<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Age, Wealth, and Medicare</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/humannature/archive/2008/07/23/age-wealth-and-medicare.aspx</link><description>Should Medicare pay big bucks to extend people's lives past 100? I've been noodling that question since Friday, when the New York Times ran a story headlined, " Rise Seen in Medical Efforts to Treat the Very Old ." The story focused on a woman who got</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.2)</generator></channel></rss>