The Rudd Government’s latest health blueprint is a well-intentioned but ultimately futile attempt to manage a system that has become the unwitting tool of our quest for immortality.

No matter how well the system is managed, it will remain unsustainable so long as we expect it to keep us alive way after we have passed our personal use-by date.

As we await the barrage of Baby Boomers to enter old age and demand access to the life-sustaining machines that go ‘beep’, we should draw inspiration from the 1970s classic Logan’s Run and accept death is part of the deal.

For those who weren’t around in the seventies (and you are my target audience here), Logan’s Run was a sci-fi classic (with a spin-off TV series) about an idyllic world where everyone was young, attractive and promiscuous - like Bondi, only in the 23rd century.

The only catch was that when you hit the age of 30 you were surplus to requirements, a drain on the resources of the State and you would be eradicated by the sandman.

When Logan hit D-Day he decided this was not such a good idea and took off, hence the run, into an unknown that only ended when he reached Peter Ustinov

I loved the show, although at the time I could never work out why Logan was the hero. Surely, he had played the game – and after all, 30 was seriously old!

I think of Logan when I think of the demographic wave that is about to hit our health system, the Baby Boomers who have spent their lives maximising welfare and minimising tax.

Now if you are a Boomer, please don’t take this personally, but on an abstract level you are about to become a massive drain on the rest of the society.

And it’s not just the pension, because of medical advances you are not going to have just a few years of lawn bowls: you are going to be around FOREVER.

And when your bodies start breaking down you are going to expect the health system to keep you alive. You will demand it deliver and, as has been the case for the rest of your existence, you will have the voting bloc to get the results you want.

Not content with heart surgery to unclog your arteries and quantum advances in the management of cancer, chances are the health system will be providing treatments that will keep you hanging on well into your second century.

And having frittered away your superannuation by the time you are eighty, every extra year will come straight out of social security and health budgets.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t want you to die; I just think that the onus is on you to explain why we should keep you alive after your body has packed it in.

I think of my Nanna. She is 101 years old She is diabetic. Most of her stomach has been removed so she has to eight about 12 tiny meals each day. She is deaf. Most days she is miserable. She is not going anywhere.

I think she largely gets through each day out of a sense of routine and duty; prompted mainly by the fact that she has medications that keep her going.

Unlike Logan’s Run, I am not advocating euthanasia – personally I have no problem with Phillip Nietschke, but that is a different argument.

What I want to question is whether a health system should really be focussed on extending life – rather than assisting us maximise the enjoyment of the time we have.

To this end, I submit my first entry in the Punch’s archive of Policy Ideas that Make Sense On Paper But Will Never Work in the Real World.

It is based on basic user-pay principles, delivered via the tax system and called simply the Life Extension Tax or LET.

Under the LET, citizens would have a series of options on how they would access the health system.

Base Life Option would provide full health cover up until the average age of death.  (base tax rate)

Base Life plus Ten option would give you an extra ten years during which you could hook-up to the latest technologies to get chugging along. (Base rate plus 10 per cent)

God Complex Option would give you access to full life-extending technologies all the way into your centurion years (a 25 per cent premium).

I’m Too Bad To Meet My Maker – God Complex plus cryogenics allowing you to while away your afterlife in a freezer.

The catch? You would choose your level of coverage of the age of 30, giving you the opportunity to actually fund the research and hardware that will prolong your existence up front.

Just like Logan, the LET scheme will let you control your exit date. Me? I’m sticking to the Base Rate – I’ve always been cheap and have no desire to see out my days in nappies.

Most commented

11 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • RT says:

      08:45am | 04/08/09

      OK, it’s a windup. We baby boomers are supposed to now feel guilty that over the next few decades, the health system will be harnessed disproportionately in our benefit.

      The article misses its mark though. It’s not so much death that people fear as suffering. While the preservation of life is a primary function of the health system, so is the relief of suffering, in the process of which, life might be prolonged further than otherwise might have been.

      There is an alternative - voluntary euthnasia. Few of us want to linger in a decrepit, ailing, painful twilight. Society has to overcome its squeamishness on the topic and develop some practical rules to prevent abuse, then legalise it.

    • Isabel says:

      08:53am | 04/08/09

      Am not afraid of death itself, but am very cautious about the manner of dying. How about Basic Life Option the average of one’s deceased ancestors giving some of us credit for the wisdom of being conceived into a line with a long life? Options could include a levy on the tax to cover dying in the manner of one’s deceased family. So, if it was they died of a heart attack and you were foolish enough not to adopt a protective life-style then you would be allowed to depart in peace.
      Given the choices, I would prefer to go with a sudden heart attack and had been considering a tattoo - DO NOT RESUSCITATE - but then realised I would have to live in a T shirt with the same message and with my luck the T shirt would be in the wash at the crucial time.
      Logans Run . Was that the one where people took their chance going through a tunnel with most surviving the journey, the random nature of the act ensured going into the run became the gamble of the day ideally replacing use of illicit drugs and any other form of suicidal behaviour.

    • Isabel says:

      09:07am | 04/08/09

      Didn’t see the TV version, but this was the basis for a memorable sci-fi story

    • Shannon says:

      09:46am | 04/08/09

      I like the idea Pete, the problem is that those people who should have taken up this tax system the most - ie: the boomers who are about to become a massive drain on resources - have already missed the boat… Whether we like it or not, the rest are paying for them to retire into the manner in which they are accustomed.

      You really want to ensure there is something left over for the rest of us? Scrap negative gearing. All those Boomers now selling their houses at cost, which means X’s and Y’s will actually have a chance to get into the housing market. And the Government would get tax revenue on those investment properties boomers do keep, which can fund their health costs!

    • CJ says:

      09:54am | 04/08/09

      One easy option would be to allow stem cell research, then life could be like that episode of Family Guy where Peter suffers a stroke after eating thirty hamburgers, which paralyzed the left side of his body affecting his speech and giving him a limp. He then walks into a stem cell clinic and comes out 5 minutes later and is cured! If the religious fanatics stop having so much say in science and health care, perhaps it wouldn’t be such a drain on society.

    • Tom says:

      10:17am | 04/08/09

      As member of Generation Y and one who will be expected to pay for the Boomers’ medical costs as they grow old and useless…. I think Mr Lewis might be onto something.

      P.S - Sorry Mum and Dad.

    • Paul says:

      10:39am | 04/08/09

      Peter, you are spot on with this blog today. It’s really a debate that must be made more prominent and guidelines put in place for the medical profession. Often we spend enormous amounts of money keeping eg demented patients alive (sometimes at their relative’s assistance, sometimes because the doctor doesn’t know when to pull out) or patients we know are likely to die in the next couple of months. Meanwhile people complain because there is not enough funds for better child protection services. They already know in the US that there is no way they will be able to fund the health care ‘entitlements’ that politicians have promised baby boomers in the US. The amount is in trillions and you would have to tax the future taxpayer at over 90% to afford them. So good on you for bringing this issue up Peter - there is no doubt it will become a more and more pressing issue as the years go by.

    • RT says:

      11:26am | 04/08/09

      Shannon - ‘scrap negative gearing’ - that was done by the Hawke Government in the 80s. The resulting flight of capital from the housing market caused a drastic drop in the number of available rental properties. Neg gearing was re-introduced. The same would happen again. For better or worse, neg gearing props up the rental market. The second reason is - no government will introduce a policy that causes house values to drop. That would be electoral suicide. People trying to get into the house market won’t like it, but they are outnumbered by people already in the market who don’t want to see the value of their main investment fall. Sorry, mate, baby boomers win again.

    • Danny F says:

      01:46pm | 04/08/09

      RT: The ‘drastic drop’ you cite cannot be seen using the rental statistics of the time. It was a scare campaign run by the real estate industry. I can offer a far better solution. Only allow negative gearing on new properties, or properties less than 5 years old. This means that investers can only negatively gear if they are adding to supply - a fair deal for all. Properties which are currently negatively geared would be able to remain that way, so that existing investors are fairly treated.

    • John with cufflinks says:

      05:18pm | 04/08/09

      Peter has a good point here.  What do we do when the total amount that we produce in our entire lives is exceeded by the cost of our health care between our 80th and 110th year?

      At that point we have to decide that we can’t affod to keep everyone alive for as long as they’d like to live.

      We can moralise that live is more precious than money but at some point as medicine advances it may well be that the cost of keeping everyone going would exceed total GDP.  In other words there would be no choice but to let people die for lack of willingness to spend money keeoing them alive.

    • Jason M says:

      07:50pm | 04/08/09

      Brave article Peter!!  It would be interesting to have some numbers on the average age of people reading the Punch. Maybe you could publish the article in a couple of our classic magazines, sorry i mean papers the Daily tel and the Herald sun.  I think you may cause the uproar of the year, would be fantastic to let the boomers loose on this one…
      I would not be stressing to much the majority of them smoke and drunk like rock and roll stars through the 60’s 70’s and 80’s! The walking water drinking revoloution did not really kick in to the late 90’s.. Long live every one

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

Colleague Googled http://t.co/kL2eCAMvdj today and this was top result. Thanks fellas. http://t.co/G9ctaPaGqA

Paul Colgan

Amen, Senator... John McCain To Tim Cook: ‘Why The Hell Do I Have To Keep Updating Apps On My iPhone?’http://t.co/V9XIbzw752

Malcolm Farr

@nigelmcbain I don't see the nexus between gay marriage and gay sex education in schools. ACL does. Health issues should be taught whatever

Daniel Piotrowski

@jennijenni a few companies are known to do that - ask for story ideas from job applicants so they can steal them later

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter