Hence the current mess of our politics, people are waking up to the idea, all is not well with capitalism and marketization low tax etc.
War is hard sell these days, people are far to well informed it would take catastrophic event to mobilise me, firm believer in democracy and the made bed should be laid in .
Yep, I would be concerned about Assisted death, if I were a certain age. Indeed, I would worry about that now, but only in some parts of our kingdom.
Always funding for War not it seems for our older citizens.
Social care system near 'tipping point', care watchdog warns
Boris Johnson says Britain should consider further military action in Syria
I'm not sure what that rant about the unemployed has got to do with anything. The unemployed are but a small fraction of the working age population and the long-term unemployed account for about 1 in every 71 of the population. In case you hadn't noticed, the participation rate, the proportion of the working age population in work is at an all-time high. Unemployment was double what it is now back in the early 90s. So, whatever you may think they think and do, the unemployed aren't going to have much effect on the NHS, compared to other more significant factors.
I dare say anyone who has been unemployed for a period would be in need of support one way or other. So its an easy target to attack the unemployed as they are socially economically and culturally perceived as being weak. Its not prudent picking a fight with a section of society particularly if they have the confidence of ruling Government behind them, as they are just going to come back at you!
Uh oh, looks like the social care cuts are now having undesired consequences by piling extra pressures on the NHS, well for NHS England at least.
Government's NHS funding claims 'incorrect'
What we need to do is encourage more smoking with subsidised cigarettes. 
It has been known for some years that smokers cost the NHS less than non-smokers. (Also smokers collect fewer pension payments.)
Said department - Geratology - Oxford University Hospitals
Anyway we are likely to see social care and the NHS crashing into a big pile of rubble, with a lot of distress caused. Cue Hunt - "Private Sector to the Rescue, no they are not my mates. Honest".
The underlying issue is the huge increase in the numbers of elderly. Your age is the strongest indicator of how much use you will make of the NHS. Therefore, an ageing population increases NHS demand even if the population total remains static.
I have been looking at some of the statistics on this. (Sad, I know.) In 1963 the median age of death was 72, i.e. 50% of deaths in that year were of people below this age. Last year that figure was 82.
The older the age you look at the bigger the increase in numbers. In 1963 27% of deaths were of people over 80, 4% of people over 90 and 0.06% of people over 100. Last year the comparable numbers were 56%, 22% and 1.1%. Those are huge increases - double the amount of people at 80, five times as many at 90 and 20 times as many at 100!
Although NHS budgets always go up we cannot expect NHS budgets to keep up with this level of growth.
At the moment life expectancy at 65 is around 20 years. So if you started work at 18 and worked constantly till you retired at 65, then if you make average life expectancy of 85 you will have spent the majority of your life out of work!
So my conclusion is that we cannot expect the government to pay for our old age - we will need to fund it ourselves.
However, who funds care for the elderly, be it state or private, is only part of the issue. The other issue is that the rise in numbers of the elderly and the fall in numbers of the young is likely to result in a care crisis as the ratio of those that need support and those willing to provide it falls significantly. Immigration of younger workers is generally seen as the best solution to this issue - but that isn't a popular solution in current political climates.
^^
Good post.
It is only a temporary solution because the young ones grow old. You can keep bringing in young workers but they too will grow old and so it goes on.
We do have to look at the retirement age. 65 is no longer a sensible age to quit paying into the system- not if you are going to live another 20 years.
Not only that, in 1963 when you lived to an average age of 72, it was probably a quick end to your life. Living to 80 or 90 gets more complicated because many of our systems, although failing can be kept going with expensive drugs and medical care. Of course the big expensive one is dementia which is usually something that kicks in after 80and may require care home expenditure.
Do you think occupations also contribute?
For instance computer technology is still evolving at a rapid rate, and it employs millions.
Can these people realistically keep up with the continuing different programming etc as they get older.
Will they be on the scrap heap at a lot younger age?