Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Someone should start a thread on exactly what "the basics" are?
That for now is and should be central to this thread. How can we fix or prevent the coming senior crisis if we don!t know the basic costs of food, shelter and health care and the minimum income needed to secure it with or without gov't support.
Given our hard work (40-years each), disciplined saving and investment, controlled spending, limited debt, timely bill-paying ... and contribution to various IRS and Pension plans, our retirement is relatively secure. We are not wealthy and nobody (but, the Lord) has 'given' us anything. We have also paid for LTC, added healthcare and savings vehicles to offset anticipated future inflation and tax increases.
At the same time, we've watched many others live and spend well above their means and efforts for years ... like the proverbial 'grasshopper.' They have chronically found themselves over-extended and frequently 'dodged responsibility' for deep financial problems with vehicles like bankruptcy, 'mortgage defaults,' and write-offs. Emergency rooms are often their 'family physician' and they have worked as diligently to 'tap into' every possible government hand-out program .... as some people work at their careers. Most of these folks are, of course, woefully unprepared for retirement.
As always, there is a great hue and cry from liberal, vote-pandering politicians--- declaring essentially that nobody, including the 'grasshoppers', should ever be held personally responsible for their own decisions in life ... and that 'the ants' should be forced to 'take-up the grasshopper slack.' These politicians have great and noble plans for what is 'needed', but, they never seem to have a plan to pay for it (like Obamacare).
No, I am absolutely not advocating 'poverty in America' or inadequate healthcare for the less fortunate (and my ministry and life support this). But, I believe that a larger part of the "Preserving the Retirement System" discussion should be dedicated to personal responsibility of EVERYONE ... not simply cast aside while the politicians figure-out how to take more from those who have worked and saved. Contrary to bureaucratic thinking, the Welfare and other "entitlement" systems tend to create greater dependency among those who would otherwise be forced to provide for themselves.
The system and Republic can be preserved, but, how much more of a 'Socialist state' can America become ... until the whole house of cards breaks the backs of those who must pay for it? Unfortunately, we must depend on those who most benefit from the political system ... to choose between fixing it ... OR maintaining the status quo (and their own political fortunes). Yes, the system can be saved! -- No, it probably will not be saved ... until things get a whole lot more painful than they are now (such as in Greece, Cypress and other bankrupt nations).
You have presented some core issues and I hope they can be read without ideological labeling.
In order to define what is needed in the way of retirement income we need to figure out the cost of retirement. How much of that income and the percentages that come from private and government sources will become clearer.
Do you advocate for letting people get so sick that they're bound to die, because they cannot afford basic health care? If so, then let's agree to disagree about what is and is not basic human decency, because I believe that that is not humane nor decent. Affluence should not be a determining factor in longevity or the ability to work, improve their lot in life, worship, and live life as a family any more than poor people should be forced to abort their pregnancies - it's that much of a critical consideration. No one should be a veritable prisoner of some caste, physical or structural.
Otherwise, the whole thing comes down to how these basics are going to be assured to be accessible to all, given the challenges (including, but not limited to financial). If you inject, even at this point, that the financial considerations govern what portion of those basics are going to be accessible to some, then let's agree to disagree about what is and is not basic human decency, because I believe that that is not humane nor decent.
So now we're at the point where no one is dying of starvation or from inadequate access to health care, etc., or trapped in some caste they cannot rise up from, due to lack of affluence. At that point, a real constructive discussion about choices can begin.
Definitive enough for you, Midpack?
And no: You're not going to get a dollar amount, because that's just a reflection of the indefensible reduction of human beings to money. In order to have the discussion you want to have you need to come to the point where you can discuss these things qualitatively. A requirement that the discussion be reduced to numbers is a requirement to preclude the discussion ever taking place, because that explicitly violates a fundamental principle.
Do you advocate for letting people get so sick that they're bound to die, because they cannot afford basic health care? If so, then let's agree to disagree about what is and is not basic human decency, because I believe that that is not humane nor decent. Affluence should not be a determining factor in longevity or the ability to work, improve their lot in life, worship, and live life as a family any more than poor people should be forced to abort their pregnancies - it's that much of a critical consideration. No one should be a veritable prisoner of some caste, physical or structural.
Otherwise, the whole thing comes down to how these basics are going to be assured to be accessible to all, given the challenges (including, but not limited to financial). If you inject, even at this point, that the financial considerations govern what portion of those basics are going to be accessible to some, then let's agree to disagree about what is and is not basic human decency, because I believe that that is not humane nor decent.
So now we're at the point where no one is dying of starvation or from inadequate access to health care, etc., or trapped in some caste they cannot rise up from, due to lack of affluence. At that point, a real constructive discussion about choices can begin.
Definitive enough for you, Midpack?
And no: You're not going to get a dollar amount, because that's just a reflection of the indefensible reduction of human beings to money. In order to have the discussion you want to have you need to come to the point where you can discuss these things qualitatively. A requirement that the discussion be reduced to numbers is a requirement to preclude the discussion ever taking place, because that explicitly violates a fundamental principle.
One important starting point to remind us of basic truths: Everyone dies. The rich die, the poor die. Neither the government nor Medicare nor unlimited tax dollars can alter this fundamental fact in any way.
For the 55% of people who have not saved properly for retirement health care costs, the question then becomes what does the society provide to these people. Let's leave the health cost challenges for the top 45% out of the argument for a moment, and let's just focus on the eventual Medicaid recipients.
The current model requires the indigent to spend down to almost zero and then receive Medicaid. This makes sense, as wealthier people should not be on the Medicaid emergency health care program. Is Medicaid currently providing adequate, basic health care and minimizing end-of-life pain as death approaches? If not, how much more funding would be required to get there?
One way to measure this is to define what is basic health care. What is the minimum level of end-of-life housing/ nursing home care/ hospice care? What is the best way to ameliorate pain? Where do we draw the line for Medicaid between end-of-life heroics and palliative care when death is near?
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,722 posts, read 58,054,000 times
Reputation: 46190
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Do you advocate for letting people get so sick that they're bound to die, because they cannot afford basic health care? ...
Truth be TOLD... THAT is exactly the AMERICAN WAY!, If you were too stupid to not have a Gov, union or Teacher's job, then "tough luck bucko"
We could start a POLL
I have lost 2 friends this yr and 4 in 2011 because they could not afford Healthcare in USA.
Each of these had worked hard and paid into the 'system' for over 30 yrs, and in 3 of the 6 cases they had been 'LET GO- after many yrs with Fortune 500 companies, yet prior to medicare eligibility. 2 cases they had been self employed, so they were screwed.
Myself... 32 yrs with Fortune 100 with GREAT benefits, then... then axe fell... 16 yrs PRIOR to Medicare eligibility, NO HC, then the USA changes the rules and takes away our only affordable options (HSA, high deductable). Spouse gets chronic diseases (several, uninsurable NOW, but not when I 'Retired').
So choices are clear... LEAVE the USA to destination where we can afford HC, or, if we get sick in USA, we die.
I know; Poor planning... We Have PLENTY of dough for retirement, but not an extra couple million for one (of many) possible medical emergencies. or $1700/month Insurance (?) w/ $20k deductable"tough luck bucko"
System is not broke, or in shambles, it is a PERFECT fit for MANY, (not me).
And no: You're not going to get a dollar amount, because that's just a reflection of the indefensible reduction of human beings to money. In order to have the discussion you want to have you need to come to the point where you can discuss these things qualitatively. A requirement that the discussion be reduced to numbers is a requirement to preclude the discussion ever taking place, because that explicitly violates a fundamental principle.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but in the end, doesn't everything come down to cost?
I believe that we, as part of a greater society, have a responsibility to help those that can't help themselves. I also believe that each and every one of us has a responsibility to pull our fair weight as part of that society until we no longer can, but in the end, every one of us has a different perspective on what is right and what is fair.
So any discussion will ultimately end up at numbers. Because that is how our society operates. The key is finding a number that covers the basic costs that is sustainable.
One important starting point to remind us of basic truths: Everyone dies. The rich die, the poor die. Neither the government nor Medicare nor unlimited tax dollars can alter this fundamental fact in any way.
Correct, which is why what I wrote included the phrase "because they cannot afford basic health care".
Quote:
Originally Posted by westender
For the 55% of people who have not saved properly for retirement health care costs, the question then becomes what does the society provide to these people.
To be clear, that's precisely what I said the question is not, i.e., what cost should society cover.
Quote:
Originally Posted by westender
One way to measure this is to define what is basic health care. What is the minimum level of end-of-life housing/ nursing home care/ hospice care? What is the best way to ameliorate pain? Where do we draw the line for Medicaid between end-of-life heroics and palliative care when death is near?
Yes, precisely, but I'm curious why you ask this at the end of the a reply to a message, which you quoted in full, within which I posted such parameters, without actually commenting substantially on those parameters.
One of the problems many face trying to save for their retirement are the health cost along the way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
