>The root of many of these problems is that people are living much longer but expecting to retire at the same age as years ago. When the idea of caring for people in old age was first raised very few people actually made it that far.
>
>I guess it's good that we're living longer lives but as you say, the reality is that cost of care rises exponentially with age. Aging population = growing cost. Either we accept these costs as part of the price of being a first world nation, meaning we have to find a way to fund everybody's potential expectations somehow, or we stop pretending that we don't have rationing and we discuss it rationally, no pun intended. ;-) The reality is that *every* system already has rationing. Socialized systems tend to use waiting lists; insurance schemes tend to use co-pays/deductibles/exclusions/expulsions. If people can't or won't accept that, there isn't much point trying to discuss further IMHO meaning that costs will rise until it becomes unaffordable and then there will be a crisis. Shame- you don't have to be a doctor to know that prevention is better than cure.

You're absolutely correct about rationing. Now, who do you want to do the rationing?

If you want the State to ration care then universal care is for you.
If you want insurance companies to ration care then our current system is for you.
If you, the individual, want to ration your care, then we need to open up the market.