Come on man, if the majority of people were that responsible, there would be no financial crisis and I would have had to pay a lot more for the condo that I recently bought.
& SNYP40A1 Well, that's a surprise. The usual response for anti-aging research is very negative. It has surprised me the amount of hostility against something like this. You guys pro attitude is not typical. I don't know what to make of it, I always figured this was a no-brainer even with the problems that would come about - but no, people really are against it - it boggles the mind. I can't figure out why people willingly want to accept frailty, decrepitude, dysfunction and then death as a relief. But that's the way it is.
Do healthcare costs affect other industries too? Why aren't other businesses going bankrupt because of these costs?
http://www.mfoundation.org I think I understand. It's basically a form of Stockholm Syndrome. If you can't live without something, you better figure out how to live comfortably with it. Basically, most people think that aging will not be cured in his/her lifetime, so best thing to do is try not to think about it too much. It's depressing seeing how the government spends so much money on worthless things while research in an area which will benefit millions and save the govt. billions years later down the road is neglected. I am talking about this: http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/30462/ The simple reason is that people live for today and are not so concerned about payoffs in the future. Fortunately, we can appreciate what we do have today compared to 2000, 500, or even 50 years ago. I would rather be in the bottom 20% of income today than the top 10% of income 200 years ago -- I would still have a higher quality of life (ignoring the social features).
you would be correct, at least IMHO. I do think that Detroit is what is going to bring Universal Healthcare to the United States.