The problem is, today’s reality is that MOST people, once elderly, are effectively poor. There is just not enough money, whether it comes from the gov’t, or private (charity) sources, to take care of all the “poor” elderly, particularly given their extended lifespans (the cost of which extension is a big part of the problem.) My parents are a good example. My Dad was a senior professor, with a consulting business on the side. He worked like hell, and made very good money — as he neared retirement he & Mom (a homemaker who had worked some in earlier years) were probably about double US median family income. Plus Dad had good investments, and a very good pension after retirement. Medicare and a fairly good long term care insurance plan covered many of his costs when he became unable to care for himself (and Mom could not help.) My wife did as much as we could, in addition.
Well, guess what, it was not enough, or, perhaps I should say, it is still not enough. Dad is gone now, but most of his resources were exhausted in his care. (He never did go on Medicaid.) Mom’s care is now burning up what’s left, including loans from me I really can’t afford to make, but hope to be repaid when her house is sold. Assuming she does not decline into nursing care this year, I expect that her (and our) resources will run out in a year or so, leaving her children absolutely nothing. Then she will go on Medicaid (or in your proposal, “charity”), but, the costs have to be paid by someone. Not even counting her medical expenses, just her sitters alone (a “steal” at $10 an hour), will cost $10 x 24 x 365 = $87,600.00 / year. Her total expenses (including those covered by Medicare & other insurance) have to be at least that much, again. Who can afford this into their mid-to-late 80’s or more? What society can? That especially since, as Mom declines, her care will get even more expensive.
TANSTAAFL!
If there is a viable solution, I sure as heck do not see it.
Oops, that’s “my wife and I did as much...”!!!
“viable solution”
Keep in mind you’ve already been living under a partially socialized system, which is the problem.
Prior to the great depression, charity COULD and DID take care of the poor.During the GD, that money dried up and gov stepped in. Prob is, gov never stepped out and kept piling on.
Part of the reason the care is so expensive is because of medicare/medicaid. They are basically guaranteed customers and economically, the effective subsidy drives the price up.
I don’t have your dad’s financial history, but consider someone today in a high tax bracket:
With 70% fed spending on social programs and an effective income tax rate of 30% (presume a 30+ bracket, but earlier income taxed at lower rates), that’s 21% of his income. Then, you’ve got SS and medicare taking about another 7.5%. Throw in state and local at about the same charity proportion and that’s about 30% income he could’ve kept along the way.
Plus with states dictating the content of insurance policies (pre-commie care) that cost was driven up as well as the medical expense.
Free market capitalism ALWAYS works best for the most people. Gov only screws it up. After all, most of that gov “charity” money is actually going to the lavish combination of salary and benefits of those gov employees.