentiment in the "unfair burden" attitude seems to imply that any unpaid work not done for your own personal gain is an "unfair burden"
There is no issue as the answer is obviously NO.
Why not look at it as an insurance claim? When you insure your house and it burns down, you expect to be paid by the insurance company so you can rebuild. It may be considered a 'burden' by the insurance company (and they sure try to weasel out of their obligation), but it is not a charity, not do-gooding but it is fulfilling a contractual obligation.
Not going to look at it in any particular way, as giving energy to something so incredibley wrong headed, is a waste of time as well.
Next thing ya know they will be making new versions of Logan's Run or something.
Not going to look at it in any particular way, as giving energy to something so incredibley wrong headed, is a waste of time as well.
Next thing ya know they will be making new versions of Logan's Run or something.
At least that way you'd never have to say "never trust anyone over 30". Redundant.
Perhaps I can actually address the subject but I'll get the title out of the way.
I did not find it to be that offensive as it not only was a question but it is one being posed that needs to be answered. I think it is offensive that it is being posed however but that is not the OP fault. Perhaps the way to address it is to change the thread to -- "Once more it seems we we asking the question if older people are a burden"
Firstly here is a link to a report that will put the entire issue in context including population aging-- bottom line no they are not a burden even if you were cold enough to want to open the door to that consideration:
http://www.nursesunions.ca/news/nurses-urge-first-ministers-negotiate-ne...
The report also puts to bed the myth that medicare is unsustainable.
But another issue nobody seems to want to discuss: Seniors do use more health care than younger people. Many people use that as an excuse to attack medicare. What those who raise the issue rarely acknowledge is that this is indeed what seniors use most of but there are many other things they use less of.
I have not got the figures to provide a bottom line but the formula of adding up the additional costs in medicare that seniors require is faulty if you do not also deduct the savings where this demographic uses less.
Education, even crime issues are part of it-- (many social scientists have acknowledged that declining crime rates is in part related to an aging population)-- there are many other areas where seniors use less.
As offensive as it is to do the math-- let's not do it wrong if we are to do it at all.
Normally, one should simply address necessities as necessities and plan for them rather than singling out certain demographics.
Nobody I ever heard of asked to get old. Why pose the question -- but the thread is posing this question because way too many in our society are and it needs to be answered at least with recognition of the problem of the question, the moral bankruptcy that inspires it and the poor logic behind it.
I think it's true that Boomers have been paying taxes all their lives, but I think it's also true that medicine, today, is a bit different than it was when they first started paying for it, and specifically, a lot more expensive. Forty years ago you didn't get an MRI for a sore shoulder, or a huge battery of tests for fairly common complaints. I'm not saying it's "unfair", but I think that the current generation of taxpayers will certainly be covering the difference between what the Boomers paid in taxes and what modern medical care will cost.
I turn 65 in October. *cackle cackle* Pay up, kids.
I think it's true that Boomers have been paying taxes all their lives, but I think it's also true that medicine, today, is a bit different than it was when they first started paying for it, and specifically, a lot more expensive. Forty years ago you didn't get an MRI for a sore shoulder, or a huge battery of tests for fairly common complaints. I'm not saying it's "unfair", but I think that the current generation of taxpayers will certainly be covering the difference between what the Boomers paid in taxes and what modern medical care will cost.
As long as the tax system is so grotesquely out of whack. As long as we preserve the milions/billions of a priviledged class who did not do more than be born in to it to deserve it, I simply am unwilling to even consider this argument.
I turn 65 in October. *cackle cackle* Pay up, kids.
Well I am sure we are getting good value in your case-- Stay healthy though (and not for the young-uns sake but becuase it is better than teh alternatives)
I think it's true that Boomers have been paying taxes all their lives, but I think it's also true that medicine, today, is a bit different than it was when they first started paying for it, and specifically, a lot more expensive. Forty years ago you didn't get an MRI for a sore shoulder, or a huge battery of tests for fairly common complaints. I'm not saying it's "unfair", but I think that the current generation of taxpayers will certainly be covering the difference between what the Boomers paid in taxes and what modern medical care will cost.
I don't know where you get your health care but MRI's for a "sore shoulder" are not on in our system or any American HMO. However using a battery of tests for common complaints may be true. Heart disease. cancer and diabetes for instance are way to common and do require batteries of tests. If only the baby boomers could convince the yuppie doctors to work for less (drive a Toyota not a Porsche) there would be some real savings. After all we paid for most of the cost of the education for most doctors in this country. It is called investing in the future. We [I'll let you figure out my age] paid taxes and trained people and build hospitals etc. and now it is time to to start taking not only the capital we invested but also the interest. That is what investing is about it in a capitalist system isn't it?
My problem with slippery slopes is one never knows how far they are going to slide. Should a 90 year old get a heart transplant is a different issue but in theory the same. Should a premature baby receive hundreds of thousands of dollars of care when there is a chance they will be severely disabled at the end of it. Those questions are not in my field of expertise so I tend to defer to medical ethicists on questions of what care is necessary for which fellow human being.
Sean, I very much enjoyed your post, especially the bit I quoted above. I will follow the link and see what else I can learn about the issue. I only hope that others (including the misguided) will read it and think it through.
I believe that society is an unfair burden on old people. Can you refer me to the appropriate thread, please?
If medical procedures cost more and more, that's not a just function of the age of people getting the tests and treatments, but of the people setting prices for equipment, reagents, furnishings, and everything pertaining to practice of medicine. There is big profit in all things medical. As new technology becomes available, doctors take adavantage (and possibly feel they have to cover themselves against lawsuits) and order expensive tests that may not be necessary - not just for the elderly, but all patients. Then, there is more inherent (unavoidable) extra effort and expense each time a new mutation of influenza comes along: precautions include the disposal of more instruments, bedding and garments, as well as more antibiotic hand-washing liquid everywhere and asceptic routines. That, plus farming out everything that's not strictly medical (laundry, food preparation, security) to private enterprise drives down the hospital payroll, but drives up the overall cost. While who gets how much care is often discussed, nobody (at least in mainstream media) ever seems to discuss the question of who profits.... and whether illness and its prevention should generate profit at all.
So, yes, reform is needed. I suggest re-forming the system we had in 1976.
Another thing that's rarely mentioned about people between 60 and 75 is that they make up a very large part of the volunteer corps that has taken over many social services that the government should be responsible for and isn't doing. Unpaid, untaxed work, to be sure, but what would it cost to hire people, even at minimum wage, to do those things?
The question this thread is not concerned about is how to lower the costs of health care, even though it is a very important question in its own right.
The question is: do we, old people, have a right to health care, when we need it, however much it costs?
It all boils down to the basic principle behind social organization, as far as generation-to-generation responsibility is concerned.
We can even leave money out of it and look at it as the basic social contract we have with ourselves.
As usual, we run into a fundamental contradiction in our social contract: our production system is based on cooperation, while our distribution system is based on competition. The two can not be reconciled, no matter how hard we are trying to square the circle.
In an ideal family we have no problem because the basic principle is: share the work, share the rewards, share the burden to the best of our abilities: help each other when it is needed.
In a jungle, there is also no problem: every animal is for itself, but even there you find exceptions of mutual dependence and sharing.
In the 'human family' (society) we try to do the right thing (at least in more evolved countries like Canada) but do it in a half-assed way, trying to set arbitrary limits to the sharing. Since the limits are arbitrary, it leads to forever fighting over where to draw the line.
The only possible solution, in my mind, is unconditional, universal health care for everyone, recognizing that survival (the ultimate benefit of health care) is a fundamental, basic need for every human being, non-negotiable, untouchable by anything else.
Of course young(er) people think that they will live forever (I used to) and will not need extensive health care for a very long time (ignoring exceptions for the moment) and they rather work less and play more but, if they want to be honest: they can't help realizing that their turn will come and will want to make their claim.
So the question is: do we recognize health care as a basic, fundamental, non-debatable universal right for every member of the society: young or old, healthy or sick - or do we opt for fighting forever over arbitrary boundaries - or do we want to revert to the jungle and grab whatever can be grabbed at whatever cost to others.
Of course, those who opt for the third, will not hesitate to demand unconditional and unlimited help whenever they find themselves in need of it.
I don't think the survey was about rights or fairness; i think it was about resources. People are worried that, as a large nubmer exit the work-force and enter a period of increasing physical frailty, a smaller number of employed will have to support the system. Thus, either the quality of health care will decline, or the individual contribution must increase, probably both. The survey didn't allow for the possiblility of a government that would distribute the tax burden more justly.
I believe that society is an unfair burden on old people. Can you refer me to the appropriate thread, please?
When you find out let me know... Until then I will continue my retirement and will only emerge occasionally to disturb the status quo to the extent that I am able.
@ alien
I spoke with a doctor about 25 years ago who suggested a triage system for deciding who gets what, and saying in effect that older and sicker people should not have as much access to "heroic measures" as younger and healthier people do. He also pointed out that these measures are costly, and do little to improve quality of life.
His thesis had already raised a bit of a stink in the media because it raised the spectre of who has more rights to medical care, and who would decide. He pointed out to me though, that those decisions were already being made. Sometimes at the request of family or patients themselves, sometimes by the decisions of doctors to not revive - and far moreso by default, because there are simply not enough resources give everyone equal treatment.
Frankly, I think his thesis is much more the norm nowadays than it was back then. As a personal example, my dad''s kidneys failed earlier this year. There is no mystery, and no outrage at the fact he will never be a candidate for a kidney because of his age.
I also think that there is far more burden put on the system by the rising costs of drugs, in particular highly specialized treatments which can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Making the decision of how and when to fund those treatments (which WOULD break the system if we took all of them on) is a far more pressing issue and a far more difficult decision than coming to terms with balancing appropriate treatment and quality of life for people who are older or who may be terminal.
6079_Smith_W, you raise another important point: allocation of resources. No society, however rich, will have unlimited resources. Prioritizing and allocating will have to be part of our system, even in Utopian societies where money does not exist and they are sharing equally, they still have to decide: what is more important for the society: a new hydroelectric generating station or a new hospital. There will be legitimate arguments for both and a consensus will have to be reached.
My point was: a civilized society ought to put its citizens' survival above every other consideration. For living beings life is the only non-negotiable need.
What I object to is: a system where citizens will say (and will be indulged): "I rather work an hour less each day (pay lower taxes), even if it condemns maybe thousands of other citizens to preventable suffering and/or death". That attitude is barbaric and uncivilized.
You do not want to waste resources and, if no amount of heroics (in time and resources) could be expected to lead to a noticable improvement in someone's chances of survival or quality of life, then it would be unreasonable for the patient to expect it.
But the bottom line is: healthcare comes before toys and luxuries.
Unconditionally, undebatably.
Otherwise we are back to the other two choices I referred to earlier.
@ alien
I spoke with a doctor about 25 years ago who suggested a triage system for deciding who gets what, and saying in effect that older and sicker people should not have as much access to "heroic measures" as younger and healthier people do. He also pointed out that these measures are costly, and do little to improve quality of life.
He was right about the heroics and quality of life (waive ifs, whens and buts: in the main, he was right), but missed the point on the question of access. Tell people of any age the truth about their condition, what's possible, what will likely happen if this or that, and let them decide on a course of action. We are heading in that direction, but have not yet arived. We still force quadraplegics and and other incurables to spend 20 or 40 or 60 years in a full-care facility; force a terminal cancer patient to spend his little savings on a trip to Switzerland or to break the law. Not only doctors are capable of making sound choices; patients can, too.
Oh Canada: Our Bought and Sold Out Land! The movie
Why have well funded social programs when we can shovel money to private banks to the tune of $160 million every day? $60 billion dollars every year! It's time to get the rich off welfare.
@ absentia
Though I think it is a special case for differently-abled people. A good friend of mine said that his fear about euthanasia laws was that he was constantly treated differently than temporarily-abled people. Doctors would always do their best to help those who they saw as healthy, but his assessments were always put in the context of "you have had a pretty good life already". The veiled message was that he should be thankful for his time and consider when it is time to give up. And he is a far more healthy and independent person than many.
His concern about completely-legalized euthanasia - that differently-abled people, however strong their will to live, would just have to have one bad spell and they might possibly give into the pressure on them to give up - something the rest of us are not subjected to.
6079_Smith_W, you raise another important point: allocation of resources. No society, however rich, will have unlimited resources. Prioritizing and allocating will have to be part of our system, even in Utopian societies where money does not exist and they are sharing equally, they still have to decide: what is more important for the society: a new hydroelectric generating station or a new hospital. There will be legitimate arguments for both and a consensus will have to be reached.
My point was: a civilized society ought to put its citizens' survival above every other consideration. For living beings life is the only non-negotiable need.
What I object to is: a system where citizens will say (and will be obliged): "I rather work an hour less each day (pay lower taxes), even if it condemns maybe thousands of other citizens to preventable suffering and/or death". That attitude is barbaric and uncivilized.
You do not want to waste resources and, if no amount of heroics (in time and resources) could be expected to lead to a noticable improvement in someone's chances of survival or quality of life, then it would be unreasonable for the patient to expect it.
But the bottom line is: healthcare comes before toys and luxuries.
Unconditionally, undebatably.
Otherwise we are back to the other two choices I referred to earlier.
Thank you for bringing this forward. As a pre-boomer, I find this topic more pressing than I did "once upon a time."
Should it not be discussed, however, in more historical terms...the ability of our society to create the wealth and the technology...the rise of the welfare state idea and its eqalitarian outcome in the middle of world war....the increasing pressure today on natural resources....increasing competitiveness undermining the tax base that paid for Tommy's marvelous idea...etc?
The right to health care cannot be questioned in a civilized setting, any more than access to food, clothing and shelter. But one can perhaps predict that in years ahead it will be questioned, as we see the assumptions in the liberal concept of history as one of necessarily unchanging "progress" are perhaps time bound?
Yes they are.
Since taxes are to high as it is, I think all people should die at the age of 65 and be turned into food. We could call this food "Soylent Green" but of course we can't tell anyone.
@ absentia
Though I think it is a special case for differently-abled people. A good friend of mine said that his fear about euthanasia laws was that he was constantly treated differently than temporarily-abled people. Doctors would always do their best to help those who they saw as healthy, but his assessments were always put in the context of "you have had a pretty good life already". The veiled message was that he should be thankful for his time and consider when it is time to give up. And he is a far more healthy and independent person than many.
His concern about completely-legalized euthanasia - that differently-abled people, however strong their will to live, would just have to have one bad spell and they might possibly give into the pressure on them to give up - something the rest of us are not subjected to.
Well, it's not an easy subject; there are many points of view to consider, both in law and in medicine. I don't just mean in the case of euthanasia, but in different kinds of treatment and medication, which may have side effects, be addictive or risky, or shorten the patient's life while improving its quality. And so on. It's the patient who ought to have the majority voice in hir own treatment, not the doctors, not the lawyers, not the priests - and certainly not the accountants.
Yes, George, you are right, it should be discussed historically as well, but that is another subject. As they say: "Politics is the art of the possible" and a historical perspective is necessary in order to gage the "possible". In this thread I was trying to focus on the basic, underlying principles which determine what we should be aiming for.
You may be right about that, but it does not change the fact that, in problem-solving mode, we should focus on where we are now, where we want to be, what are all the relevant facts (including psychological, political, etc) and then chart a path that we want to follow from 'A' to 'B'.
The right to health care cannot be questioned in a civilized setting, any more than access to food, clothing and shelter. But one can perhaps predict that in years ahead it will be questioned, as we see the assumptions in the liberal concept of history as one of necessarily unchanging "progress" are perhaps time bound?
Not only can those rights be questioned, they haven't even been accepted as applying to everyone. Not even in Canada. We have never gone a whole winter without homeless people freezing to death; we've never fed or housed or clothed or protected all of the children; we have never found meaningful work for all the adults, and we have certainly never helped all the people were ill, injured, lost and miserable. We never got anywhere close to the just society. But at least we were striving toward it... Now we're going in the opposite direction. We took our eye off the ball for a minute, and damn if some bastard didn't steal it!
This seems like an ideal time to heartily recommend Imamura's remake of The Ballad Of Narayama (1983).
The right to health care cannot be questioned in a civilized setting, any more than access to food, clothing and shelter. But one can perhaps predict that in years ahead it will be questioned, as we see the assumptions in the liberal concept of history as one of necessarily unchanging "progress" are perhaps time bound?
Not only can those rights be questioned, they haven't even been accepted as applying to everyone. Not even in Canada. We have never gone a whole winter without homeless people freezing to death; we've never fed or housed or clothed or protected all of the children; we have never found meaningful work for all the adults, and we have certainly never helped all the people were ill, injured, lost and miserable. We never got anywhere close to the just society. But at least we were striving toward it... Now we're going in the opposite direction. We took our eye off the ball for a minute, and damn if some bastard didn't steal it!
You are right. I spend an hour or two each day in the dementia ward of a long-term-care facility and seeing the care given to residents I tend to extrapolate to the larger society...even though I continually foment for expansion of the system that exists. The bastard that you speak of is using economic factors - the downturn - to further his aim, the complete privatization of those social institutions that the singularity of post-war conditions made possible. I believe we should be demanding the mobilization of our society to meet the approaching enemies of humanity...those four bloody horsemen and their neo-con apparatchik.
I believe that society is an unfair burden on old people. Can you refer me to the appropriate thread, please?
ok that's the winner. Thanks Unionist!
Thus endeth the lesson...and we can return to the less frightening pose of Rip Van Winkle on the question of (shudder) old age and ...
Any progressive person interested in this subject should read Theodore Roszak's The making of an Elder Culture: Reflections on the future of America's Most Audacious Generation, reviewed here.
That's going to be a must read, oldgoat, particularly if he describes how Boomers can escape the catchphrases by which the former flower people were "deflowered" by the neo-con bait of lower taxes, which allowed them to fly and sail the world. The process by which they were converted from "citizens" to "taxpayers" and "consumers" was also part of the slippery slope from flower beds to the pickle we're now in.
The question of the allocation of resources and the decisions about what treatments to pursue are not loaded with absolutes given that society is paying and society as a whole has obligations not just to itself but to each and every individual. We are to allocate resources based on need not ability to pay we say. I fully support this and that means not allocating based on desire alone.
What this means in practice is where the absolutes fall away. It can't be up to the individual to spend all the states resources on potential treatments without hope of success. Nor too can it be up to society to ration that which we have enough to go around-- health care that is needed which implies health care that can offer a benefit.
To me this means that there is no substitute for medical professionals placing each patient as the priority in all decisions and going to whatever lengths that can benefit the patient. Secondly, that patients need to be central to their care-- even if they cannot make all decisions about resources paid for by others. In other words, we cannot leave it up to the patients to be their own advocates. Their health professionals and the system itself must be built to listen to them and do what is best for them, which in rare instances may be to disagree with them.
Heroic measures are rarely possible and can be very expensive in individual cases but across the whole health system they don't add up to much because of their rarity. They are not a burden when they offer a real potential for the patient. That should eb the only dividing line. As others have said if there is a chance of an improved outlook for the patient, then it is worth it. If it is not needed or cannot improve the patient's outlook then it is waste. Only then.
As for the elderly or ill being candidates for treatment, this rationale provides its own answers there too. If a person is too ill to benefit (a person with advanced heart disease would not be a candidate for a slow moving prostate cancer for example) then there is no need and if a procedure does not have any hope of improving their condition as well there is no need.
As others have suggested there are many other economic resources we can consider rationing before we get to health care. That health care is being suggested for rationing when the country,in spite of its health-care needs remains very rich proves that this is an ideological not practical debate.
Deep inside this debate there is another reality which makes it easier to even have it. Humans in order to survive downplay their mortality-- we have invented a good many religions over the years to help us. We need to consider illness as something that won't happen to us but to someone else in order to get through the day-- at least to some degree because contemplating our inevitable ends is not conducive to happiness. A small part that most of us don't like to think about when we see something bad is to be grateful that it did not happen to us-- social scientists have even said this is behind rubberneckers at accidents. There are deep psychological defenses in us that make possible a debate about abandoning humanity and help for the ill that in fact make no logical sense as each and every one of us, if we stop the denial for a moment, will need this consideration.
That's going to be a must read, oldgoat, particularly if he describes how Boomers can escape the catchphrases by which the former flower people were "deflowered" by the neo-con bait of lower taxes, which allowed them to fly and sail the world. The process by which they were converted from "citizens" to "taxpayers" and "consumers" was also part of the slippery slope from flower beds to the pickle we're now in.
This is so important because it seeks to take away the moral legitimacy of anything that is not directly paid for. Removing the legitimacy rights of those who do not pay taxes or buy things.
Now that we live in a world where resources are finite, those who have more and can consume "better" look to those who consume less rather than those who consume more to save on resources that are being squandered. When I drive by monster homes on my way to the country, I can't but help to think that if we are to start rationing anywhere, this is where we need to begin. But the folks who have 4,000 square feet of heated and cooled comfort zone can't possibly get that they are part of the problem when they are consuming our economy into what seems like endless growth when it really isn't anymore.
Not related to age but related to the cost of medical treatment.
A Bouctouche, N.B., woman is taking her fight with the province's Department of Health over the lack of funding for her prescription drug costs to the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission.
Josee Owen, 36, has had rheumatoid arthritis since she was 10 and now takes the drug Enbrel
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/08/24/nb-enbrel-arthritis-drug-human-rights-827.html#ixzz0xXACiV7y
Any progressive person interested in this subject should read Theodore Roszak's The making of an Elder Culture: Reflections on the future of America's Most Audacious Generation, reviewed here.
The book is available at the library. Quick access often means that it is not a winningly popular read...not a good sign for a generation that is expected to again bring "revolution" rather than reaction to the social scene. I still believe that the visions of '68 were a product of good times wherein people were being prepared for a lifetime of leisure (really, seriously) and not by Veblen. :)
Sean, I understand and agree with, what you are saying but we have to be careful here.
The bastards can pick up and redefine the word 'need' in several way. One way is to invoke Palin's infamous "death penal" to defeat a health care system based on need.
Another way is to hijack it to mean 'need for society', meaning the usefulness of the person based on their contribution, and that word is WIDE open to abuse. Do you remember the Star Trek Voyager episode when the Doctor was hijacked and put to work in a hospital, assigned to the floor of the "less useful for society" who were treated horribly. Later he was reassigned to the "blue level" where patients were needlessly pampered because they were considered highly useful for society.
We have to watch these bastards (I like absentia's language) because they are not stupid and they do not miss a trick.
This is so important because it seeks to take away the moral legitimacy of anything that is not directly paid for. Removing the legitimacy rights of those who do not pay taxes or buy things.
Here, again, the right has been spreading some truly poisonous lies about older people. A good many of our generation bought homes early in life and have been paying property tax steadily over decades. We paid into pension funds, college funds, WCB, UI, health insurance, RSP's, retirement schemes and life insurance. We had fewer kids than our parents and raised them in a higher standard of living and with higher expectations, and gave quite a lot of them more education and a financial leg up in life. We worked longer and paid more income tax than any previous generation. We still pay tax every time we buy something or go somewhere or have our roof repaired or our hair cut.
A large part of our investment - including pension funds - has been lost. Stolen, gambled away, however you want to characterize the immense crime that's been committed here in the last 20 years. They created the crisis by stealing the nation's assets, and now are using that same crisis to grab the stuff that was nailed down last time. And now they need a scapegoat.
I agree with Alien that "bastards" fits them like a glove, absentia, but can we give "They (who) created the crisis" a more explicit name, like "finance capitalists", from which we can develop an even more accurate critical analysis of their works? And can we formulate from that some thoughts about how we can escape their clutches, now that EVERYONE is caught up in rooting for their favourite corporations on the big board? That is part of the "economic imperative' developed by the Chicago School that began to bore holes in the good ship social democracy (welfare state) back in the 1970s
Problem is, George, that we have an evolutionary handicap of being too decent and having scruples.
That is why I suggested, in my Introductory thread, to find us some geniuses, rescue him/her from Wall Street or the Pentagon to be our Vetinari (from Ankh Morpork in the Pratchett books). We just have to outsmart our adversaries when it comes to convincing the masses. Psychological manipulation is the key because we never get anywhere with logic and violence is the expertise of the bast... sorry: the finance capitalists.
But that topic belongs in another thread.
I know where i'm escaping pretty soon. The young people will have to find their own solution. After all, we've been told in another thread that we should not impose our values or opinions on them.
"Apres moi le deluge" (Fr.), after me the deluge (attributed to Louis XV) -- but that is exactly what the b.... finance capitalists say.
I can't blame them too much -- there is some comfort in the thought that I will be gone, hopefully, before the shit really hits the fan. But that is my selfish genes speaking. The unselfish genes are still trying to help youngsters think things through and, maybe, find a solution.
And that is like swimming upstream after the deluge.
And may I add, how very much I appreciate being able to converse without brickbats. Nothing abrasive, just a variation in insight and priorities, but fundamentally the position of humanists. (sigh)
However, any time anyone would like to discuss recent economic history - in another thread - and its relation to our changing perception of people and society, please lead off.
I enjoyed it too!
Rational thinking, guided by human decency, based on goodwill towards others and expecting the same.
Heaven!
Sean, I understand and agree with, what you are saying but we have to be careful here.
The bastards can pick up and redefine the word 'need' in several way. One way is to invoke Palin's infamous "death penal" to defeat a health care system based on need.
Another way is to hijack it to mean 'need for society', meaning the usefulness of the person based on their contribution, and that word is WIDE open to abuse. Do you remember the Star Trek Voyager episode when the Doctor was hijacked and put to work in a hospital, assigned to the floor of the "less useful for society" who were treated horribly. Later he was reassigned to the "blue level" where patients were needlessly pampered because they were considered highly useful for society.
We have to watch these bastards (I like absentia's language) because they are not stupid and they do not miss a trick.
There are two sides of the trap however and what I am doing is trying to suggest caution on both sides.
1) As you point out there is the lies about what needs mean -- although I was clear in defining it.
2) On the other hand there is the Trojan Horse of patient control -- remembering patients are subjected to Billions of advertising each year about what is purported to be of benefit to them of course actually benefiting the pushers of whichever therapy is being sold. This is why it is essential that medical practitioners never lose sight of their obligation to the patient recognizing that the hawkers of snake oil will go at this from both ends the patient and the practitioner. That is of course separate from the fact that people want the best for themselves but this can lead them to actually hurting themselves. There is some responsibility to evaluate that and this can only be done if the medical professionals have their priorities straight -- there is no substitute for that -- even patient's wishes which as important as they are, cannot be the only factor. Patient's rights is a more important concept and these rights include not being subjected to dangerous or unhelpful procedures. I am not denying your point but we need to keep an eye on both sides of this.
Further to that there are many companies who want to medicalise everything including the basics of aging. They have enough resources to spend to convince the public what they need knowing that if that breaks medicare only more opportunity will arise.
Caution needed all round.
I know where i'm escaping pretty soon. The young people will have to find their own solution. After all, we've been told in another thread that we should not impose our values or opinions on them.
Impose, no. Share, yes, that's even a moral obligation.
I enjoyed it too!
Rational thinking, guided by human decency, based on goodwill towards others and expecting the same.
Heaven!
That latter part is important -- if you expect the same, I'd go so far as to say assume the same until proven different you are less likely tro be caught up in a misunderstanding.
I don't think the objectives or principles differ all that much among most people here -- the rest is means and shades of understanding and insight.
Probably different experiences, too. My encounters with medical personnel in Ontario have been largely positive. There is also a great deal of other, non-medical, help available that i didn't know about until i needed it. Much of that help is voluntary, which is why i wanted particularly to mention that role of older people: many who have had health problems, or their loved ones did, come to give back - pay forward, rather. That's one of our most important contributions, now.
I'm a little bit concerned that, once this generation is too feeble, that help will be gone. Not because the next three cohorts are less generous, but because they have less free time - already, and it will get worse. They have to spend more of their life working for money, just to support their families and pay their taxes. I don't see the current kind of government stepping in to pay someone for those services, even if the unemployment rate goes to 12%.
That is one area where we can start putting pressure on political candidates to state a position. Will you let unemployed and underemployed people put in a few hours at the local hospital, or visiting the home-bound, or any of the hundreds of non-specialized tasks that make life easier for patients and their caregivers, pay them minimum wage - and not deduct it from their UI or welfare benefits?
I think your point on volunteer work is important but things are not that simple--
We can't pay volunteers a wage without them becoming workers and if we do are we going to give them work that should go to people who are qualified specifically for those jobs?
And of course these are union workplaces so minimum wage labour just is not on and should not be.
It is importnat to give people an opportunity to work but we need to be careful that they are being paid appropriately and if the place is unionized that this is respected.
Given how important your opening point is i feel bad having to go after the second half of the post but this is an important issue as well.
Of course. That's why i said non-specialized jobs - the kind of thing nobody is ever hired to do. But i'd be even happier if unemployed people were given training and proper union jobs. What d'you figure the odds?
The topic sounds interesting, I am curious where it would lead. I usually do not devote too many brain cells to economics because I usually live in the clouds where economics does not exist. My vocation is in science (Math and Physics) and, at this phase in my life I do not want to analyze various forms of irrationality of the human species. The way I imagine: economics would explain to me how we got to where we are now and how the current system keeps us there. This would be fascinating subject to a historian, a psychologist, a researcher in the field of mental aberrations.
On the other hand, if it would/could lead to a practical way out of this mess, I am all ears. I am not putting down economists but I do not consider economics a science, rather an organizational discipline in the best case, woo-doo mambo-jambo in the worst. If you think that an ignorant (in these matters) physical scientist would be interested, by all means, start a thread and I will try to follow. However, I won't promise anything.
2) On the other hand there is the Trojan Horse of patient control -- remembering patients are subjected to Billions of advertising each year about what is purported to be of benefit to them of course actually benefiting the pushers of whichever therapy is being sold. This is why it is essential that medical practitioners never lose sight of their obligation to the patient recognizing that the hawkers of snake oil will go at this from both ends the patient and the practitioner. That is of course separate from the fact that people want the best for themselves but this can lead them to actually hurting themselves. There is some responsibility to evaluate that and this can only be done if the medical professionals have their priorities straight -- there is no substitute for that -- even patient's wishes which as important as they are, cannot be the only factor. Patient's rights is a more important concept and these rights include not being subjected to dangerous or unhelpful procedures. I am not denying your point but we need to keep an eye on both sides of this.
Further to that there are many companies who want to medicalise everything including the basics of aging. They have enough resources to spend to convince the public what they need knowing that if that breaks medicare only more opportunity will arise.
Caution needed all round.
Sean, these are all excellent points. As I said earlier: our adversaries are not stupid (at least in the short term) and they will try every trick to have their way. They also have another advantage: they are more disciplined and practical than we are. It may come from the experience of organizing and running multinational organizations (and they have to be efficient or their throats would be cut by their best friends in the business world -- they call it 'competition') while we like to have fun, argue a lot, pull in so many directions at the same time, so it has been, to date, relatively easy to neutralize us.
But, as you said: "Caution needed all round."
Of course. That's why i said non-specialized jobs - the kind of thing nobody is ever hired to do. But i'd be even happier if unemployed people were given training and proper union jobs. What d'you figure the odds?
I think that will come some time after they stop laying off union health care providers of all classifications and contracting out to Sodexo.
The odds slim to none are really on the high side.
If the baby boomer generation suffers a reduced level of healthcare, I'll be terribly surprised. OTOH, if they tax the system to the brink, leaving it tattered and broken for generations to follow, it will just be their typical behaviour once again. Time and time again, this generation has demanded the best available, and refused to pay their bills when they came due.
BTW, depending on who's definition you use, I may be a boomer myself. Makes me feel a little ashamed.
They want us to believe we can't afford social programs anymore without allowing the private sector in on things. They want us to believe they are powerless to do anything about it while market forces dictate money issues to them. As Linda McQuaig wrote, the impotence in Ottawa is self-induced.
The topic sounds interesting, I am curious where it would lead. I usually do not devote too many brain cells to economics because I usually live in the clouds where economics does not exist. My vocation is in science (Math and Physics) and, at this phase in my life I do not want to analyze various forms of irrationality of the human species. The way I imagine: economics would explain to me how we got to where we are now and how the current system keeps us there. This would be fascinating subject to a historian, a psychologist, a researcher in the field of mental aberrations.
On the other hand, if it would/could lead to a practical way out of this mess, I am all ears. I am not putting down economists but I do not consider economics a science, rather an organizational discipline in the best case, woo-doo mambo-jambo in the worst. If you think that an ignorant (in these matters) physical scientist would be interested, by all means, start a thread and I will try to follow. However, I won't promise anything.
- alien, sounds like a moniker for someone who considers themselves to be at least a bit out of the box - you may find this of interest, in terms of recent economic history you won't get to read about in the mainstream media - What Happened? http://www.rudemacedon.ca/what-happened.html .
If the baby boomer generation suffers a reduced level of healthcare, I'll be terribly surprised. OTOH, if they tax the system to the brink, leaving it tattered and broken for generations to follow, it will just be their typical behaviour once again. Time and time again, this generation has demanded the best available, and refused to pay their bills when they came due.
BTW, depending on who's definition you use, I may be a boomer myself. Makes me feel a little ashamed.
- LTJ, the 'sin' of the baby boomer generation (of which I am one) was that they allowed themselves to be taken in by the biggest scam in history. I haven't worked my way through it all yet, but the outline is here - the same essay I referred alien to earlier - What Happened? http://www.rudemacedon.ca/what-happened.html . Later generations have a bit more of an excuse for their failure to stop this great theft, as anyone born after 1970 was subjected to (continues to be) the greatest mass indoctrination in history via the television - but that's only a half excuse, as the truth is indeed out there, and freely available, for those with the intelligence and courage to turn off the tv and turn on their brains.
- alien, sounds like a moniker for someone who considers themselves to be at least a bit out of the box
Siamdave, I am so far out of the box that you might consider me nuts! Let me try to explain. When you reach my age and know that your days are really numbered, you do not want to waste whatever you still have left. You step back and look at the whole picture. Both your own life and humanity's. What did it mean? What was it all about? What should it have been like, how would you have done it if you were in charge? What is it that you truly believe in? You don't start tinkering with the existing system and wonder how it could be fixed, tweaked, modified to make it work. You tear it down (in your head) and rebuild it, following sane basic principles. When you are finished with this exercise, you have your own Utopia, a world you believe in.
Then you become defiant and tell yourself: why should I settle for anything less, for the few more years I still have? I will proudly hold my Utopia up to the whole world, as a banner, to show people what it should be like (could is another matter), maybe someone will be inspired and make a step or two in the right direction. On some days, when I am watching the news, I tell myself: I need to do this in order to hang on to my sanity. On some other days I am content with the knowledge that, at least, I figured it out for myself. That is why I call myself an 'alien' because often I really feel as if I were from another planet. You see, I am that far out of the box!
A little joke to illustrate: Priest from the pulpit says to the congregation: "Everyone in this Parish will die". Man in back giggles. Priest: "what's so funny?" Man: "I am from another Parish!"
If the baby boomer generation suffers a reduced level of healthcare, I'll be terribly surprised. OTOH, if they tax the system to the brink, leaving it tattered and broken for generations to follow, it will just be their typical behaviour once again. Time and time again, this generation has demanded the best available, and refused to pay their bills when they came due.
BTW, depending on who's definition you use, I may be a boomer myself. Makes me feel a little ashamed.
Not to get too much into political correctness, but who is "they"? You're not accusing the entire generation, i hope, 'cose some are non-white and many are (uh-oh!) non-male. But, okay, the 'they' who raise taxes on the middle class and poor, while cutting taxes on the rich and corporations, are mostly middle-aged - BB and Gen X, i would imagine. The people who started this process were mostly from previous generation - and indeed, mostly white and male, so it's probably okay to bad-mouth 'them'. As long as you don't include the veterans and strikers and freedom-riders.... The people who made the messes were not the majority of this, or any, generation: it was a very, very small minority of $multi-billion profiteers, and i doubt that club is age-restricted.
Yes, we did demand the best. For everyone. We - a great many of us, anyway, who were raised on a naive conception of 'modern science' - belived that a high standard of living was possible for the whole world - and that we could make it happen. Many of us gave our best, too, which was often pretty damn impressive.
Now comes the part i have a lot of trouble with.
To whom is the bill owed? By what contractual obligation? Who is trying to collect? How did everything come to be measured in dollars and the dollar value inflated to unimaginable numbers? We wanted a decent standard of education, housing and health. Not robocops and fighter-planes and unlimited bank profits and international junkets. Which is more expensive?
- alien, sounds like a moniker for someone who considers themselves to be at least a bit out of the box
Siamdave, I am so far out of the box that you might consider me nuts! Let me try to explain. When you reach my age and know that your days are really numbered, you do not want to waste whatever you still have left. You step back and look at the whole picture. Both your own life and humanity's. What did it mean? What was it all about? What should it have been like, how would you have done it if you were in charge? What is it that you truly believe in? You don't start tinkering with the existing system and wonder how it could be fixed, tweaked, modified to make it work. You tear it down (in your head) and rebuild it, following sane basic principles. When you are finished with this exercise, you have your own Utopia, a world you believe in.
Then you become defiant and tell yourself: why should I settle for anything less, for the few more years I still have? I will proudly hold my Utopia up to the whole world, as a banner, to show people what it should be like (could is another matter), maybe someone will be inspired and make a step or two in the right direction. On some days, when I am watching the news, I tell myself: I need to do this in order to hang on to my sanity. On some other days I am content with the knowledge that, at least, I figured it out for myself. That is why I call myself an 'alien' because often I really feel as if I were from another planet. You see, I am that far out of the box!
A little joke to illustrate: Priest from the pulpit says to the congregation: "Everyone in this Parish will die". Man in back giggles. Priest: "what's so funny?" Man: "I am from another Parish!"
- alien, I grok all that very well - maybe I'll get a chance to sit and have a beer or three with you someday, if I can ever afford to come back there for a wee visit, I am sure we would have an interesting chat. My own 'utopia' is expressed in another thing I wrote - Green Island http://www.rudemacedon.ca/greenisland.html . You take care now ...
BTW, depending on who's definition you use, I may be a boomer myself. Makes me feel a little ashamed.
Okay you really need to cite some evidence of this to bolster what I consider to be a rude and defaming commentary that is blatently untrue.
Here we go again about being offended. I wish there still was a rolling-eye smiley. Consider it here...
I believe that society is an unfair burden on old people. Can you refer me to the appropriate thread, please?
Brilliant.
And there are countless paths to follow from there. Though I'm not going to do that now.
And LTJ: "we are the generation who never paid the bills." Are you ever so wrong. I'll touch against that a couple points, but when I do, that just scratches the surface of how wrong you are. I know where people get the idea- beyond the usual suspects where such ideas come from- but the reasonable part of it is that us boomers grew up in a climate of prosperity. As a rule, no matter what our class, we had it easier than our parents. And those of us who are working class, had a hell of a lot more opportunities than our parents... albeit, the chances of actually realizing those was severely overated, to say the least.
Which is kind of the story of our generation- the impression of privilege. But...
And the reason I'm here writing about this is because on this day things come to a head that I am dealing with for my elderly father, and for my daughter who is also far away. In both cases, its up to me. I get help, I MAKE sure I get help, but its up to me. And a lot of it is beyond my control. So I'm waiting for phone calls and email. A habitually calm person quite stressed right now. Looking for distractions.
Let me tell you about paying bills. Let me not actually.
I didnt know about Roszak's book. I have to get that. Muy pronto. Thanks oldgoat. Havent read Roszak for decades. Wherever hes gone must be good, and the topic is right up things I think a lot about. Which I'll get to in a follow-up post.
The developing, inter-generational slanging match developing here is why this question must be taken out of the "moral question" category into politico-economic.
If anyone's game, may we have a go at it under a thread titled, oh, i dunno...."How We Got Here - Unable to Pay the Bills" ?
The developing, inter-generational slanging match developing here is why this question must be taken out of the "moral question" category into politico-economic.
If anyone's game, may we have a go at it under a thread titled, oh, i dunno...."How We Got Here - Unable to Pay the Bills" ?
Good idea, George, why not start it?
Up till yesterday I was happy I started this thread. Now I am not so sure, the way it suddenly turned in a potentially ugly and definitely non-productive way. Maybe this could be a good place to end the thread?
The developing, inter-generational slanging match developing here is why this question must be taken out of the "moral question" category into politico-economic.
If anyone's game, may we have a go at it under a thread titled, oh, i dunno...."How We Got Here - Unable to Pay the Bills" ?
- again, I can only suggest a read of my essay - it lays it all out pretty clearly. You're free to disagree - but you can't pretend ignorance ...
- again, I can only suggest a read of my essay - it lays it all out pretty clearly. You're free to disagree - but you can't pretend ignorance ...
siamdave, I read your essay and you are right: "it lays it all out pretty clearly". I found some real gems for myself.
How we got here? Way too big! Too many related topics and derailment opportunities. Interesting, though, if it could be broken down into components. I don't begin to know how to do that.
I'm getting to the non-moralistic political-economic. And "what is to be done?"
Barring sudden re-entry of "sandwich generation" issues I'm looking for distraction from.
...am sick of the crap that some people lay out about boomers being hedonistic, selfish lazy fucks.
It is BS.
The developing, inter-generational slanging match developing here is why this question must be taken out of the "moral question" category into politico-economic.
If anyone's game, may we have a go at it under a thread titled, oh, i dunno...."How We Got Here - Unable to Pay the Bills" ?
Good idea, George, why not start it?
Up till yesterday I was happy I started this thread. Now I am not so sure, the way it suddenly turned in a potentially ugly and definitely non-productive way. Maybe this could be a good place to end the thread?
Right. Let's start it at the end of the Depression, start of the Second World War. Pretty nearly everyone with a granpa has heard about that period. It's just that they often don't know how we got to "here" from "there"...in political and economic shifts. Let's see what happens. Any correctives are welcome at any time...any free of invective.
Up to Post #64 we had intelligent, productive, rational discussion of the topic and the issues it raised. I guess it was too naive to expect it to last. I am now gone from this thread, unless it goes back on track and discusses the issues and not our fragile feelings.
The decision to build the public pension and medicare system was taken before baby boomers were of age [or born even]. But we're the ones that paid for it.
No blame or anything, but the parents of boomers generations are the big intergenerational benificiaries. It was an excellent social decision and commitment to make. But one that was easily paid for by the fact that a very numerous generation was paying for the benefits of a small generation.
So that was easy. No sweat is good. Except for the consequence that nobody is really thinking about how this is going to work long term.
And there is a lot of BS to the long term financing issues of paying for pensions and medical care, even with the 'sweet spot' demograhics now flipped. Let alone all that crap society pays for with no complaints.
That said, there are two big elephants in the room:
(1) Medical care costs are continually escalating, per capita. And it isnt just the older generation, the steep curve up in the costs of caring for our diabetic sons and daughters for example. And while we let the mushrooming costs get away from us, we dont get around to focuing on health rather than illness and disease band aids.
(2) Continuing to pay for all this even with the flipped demographics of smaller generations paying for boomers should not be a problem.... if you assume an economy 20 and 30 years from now that is like what we have now. Did I hear the words climate change out there? And economic crises reverberating?
As well as the fact that a lot of us boomers are already very productive, "retired" or not....
I think its way too likely my kids will be facing a much more difficult world. Its already more difficult, but I mean LOTS more difficult. And on top of that, they'll have us to worry about.
I'm not just going to wait around. I'm not going to wait to be "helped". Which my parents, as hard as they worked, in the end did largely wait for help. [And it wasnt the state.... Here I am.]
I've been resourceful. I've got a lot of skills. And we'll be getting through this together.
Which is where I figure Roszak figures in: both that this is the generation that does not just wait, good for us; and what this might mean about our future.
See you there.
Personally, I am against the spreading of what I consider to be hate against a specific demographic, and will challenge it each and every time it rears its ugly head.
LTJ you are confusing two terms that refer to some of the same generation. The boomer generation also produced the yuppie generation. A lot of the boomers never got near the BWM's and Porsches of the yuppies but all the sins of the money grabbing hedonistic MBA's have been dumped on a generation most of whom have been struggling to pay the bills for 20 years while their real disposable income drops. Boomers have been paid less and less every year since the 1980's and it sure as hell wasn't them demanding tax cuts for businesses and rich people. The Yuppies sure did.
Its like the difference between and hippie and a yippie. Back in the day I thought being called a hippie was an insult but was happy to call myself a yippie. Now I'm way to old for the Youth International Party now.
They might not have made the demands for tax cuts, but they were happy to vote for the charlatans that promised they could have them and eat their cake too...
Huh? How do you presume this?
Again I ask you for proof of your assertations.
If you have these beliefs you must have the evidence to back it up one would presume.
Huh? How do you presume this?
Again I ask you for proof of your assertations.
If you have these beliefs you must have the evidence to back it up one would presume.
Well, the charlatans got elected and, boomers being a considerable portion of the population, it's fair to assume that a large number of us did vote for the charlatans. The question is not so much who, as why? My taxes didn't get cut. None of the people i know had their taxes cut. And none of us approved of RBC and Conrad Black having their taxes cut - but nobody asked us about that. What did happen, that should not have happened, is that we believed a lot of propaganda. No, i didn't, but many many of my generation did. Were too easy to scare and didn't take the trouble to find out. That still holds true, of all ages.
I don't know.. What's the % of the voting public that cast their ballets for the Conservativesand Liberals? I guess you can say they're the real problem.
They're the ones that thought you could cut taxes and still party.
It's never nice when Satan comes collecting.
Really let's not get on the Boomer generation's case-- they made substantial social progress as well. Some of that progress is being turned back now but it was impressive nonetheless. And you can no more blame them for their governmetn than you can blame every single Canadian for the one we have now. We don't all vote the same way.
You'll love Theodore Roszak , Sean.
Thanks-- I'll have to look in to him. I let google be my friend and saw references to The Making of an Elder Culture. I had heard of but not read The Making of a Counter Culture so I wonder if I need to read that one first.
I want to read Elder Culture, and Roszak can be good, but I remember Making of a Counter Culture as being pap. Sort of feel good dreaming with no substance.
Even if you were charitable to it, its at best dated now. And what you might like in it, looks like the general 'thesis' about the generation is in Elder Culture anyway. And who need a whole book of that?
As it is, even reduced in time spent on it, it wont surprise me if Elder Culture has a bit much of the 'power / potential of a generation' for my tastes. And even if it doesnt bug you, how long does it take to get that across?
I think you are more liking to not read Elder Culture if you read the other one first. Gag on all the bath water... 'what baby?'
We have Washington style lobbying in Ottawa since Mulroney. And we have rightwing think tanks lobbying senators today. 30 years ago they were just considered rightwing think tanks. Today they are bending the ears of phony majority, and now phony minority governments in Ottawa. A lot of things have changed since the 1970s. This isn't the same Canadian economic setup that Tommy Douglas and CCF dealt with. In some ways Canadians have been forced to drink stronger doses of the neoliberal kool aid than many of the former Soviet countries and developing economies were sucked into doing since the 1980s. Once the oil and gas are gone, we'll be paying a lot more to live in the Northern Puerto Rico than before. Perhaps the real Puerto Rico might even become a good place to move to at some point for millions of Canadians if foreigners continue siphoning off Canada's valuable energy and raw materials at fire sale prices.
You'll love Theodore Roszak , Sean.
Ahh, that brings me back to being 3,000 ft. below the surface of the earth, reading The Making of a Counter Culture, the same depth at which I read The Idiot and Diary of a Madman.
It's not as though Roszak doesn't understand the need to turn things around, or is ignorant of the degree to which the U.S. has failed its working class and exported a sweatshop criminality to Asia and Latin America. As he wraps up the lead chapter, "Maturity Rules" :
"The American corporate community has used its inordinate power to configure the global economy as an extension of its own mean-sprited social ethic, a policy orient5ation that impoverishes peole throughout the developing world, starting with its homeland where, in the period 1974 to 2004, it has, according to a 2007 survey bvy the Pew Charitable Trust's Economic Mobility Project, for the first time in the nation's history driven the earnings of working people below those of their fathers. A century after the first labor laws were passed in the United States, American firms are once again setting up sweatshops, beating down unions and putting children to work where they can get away with it - mainly in Asia and Latin America. The influence of our neoconservative corporate community is now an impediment to humane reform, environmental health, and social justice everywhere. It has imposed a free-market orthodoxy and a grinding Social-Darwinist ethic on the world at large. It has vastly widened the gap between rich and poor and is ruthlessly exploiting the planetary ecology. Worst of all, the American corporate community has by example, by competitive pressure, and by investment encouraged other societies as consequential as China and India to imitate its myopic standards.
"What I propose here simply calls for extending the spirit that underliesthe seniior entitlements to our society as a whole - and above all the concept fo entitlement as a rightful claim upon the wealth wwe have all created. That may not seem like much in the way of a utopian alternative, but given the fierce and benighted ideological agenda of the corporate elite in out political life, it will be a fight to accomplish that much. If boomers can change the self-serving entrepreneurial and neoconservative values that now dominate our lives, they will have made a historic contribution not only to their own society but to the modern world at large. In their own interests, boomers have every good reason to take on the task of taming the world's most dynamic, most market-oriented economy and to bring it under the guidance of an elder culture that sets a new criterion for wealth and progress..."
And of course, having failed to even intimate how one "reforms" corporations while also demanding that they perform well or they will be left behind on the market by one's own retirement fund manager, it turns out that there is nothing in this beyond feel-good positivism...which seems to be where Counter Culture left off. And of course, the flower people have been involved right along in the destruction of the garden.
You know what term is driving me crazy and if I hear it one more time I'll scream? It's ZOOMER. They're not boomers anymore. They're Zoomers.
I just wish they would accept themselves as being old and get over it.
This whole concept of speaking in generalities about an age cohort, be it Boomers, or GenX, or whatever, seems to me to be too foolish and pointless to even refute. It is just clearly nonsense. I was born in 1947, which, according to this classification, makes me an early Boomer. I am indeed getting old, and I have no problem accepting that. What I do have a problem accepting is fools who insist that I have more in common with members of my age cohort than I do with people both older and younger than I am who share my beliefs and values. Enough of the bullshit.
People of a like age enjoy (or not) similar social benefits and opportunities (or not) in a welfare state that is running out of resources. This emerging condition of scarcity makes age relationships meaningful. But it is also a controversy skewed by the bean counters among a consuming society of taxpayers for comparing life chances across age groups when comparison with "the Jones's" goes stale.
Those who understand that the generations of Homo sapiens to follow will be materially shortchanged because of their late arrival are the realists. The species has for some time foreshortened its concerns like old "in-the-long-run-we-are-dead" Keynes.