It's obvious to anyone paying attention that we don't have enough young people working to support the cost of health and Super for the elderly. 

This problem is going to get much worse in the coming decades. 

All this is spelled out in a Treasury report, which Thomas Coughlin published in the Herald today. 

This is not new. We've known this for a long time. 

Future governments will either have to take a sledgehammer to spending on health or raise the age of Super. 

The obvious answer is to raise the age of Super. It'll happen eventually, of course, just not while Winston's around. 

But the other thing we could cut is our expectations. 

Boys born in the early 1960s (who are reaching 65-years-old) could expect to live to around 79 years on average, and girls to around 83 years. Boys born in the early 2020s (the latest data available) could expect to live to around 88 years on average, and girls to around 91 years.

So we've added about 10 years to our lives. 

This is very expensive. This is only going to get better, or worse, depending on how you look at it. 

Now, I was speaking to a woman in her 70s this week who firmly believes when you reach the age of 80, you must choose: the pension or the health care. 

How can we afford to fill our hospitals keeping 80+ year-olds alive, and keep paying their pensions, and not send the country bankrupt? 

I know this sounds jarring. I know it sounds cruel. 

But isn't it fair to ask how we plan to fund the very expensive, long lives we are now planning to live? Which, by the way, was not the intention when the pension was set up, when it was universal - the age has blown out massively hasn't it?

I know. It sounds a little jarring. But if we're on the road to financial Armageddon, as this Treasury report makes clear, is not fair to ask how long we're wanting to stay on this road and exactly what our destination is?