• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Long Term Care Crisis

Darat said:
But the USA is nowhere near having to make that type of choice, it needs to improve the efficiency of its healthcare system to match those of most of the countries that have a form of decent universal healthcare for all. Simply doing that would free up billions every year.
Click to expand...

But because of how many more medical bankruptcies america has vs europe that shows how much better america's health care system is, it is leveling the playing field by causing bankruptcies. Medical bankruptcies are a positive good.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Insurance only works, mathematically, when it is mandatory.
that's the only way to keep costs down.

Companies generally, but Healthcare providers in particular have usually complete power over their customers, as consumers often don't have the option not to have a procedure, or not the time to shop around for the best/cheapest options. It's also something everyone needs at some point in their lives.

Because of this, healthcare needs to be a Public Service - otherwise, you get something that maximizes Profit, not Service.
Click to expand...

Even when it is mandatory if it's left to for profit companies, insurance won't work.
 
mumblethrax said:
The majority of Americans (including the bulk of the middle class) do not inherit anything. Not "a small inheritance." Nothing.

And you're still arguing for unearned advantages in any case. The working class also has funerary costs.
Click to expand...

Unless home ownership is much lower than statistics indicate, the idea that middle class people don't inherit is simply false.

Even if my parents fully deplete their savings I'll still inherit somewhere about €150,000 (depending on the housing market) worth of property from my half of the family home.
 
ponderingturtle said:
What is different about EOL care vs general health care, why shouldn't you be responsible for all the costs of your health care until rendered destitute? Why should you get free government paid for knee's when you have the resources to pay for them?
IT seems like healthcare costs should be paid for by the individual until they are rendered destitute is the system many here want.

Really we should end medicare, let them pay for their own healthcare until they are destitute and go on medicaid. Medicare is really just an immoral subsidizing of the wealthy.
Click to expand...

The NHS, when first constituted, was made free at the point of service for all because it was realised that a free service confined to the poor would only ever be a poor service.

The problem these days is that we're not willing to tax rich people in proportion to their wealth to fund services for all, but we are perfectly happy to rax poor people out of proportion to their wealth to fund the rich.
 
rdwight said:
I don't know why success is so vilified in certain corners. The state has no more right to my savings than my children do beyond what is agreed upon in the tax code. There is this trend of thought that these things should only fall on the 'rich' which is always subjective, amounting to anyone making more than me.

You can always give away your estate to your children BEFORE you die or become incapacitated. Medicaid clawback is only 5 years. You can gift 18k a year, per person, without the irs even caring, and lifetime limits are wildly generous.
Click to expand...

The state has the right to tax your savings in proportion to the benefit you received from goods and services provided by the state (there also is a strong argument that the rich should also be taxed to limit their relative power visa vis the poor), which given the nature of modern society, is likely to be much greater than you realise.
 
Trausti said:
It's the traits that make a person build, maintain, and grow wealth. Those traits are not universally distributed, obviously.
Click to expand...

It's been shown over and over and over again that there is one single trait that eclipses all others when it comes to being rich and that is being born to rich parents.

Most wealthy people are wealthy because their parents were. There is no talent, no aptitude, no hard work or anything else involved.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Unless home ownership is much lower than statistics indicate, the idea that middle class people don't inherit is simply false.
Click to expand...
My mother once owned a home. She sold it years ago to "buy" a spot in a retirement community. She's mentioned more than once that she hopes my siblings and I don't expect to inherit anything. I don't, at least not from her. I'm still holding out hope for that previously unknown rich uncle....

This reality is reflected in the data. Home ownership rates plummet after age 75. And I didn't say "the middle class doesn't inherit" in any case.

Anyway, the evidence is out there for anyone who cares to look for it.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/average-american-inheritance-wealth-level-130120356.html

While less than a third of all households inherit any money, between 70% and 80% of households receive no inheritance at all.
Click to expand...

Bottom 50%

Average inheritance: $9,700
Expected inheritance: $29,400

A national average of $46,200 does nothing to communicate the fact that about half of all households who do receive an inheritance will get less than $10,000. In fact, this cohort expects to receive nearly three times what they will actually get.

The bottom half of households is the cohort that’s also least likely to receive any inheritance at all. With lower rates of college education and lower earnings, these households should not expect to share wealth among generations.
Click to expand...

I just don't think it makes sense to wave the progressive flag in support of policies that could only possibly benefit 20-30% of Americans, who are overwhelmingly better off than the rest. Most Americans are lucky if they don't receive a negative inheritance (ie, the uncompensated costs incurred in caring for an elderly relative).
 
Last edited:
Gulliver Foyle said:
It's been shown over and over and over again that there is one single trait that eclipses all others when it comes to being rich and that is being born to rich parents.

Most wealthy people are wealthy because their parents were. There is no talent, no aptitude, no hard work or anything else involved.
Click to expand...

If their children are successful, it's not due to monetary inheritance. That intelligence and behavior are heritable is one of the most robust findings in psychology. If it was not heritable, the children would quickly fritter away the money. Like a typical lottery winner.
 
Last edited:
Trausti said:
If their children are successful, it's not due to monetary inheritance.
Click to expand...
Of course it isn't. Even among those who inherit anything, that inheritance will tend to come late in life, for obvious reasons. If there's a difference in success due to familial wealth, it's down to all the other copious advantages that the children of wealthy people enjoy.

If it was not heritable, the children would quickly fritter away the money. Like a typical lottery winner.
Click to expand...
Wealth tends to significantly dissipate within a couple of generations. 70% is gone by the second generation, 90% by the third.

And lottery winners don't typically quickly fritter away their money. That's just a myth.
 
Last edited:
Trausti said:
If their children are successful, it's not due to monetary inheritance. That intelligence and behavior are heritable is one of the most robust findings in psychology. If it was not heritable, the children would quickly fritter away the money. Like a typical lottery winner.
Click to expand...

Paris Hilton is a Well behaved GENIUS
 
gabeygoat said:
Paris Hilton is a Well behaved GENIUS
Click to expand...

Paris Hilton may not be a good example if you're looking to slag off rich kids for being awful. The image of her that was projected in the early 2000s turned out to not be quite fair, and her history is more complex than many people realize.

If you're looking for a wealthy douchecanoe example I suggest Chet Hanks is a far better choice.
 
Or a stable genius who directly inhertitted $200 million in assets, plus a multi billion dollar real estate business and still somehow managed to go bankrupt 6 times.

Its almost like being born wealthy puts you into a system that makes it incredibly difficult to go broke.
 
Even in Australia we are well prepared (despite bleats from vested interests). Superannuation will mean generations beyond boomers will not need to rely on the Aged Pension, leaving amply for health care. Most of my children have more in their super accounts now than I did when I retired and they have decades until they retire.
 
lionking said:
The fact that NZ has not seen or planned for the impact of an aging population is the greatest failure of a so-called advanced country as can be imagined.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%.

John Key stated that his government would not increase the age of eligibility for National Super, and would not introduce a means test.

Jacinda had the mandate for change but failed to act on it.

The pigeons will come home to roost in the next 20 years and whoever is holding the baby at that time will have to make some very harsh decisions.
 
The Atheist said:
I agree 100%.

John Key stated that his government would not increase the age of eligibility for National Super, and would not introduce a means test.

Jacinda had the mandate for change but failed to act on it.

The pigeons will come home to roost in the next 20 years and whoever is holding the baby at that time will have to make some very harsh decisions.
Click to expand...

Keating saw this coming and set up superannuation in the 1980s. Costello (in just about his only decent act) created the Future Fund to pay public service pensions. It wasn’t exactly rocket science,
 
lionking said:
Keating saw this coming and set up superannuation in the 1980s. Costello (in just about his only decent act) created the Future Fund to pay public service pensions. It wasn’t exactly rocket science,
Click to expand...

"What do you mean, we spent all the money on rockets?!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom