• 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

Donal

Philosopher
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
8,910
I think it has ben brought up here before, but a search came up empty.

Had this conversation with my wife and my mom this weekend. Two of my friends have parents that need serious medical care. One of my friends has a dad who has been living with Parkinson's disease. They are looking to move him into a fulltime care facility, but it will cost around $4k a month.

My other friend has his mother in a care facility now. She was a nurse who contracted COVID, which triggered a stroke. Before Medicaid would pay for a facility, she had to liquidate all of her assets (well, her sons had to do it for her). Her home, her savings, and entire retirement fund gone and it barely covered her care for 2 years. There's nothing left for her family. (Remember, kids, terms like "hero" and "front line worker" are just corporate speak for "expendable".)

My own mom has actually been paying for long term care insurance. But even that only goes for so long. she is also stuck in her current house, which is too big for her, but the apartments in communities near her are more expensive than her current monthly bills.

This is an issue that is already affecting millions of Americans.

This is one of those thigns that was a systemic problem on its own, but was blown up by COVID. Burned out staffers quit in droves. Families pulled their loved ones out fo these faciltiies.

There is also the ongoing crisis of medical facilities closing down in general. It isn't profitable to maintain poor people's health, so rural areas have to go without.

this leads to more seniors relying on their kids and grandkids for support. This on top of the ever increasing expenses in the lives of said kids and grandkids, who are tyring to raise their own kids. And that is assuming there are no health conditions that would prevent a senior living with their extended family.

Of course, a business chud tells us the "free market will solve it". Please ignroe the fact that the "free market" is a big part of how we got here. Of course he thinks programs like Medicare and Medicaid are the problem. No metion of abolishing the incomve tax of social security. No mention of actually curbing the rising costs.

Moses believes we can replicate this trend nationwide. Better yet, he cites new research that the "financial burden" of long-term care is "much more manageable than we thought"—"'Nearly nine in ten older adults have enough resources, including income and wealth, to cover assisted living expenses for two years.'"

To that end, Moses offers seven suggestions for how people can meet those responsibilities, from drawing on the $35 trillion that people have saved in tax-advantaged retirement plans to using the $12 trillion home equity that people over the age of 62 have accumulated.

So, sell off all of your assets for a whole 2 years of care! Just that easy. Make it all on the individual, because the ony way our lords can squeeze anymore revenue out of your old ass is to hold your very life over your ehad. Either bankrupt yoruself and possibly your kids, or roll over and die.

What can we do?

First thing I would do is get rid of the income cap on social security tax.

Second, break up the major healthcare conglomerates.

Third, a massive new infrastructure bill targeted at hospitals and other care givers.

That won't solve the problem, but it will send us in the right direction.
 
A. This is not just a problem in the US, its basically the entire industrialized world.
B. Yes, get rid of the income cap on SS but also raise the retirement age.
C. Breaking up the health conglomerates is likely a good idea but also make certificatesof need illegal.
D. Massinve new infrastructure bill, sure if you want more inflation, always good for folks on fixed income.

We really have no choice but to raise taxes and cut benefits, the longer we take to do it, the worse it will be but that's a Future America problem.

Good news is that Fentanylis helping with the problem.
 
Put house in a Trust for at least 3 years, and when you apply for Medicaid they cant seize it as an asset.
 
This is a subject I've raised any number of times, but it's of no interest because as you say, it's tomorrow's news.

Attempts by government to change things are met with outrageous ignorant protest.

The other piece of the problem you missed is the lack of workers. We expect to pay people minimum wage to do one of the worst jobs and it's starting to hurt the industry big time. We've had rest homes here have to close from lack of trained staff.

Good news is that Fentanylis helping with the problem.

As I pointed out yesterday, so is covid. It specialises in croaking the aged and infirm, so there's some hope.
 
A. This is not just a problem in the US, its basically the entire industrialized world.

I figured it might be. That's why I put it here and not USA politics. I just can only speak to my experience in the US.

B. Yes, get rid of the income cap on SS but also raise the retirement age.

Then how do the upcoming generations get promoted and make more money and buy homes? I also think we should look at the whole concept of "retirement".

C. Breaking up the health conglomerates is likely a good idea but also make certificatesof need illegal.

I still don't get why they require those in the first place, if the "free market" is supposed to fix things. The existence of those seems to be an admission that private entities can't be trusted to address a communioty's healthcare needs. At least, not a for profit entity.

D. Massinve new infrastructure bill, sure if you want more inflation, always good for folks on fixed income.

Inflation is already happening. Plus, dispersing the burden on all of us lightens the load.

We really have no choice but to raise taxes and cut benefits, the longer we take to do it, the worse it will be but that's a Future America problem.

We don't need to cut benefits.

Good news is that Fentanylis helping with the problem.

And COVID, and car culture, and isolation older men are facing. That **** isn't just killing young people.
 
Why complain about paying the cost? Even in your example, 2 years paid and then the burden falls on others. Why shouldn't savings be used before the burden is shifted?
 
Because not everyone can cover those costs. Also, we have an aging populatio nthat will be leaning on a younger population that is trying to raise its own kids and build its own retirement.
 
Because not everyone can cover those costs. Also, we have an aging populatio nthat will be leaning on a younger population that is trying to raise its own kids and build its own retirement.

Yes, and having them pay as much as possible takes some of that burden off the next generation. The people that can't afford care, can't afford care. They take on that burden in house, with all associated costs and pain involved. What you suggest makes them also add another cost burden.

The money doesn't magically appear. We, younger people, are already shouldering that. Suggesting those with means shouldn't contribute because their heirs will miss out on that transfer of wealth is a non starter to me.
 
Why complain about paying the cost? Even in your example, 2 years paid and then the burden falls on others. Why shouldn't savings be used before the burden is shifted?

And no one who needs long term care should expect to be able to leave any assets to their kids, that BS is right out.
 
Because not everyone can cover those costs. Also, we have an aging populatio nthat will be leaning on a younger population that is trying to raise its own kids and build its own retirement.

Build their own retirement? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA, you sound like such a boomer.
 
Yes, and having them pay as much as possible takes some of that burden off the next generation. The people that can't afford care, can't afford care. They take on that burden in house, with all associated costs and pain involved. What you suggest makes them also add another cost burden.

The money doesn't magically appear. We, younger people, are already shouldering that. Suggesting those with means shouldn't contribute because their heirs will miss out on that transfer of wealth is a non starter to me.

People should expect to be financially ruined and see their family financially ruined for getting sick. Like you and your spouse plan a retirement and then one of you gets Alzheimer's, the well one should expect to be left destitute for their "retirement".

This is why suicide is such a good solution to long term care problems or really any serious health needs. You can't expect to get some kind of high profile disease like cancer and not see your family financially ruined after all.
 
Last edited:
This just sounds like the whining we had about the price of epipens and insulin.

Seriously what medical issues should destroy your family financially? That seems to be the real question.
 
Don't have kids, live fast, die young, make sure to cause a lot of property damage along the way. Laugh histerically if anyone tells you you're wasting your life.
 
. about a live in caregiver? I am disabled and have one, better than a nursing home.
 
I'm not sure why those who need care expect not to pay for it, when they have the means/assets to do that. I mean, in general terms I'm all for free health care for all, absolutely: but heirs imagining that they have some kind of right to their parents' assets when they cannot be assed to care for them, seems parasitic. And parents imagining they have both a duty and a right to pass on their assets to their children, when those children are too tied up in their own affairs to care for them (which latter, in and of itself, is fair enough), that on one hand is being stupid and gullible and manipulated by unfair expectations and on the other hand is parasitic (on society at large, to the benefit of one's undeserving offspring/s).

Sure, if adequate health care is available to everyone, that's best, that's ideal. And nor is it an impossible utopian ideal. But as long as we're not there, it seems fair that those who end up needing care, and have built up assets and savings, should draw those down to pay for it.



eta: And agreed, caregivers deserve to be paid a great deal more than they do now. It is a **** job, and a thankless one on the whole other than occasional platitudes. But again, an overhaul of caregivers' compensation paradigm (from bottom of the pile to a much higher level) will mean even more costs. Again, it is good if the state bears that, for everyone. But as long as we're not there, it is fair that those who use that care pay for it when they can, by drawing down assets if need be.
 
Last edited:
The obvious that should be pointed out is that we already fund this extensively. Medicaid spends over 214 billion a year on it, over a quarter of its total expenditure. How much will that line item go up when those with the means to pay skirt the responsibility? Who do people think pay for it?
 
This is a subject I've raised any number of times, but it's of no interest because as you say, it's tomorrow's news.

Attempts by government to change things are met with outrageous ignorant protest.

The other piece of the problem you missed is the lack of workers. We expect to pay people minimum wage to do one of the worst jobs and it's starting to hurt the industry big time. We've had rest homes here have to close from lack of trained staff.



As I pointed out yesterday, so is covid. It specialises in croaking the aged and infirm, so there's some hope.


You've said similar in the two Covid threads as well, that last. I do hope that's an edgy form of humor. But given the other thread, I'm starting to half, or maybe a quarter, suspect that that's literally meant. Apologies if I'm wrong in so suspecting, because it isn't a nice thing, at all, to imagine/suspect about someone.
 
The obvious that should be pointed out is that we already fund this extensively. Medicaid spends over 214 billion a year on it, over a quarter of its total expenditure. How much will that line item go up when those with the means to pay skirt the responsibility? Who do people think pay for it?


Agreed.

I mean, insurance and healthcare are ****** up things, and in urgent need of drastic reform. In more countries than just the one.
But that specific complaint doesn't seem to have much merit, that I'm having to spend my savings and liquidate my assets to pay for my care, so that my sons and daughters, who are happy to not shoulder that burden themselves, don't get my assets and savings after me. That specific is not one that elicits much sympathy, even if the larger shortcoming it highlights is obviously very real.
 

Back
Top Bottom