If Mort Divine ruled the world

[EternalMetal]

Then let families shoulder that burden. If the luxury of social security and medicare putting grandma out of sight, out of mind is so wonderful, they should pay for it. If grandparents are so terrible that their own children would let them die, that's the fault of the grandparents. The elderly are the last group in America that deserves to be supported by government money.

Most nursing homes cost in excess of $100k a year, which is excessive for anyone but those who are extremely wealthy (it also drains most retirement accounts years before people are ready to die). Most old people usually get to the point where they need 24/7 care, which usually cant be provided for by families properly because they have jobs and other responsibilities (let alone lack nursing training and other skills to properly care for them depending on their ailments). The idea of elder abuse is a problem these days because family units cannot afford to put the money, time, and/or effort into providing the needed care. I also disagree with your last statement. Our elderly citizens more often than not have put their time in working, contributing to the community, and were the backbone of our country in the past. They deserve the support of their communities if the need arises. What other group is more qualified for government aid? Some 30-something who has "back issues" and "cant find work"?

 

[Dak]

You just linked a report from Jeff Sessions. You're seriously a Trump acolyte, just licking away at that man's faux-golden asshole.

You should read follow-ups on that report. But I doubt any of them would mean anything to you, since they were conducted by the crooked media.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog..._blog.html?tid=a_mcntx&utm_term=.76b9d4478cd2

Nothing in here clearly disputes the findings. He used nonpartisan data and then openly divided it between programs requiring contributions (ponzi schemes themselves, still taking money from the poorer young to give to the more well off old), and those that do not require contributions and are means-tested. The article takes issue with the inclusion of Medicaid for no other reason than because it covers medical services, and as such "doesn't raise income levels". You were taking issue with tautologies earlier, well there is one.

I specifically don't like Session's drug war stance, but that has nothing to do with this.

 

[Einherjar86]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...?tid=a_mcntx&utm_term=.7d097327f7e7#pagebreak

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Most nursing homes cost in excess of $100k a year, which is excessive for anyone but those who are extremely wealthy (it also drains most retirement accounts years before people are ready to die). Most old people usually get to the point where they need 24/7 care, which usually cant be provided for by families properly because they have jobs and other responsibilities (let alone lack nursing training and other skills to properly care for them depending on their ailments). The idea of elder abuse is a problem these days because family units cannot afford to put the money, time, and/or effort into providing the needed care. I also disagree with your last statement. Our elderly citizens more often than not have put their time in working, contributing to the community, and were the backbone of our country in the past. They deserve the support of their communities if the need arises. What other group is more qualified for government aid? Some 30-something who has "back issues" and "cant find work"?

Does it cost 100k a year to let grandma live with you? If no, then it's a luxury, not a necessity.

The elderly have the privilege of an illusion of earning it. The average lifetime of tax dollars contributed to the system do not come close to the amount that they end up taking back out. Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes required constant hikes until the 90s when they reached a politically inconvenient threshold and preferred to just allow the systems to simply accrue a deficit. If they contributed so much to the community, it should have been reflected in their earnings or savings.

Children are the most qualified since they lack most rights that adults possess, and as a result are quite helpless. They also are the group with the most potential in life and the most malleable minds. The elderly are merely the shell that remains after all their potential has been drained.

 

[CiG]

Our system is built for white, upper middle to higher class people. Those born into poverty stay there usually. There's a reason why the black/brown unemployment rate is significantly higher than that of white people and it isn't because those people are just lazier.

How is it built that way? That fails to explain successful non-white minority groups as well as generations of failure in many parts of white America. More tangible factors would seem to include:

1. A suppressed Hispanic median income due to continued import of illegal immigrants
2. High rates of felony convictions among blacks reducing their employability
3. Corrupt local leadership, particularly in black cities
4. Lack of interest in high-demand/well-paying jobs such as engineering and medicine, particularly among blacks

If all that's standing in the way of minorities (besides the ones already doing amazingly well like most Asians and Jews as well as many African immigrants) is that a bigoted manager won't hire anybody with "Jamal Johnson" at the top of their résumé then they should just change their name to "Bjorn Eriksson" and enjoy some of that sweet sweet white privilege.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I’m fully aware of that but don’t think we should use government force on the unwilling (rich and middle class taxpayers) to fix it

Those that want to help them should do it out of their own pocket and free will

That won’t cover everybody who needs help but life’s tough

best post from the last 2 pages

 

[rms]

@Dak

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...cbb62019393_story.html?utm_term=.76fe57b594dd

 

[Einherjar86]

Does it cost 100k a year to let grandma live with you? If no, then it's a luxury, not a necessity.

The elderly have the privilege of an illusion of earning it. The average lifetime of tax dollars contributed to the system do not come close to the amount that they end up taking back out. Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes required constant hikes until the 90s when they reached a politically inconvenient threshold and preferred to just allow the systems to simply accrue a deficit. If they contributed so much to the community, it should have been reflected in their earnings or savings.

None of this is sensible or believable.

The cost of "letting grandma live with you" may not be reflected in $100,00 per year for groceries and other necessities, but it might necessitate a different living arrangement, which would mostly likely mean an increase in rent, which might mean that the family needs to work more to pay rent, which means they wouldn't be around to take care of their elderly family member.

Additionally, "the amount of tax dollars contributed to the system do[es] not come close to the amount they end up taking back out" because many of them don't make enough money to pay that much in taxes, which also means they don't end up with enough personal savings later on. This doesn't mean they haven't contributed to society. Working a decent, socially contributing job that pays very little might not afford someone enough savings to make the transition into a nursing facility. There's no reason to assume that legitimate contributions to society automatically result in enough money to pay for elder care.

 

[Dak]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...?tid=a_mcntx&utm_term=.7d097327f7e7#pagebreak

I saw that article, but that's a rebuttal of a chart presented in a hearing related to household spending, rather than simply the gross expenditure, which was what my link referred to. I understand there are many more difficulties in determining things like household spending, not the least of which is determining the number of "households". Again, the only notable disagreement to the writeup I linked was at the inclusion of Medicaid, as it "isn't income". I reject that as irrelevant. It may rightly be considered the "benefits" side of a "pay and benefits" package for merely existing in a mostly or entirely unproductive state in America (for whatever reasons that state of low or no productivity might be). Ironically, this is the same sort of issue ignorant rightwingers stumble over when looking at military pay. Military pay is much higher now than in the past, but even before and now, the DoD pay chart fails to capture a significant amount of benefits that are not paid in income, but instead save that paid income for other expenses - most notably the provided housing, food cost, and medical coverage. This "benefits" half of the pay and benefits package, at lower ranks, may exceed the pay side. Nevermind access to free amenities like gyms, pools, etc.

@Dak
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...cbb62019393_story.html?utm_term=.76fe57b594dd

Pretty torn on this issue on several levels, all the way down to the reversal on the water bottle ban. I think that preserving many park spaces is a valuable enterprise, but that it shouldn't be an endeavor done at the Federal level whatsoever. I am concerned that this doesn't appear even like a half measure in that direction though, so much as simply hanging it out to dry. I'm fine with that in some areas, as bureaucracies often create their own work. The safe maintenance of physical spaces though is not something that can just be back-burnered. Hand it off to the states, or take proper ownership of it.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

None of this is sensible or believable.

The cost of "letting grandma live with you" may not be reflected in $100,00 per year for groceries and other necessities, but it might necessitate a different living arrangement, which would mostly likely mean an increase in rent, which might mean that the family needs to work more to pay rent, which means they wouldn't be around to take care of their elderly family member.

Additionally, "the amount of tax dollars contributed to the system do[es] not come close to the amount they end up taking back out" because many of them don't make enough money to pay that much in taxes, which also means they don't end up with enough personal savings later on. This doesn't mean they haven't contributed to society. Working a decent, socially contributing job that pays very little might not afford someone enough savings to make the transition into a nursing facility. There's no reason to assume that legitimate contributions to society automatically result in enough money to pay for elder care.

lmao, you seriously think the difference in renting a slightly larger home with one guest room is going to add 100k/yr to a family budget? Back a couple generations when it was common to have grandparents living with you, everyone apparently earned enough to shoulder that 100k/yr burden? In Mediterranean cultures where it's still common to have multi-generational family units, are they all somehow making more than 100k/yr despite having far lower reported median income numbers than the USA? Completely absurd.

It pretty much does. A person working minimum wage for their entire life with no savings has fucked up severely somewhere. These are people that never made a net contribution to society. Pitching in a quarter and taking out a dollar isn't a contribution.

 

[Dak]

lmao, you seriously think the difference in renting a slightly larger home with one guest room is going to add 100k/yr to a family budget? Back a couple generations when it was common to have grandparents living with you, everyone apparently earned enough to shoulder that 100k/yr burden? In Mediterranean cultures where it's still common to have multi-generational family units, are they all somehow making more than 100k/yr despite having far lower reported median income numbers than the USA? Completely absurd.

It pretty much does. A person working minimum wage for their entire life with no savings has fucked up severely somewhere. These are people that never made a net contribution to society. Pitching in a quarter and taking out a dollar isn't a contribution.

I would point out that real estate prices are different in different places and eras. Where Ein lives, it might cost an extra 100k. However, no one is making everyone live in the US North East, and most people don't. But those people should be planning to exit places like that. It's not on all of society that some people, and their families, won't take any ownership of their issues.

 

[Einherjar86]

lmao, you seriously think the difference in renting a slightly larger home with one guest room is going to add 100k/yr to a family budget? Back a couple generations when it was common to have grandparents living with you, everyone apparently earned enough to shoulder that 100k/yr burden? In Mediterranean cultures where it's still common to have multi-generational family units, are they all somehow making more than 100k/yr despite having far lower reported median income numbers than the USA? Completely absurd.

No, I don't think that. And if you read what I wrote, it isn't at all what I was saying.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

No, I don't think that. And if you read what I wrote, it isn't at all what I was saying.

As usual you didn't try to give any specifics, you just said that there would be an increased burden on families (no shit, my first sentence in a previous post said "let families shoulder that burden") and acted as if pointing that out disproves anything. The point is that more than half of our budget is spent on the elderly, a cost clearly not equivalent to that of letting families support their own elderly, yet in the past there was never this massive epidemic of old people just being kicked to the curb and starving to death.

 

[Dak]

SciFiers live in zeroscarcity environments.

 

[Einherjar86]

As usual you didn't try to give any specifics, you just said that there would be an increased burden on families (no shit, my first sentence in a previous post said "let families shoulder that burden") and acted as if pointing that out disproves anything. The point is that more than half of our budget is spent on the elderly, a cost clearly not equivalent to that of letting families support their own elderly, yet in the past there was never this massive epidemic of old people just being kicked to the curb and starving to death.

There was never a massive epidemic of old people because old people have only started living as old as they do very recently in the history of humanity. Families also used to tend to live together and structured their lives accordingly when the economy afforded them that opportunity. It's still the case that some families do this out in bumfuck nowhere, but it's not the case of most families living in urban areas. What you're asking for simply isn't plausible on any mass scale, and if you had your way there would be an increase in elder mortality.

As usual, you ignore a host of other conditions and circumstances and choose to focus solely on the ones you care about, with no regard for how the whole impacts the particulars.

SciFiers live in zeroscarcity environments.

You live in a libertarian fantasy land. It's not much better.

 

[Dak]

You live in a libertarian fantasy land. It's not much better.

I recognize that there's low political tolerability for real solutions not only in terms of economics, but for the behavioral and cognitive solutions for health problems faced across chronic health domains. It's endemic to both my professional and personal education. That real solutions aren't acceptable isn't fantasy. The fantasy is in thinking "middle way" options with anti-solutions help fix problems.

 

[Einherjar86]

Real solutions would be acceptable. The problem is that what you propose usually isn't realistic.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

There was never a massive epidemic of old people because old people have only started living as old as they do very recently in the history of humanity. Families also used to tend to live together and structured their lives accordingly when the economy afforded them that opportunity. It's still the case that some families do this out in bumfuck nowhere, but it's not the case of most families living in urban areas. What you're asking for simply isn't plausible on any mass scale, and if you had your way there would be an increase in elder mortality.

As usual, you ignore a host of other conditions and circumstances and choose to focus solely on the ones you care about, with no regard for how the whole impacts the particulars.

Define "very recently". The age at which old people die has not changed dramatically over the last 150+ years; you may be confused by average life expectancy statistics which are skewed by very high rates of child mortality pre-1900s.

(That data is the UK but I don't think it's particularly different for the USA)

The reason families don't live together anymore is significantly *because* of government assuming the role of caretaker. Are you suggesting that old people don't live in urban areas right now? Like, they retire and we ship them off to a nursing home in a cornfield in Kansas, because urban population density is too high? I'm sure you'll say that's not what you're arguing at all, but again you don't even attempt to provide data or reasoning for why this is such an insurmountable burden. The elderly, at least up to a certain point, are less dependent than children. My mom's paternal grandmother lived with my mom's family for most of her life, and she could cook, clean, shop, etc, something that children are less capable of providing, and unless I'm missing something, children still live with their caretakers. The only reason it sounds impossible is because of cultural bias inflicted upon us by the baby boomer generation.

 

[Dak]

Real solutions would be acceptable. The problem is that what you propose usually isn't realistic.

Well there are politically realistic proposals and actually functional proposals. I never suggested that there was an overlap.

 

[Einherjar86]

Define "very recently". The age at which old people die has not changed dramatically over the last 150+ years; you may be confused by average life expectancy statistics which are skewed by very high rates of child mortality pre-1900s.

What I mainly meant is that a higher percentage of people are living longer. This mainly has to do with advancements in modern medicine and elder care, which is basically what I assume you're saying we should stop wasting on the elderly (unless they or their families can pay for it) since they no longer contribute to society.

It's not that I don't see a problem with the situation economically speaking. I just find your perspective to be rather draconian. In short, I don't think it's realistic to ask families to shoulder the burden. If they're forced to, it will either likely affect the health and well-being of the younger members of the family; or they'll choose not to, in which case the elderly individual would most likely die. I simply don't see these as the only two options, and I do think there's a way to pay for elder care via proactive medicine and health planning, and by taxing more from the super-wealthy.

The reason families don't live together anymore is significantly *because* of government assuming the role of caretaker. Are you suggesting that old people don't live in urban areas right now? Like, they retire and we ship them off to a nursing home in a cornfield in Kansas, because urban population density is too high? I'm sure you'll say that's not what you're arguing at all, but again you don't even attempt to provide data or reasoning for why this is such an insurmountable burden.

I'm saying that it's easier for rural families to take care of extended family, including the elderly, than it is for urban families. I don't have statistics for this, but it makes perfect sense considering average cost of living in rural areas and the ability to afford more amenable housing for larger families.

Well there are politically realistic proposals and actually functional proposals. I never suggested that there was an overlap.

Dude, quit arguing. You're not winning your point with me with this semantic volleyball.