“Any state that wants to do this is going to run into a few problems, a major one being people who rely on their SS for income.”
I’ve done some thinking on this and believe that we should still have a backstop. However, it would be much more difficult to get on the equivalent of Social Security. For example, if you went to the government for money, they would first go to your kids and see if they can get the money from them. If not, then other options might be explored. Finally, the state could step if no one else is available. But it would be welfare.
In the end, most people would take care of their parents, so the parents don’t have to go begging. That’s the way it worked for the first 4900 years of recorded history.
But why not have the backstop run privately by a non-profit with money that is donated by willing participants?
Agreed, the bar should be set higher and there should be a definite need. However, I’d really like to see as many things as possible like this privatized and run with money that is given out of the kindness of people’s hearts rather than taken at gunpoint.
I know I’d donate to it.
You're dreaming here. I can promise you'd bore sorely disappointed when it became evident just how few people actually took care of their parents. As for the 4900 years of recorded history, for the most part the number of folks who actually lived to become dependent elderly was a fraction of what it is today. Death quickly followed the end of productivity for the vast majority of earths population for almost all of recorded history. Modern medicine has forever changed that picture.