• Thatuserguy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Awesome, so does this mean all the rich old dudes ruining everything for everyone else get to continue to do so for longer? You just know something like this would be prohibitively expensive to the general populace. Really exciting.

        • wahming@monyet.ccM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Universal healthcare is a thing. The US is possibly the only first world exception. I live in Norway, and pay a maximum of $250 a year on medical expenses. Everything else gets covered by the govt.

          • vind@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            I’m aware. However, things like this feel like it would be considered beauty care which generally is not considered to be applicable for universal healthcare.

            • wahming@monyet.ccM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              8 months ago

              Age-related symptoms and diseases are the biggest burden on healthcare infrastructure. Anything that reduces said impact would definitely fall under healthcare.

              • vind@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Yes, but history this doesn’t support that belief. Unfortunately

  • TQuid@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is great! Rats’ short lifespans have discouraged me from having them as pets