The Elderly...

Remove all ads!

Ok first off Splunge and any other ancient SPer might get offended by this rant...so do yourself a favor and go soak you feet in some Epsom Salts and don't read this...

Ok time for my little rant.

What the hell is wrong with the US government? All over the city I live in there are these new "government aided" retirement "villages" going up! Just from driving around town, I know there are 5 of them that are finished and look like that have between 15-40 homes, 3 of those 5 also have apartment/condo buildings at the entrance to their little "village", and I know of 2 more sites where construction will begin on a retirement village some time this year! There's one just down the road that's got about 6 apartment/condo buildings, and about 30 medium - full sized homes priced between $100,000.00 - $150,000.00.

Now I figured that the quality of these homes probably would be very good. But earlier today, I had to go visit my fiancé’s grandpa who just moved in to one of the bigger houses there...and holy F***! The quality of the homes there are better than my parent's house!

So the main part of my rant is this: old people not only get all my social security, they get nice houses that are partially paid for by the government, a discount on medication, and a % off pretty much everywhere they go...all the while us young folk are struggling, trying to get started off in the world. We get no money from the government (unless you're lucky enough to be a minority and qualify for a grant), we get no reduction on housing costs, no tax breaks, and all the while theses lousy "baby boomers" and other old farts are living in luxury!

I mean, I went downtown to the County Clerk’s office for some info last month, and I saw the perfect example of where old people should be put (or go...if they are able to on their own). It was called 'The Legacy Retirement Tower'... Basically it was about 20 stories tall and had dozens of apartments on ever floor...and it even had it's own infirmary at the bottom! But here's the best part, the office where you get birth and death certificates is literally right across the street!

Why the hell do all these old people need a huge house? They can't walk very far...not to mention the irony of the fact that all of these houses have basements, and almost half of them have an upstairs level!

The running saying is, "Children are the future."

Well, why doesn't someone give us children a fighting chance?

That said, I'm not trying to be disrespectful here. I'm just pointing out that there is a gross favoring towards old people in general...and it's probably due to the fact that 80% or more of government officials are the ones who qualify by age to live at these retirement villages! Coincidence? I think not!

[End Rant]

Your thoughts?

 

They may get a "discount" on meds, but they also don't have any, uh, medical insurance beyond medicare, which is woefully inadequate. When I need drugs, I make a small co-pay. My great aunt,on the other hand, can't afford her meds. That said, if their government housing is that nice, I'd have to say it could be put to better use (like better medical coverage).

 

It used to be the responsibility of the younger generation to take care of older family members. Over the past few decades that has not been done. Younger people are simply more concerned with acquiring their toys -- which they think is their right to obtain 10-20 years before their parents could. The younger generations are too busy buying new boats, cars, and HDTV's to buy their parent's medication.

The government takes care of the elderly because the youth have failed.

... that and the AARP is the most powerful voting block in the country.

 

Ktirax,

Most government funded retirement homes are available only to people with relatively low incomes, or people who are on fixed incomes. Luxurious homes generally aren't funded by the government. It is true that there are housing developments where you have to be a certain age to purchase the property - like say at least 55 years old, but that's because they don't want homeowner fees including things like playgrounds, or kids running around. Those people pay for the homes just like everyone else, and usually pay through the nose as they are living in an exclusive neighborhood. Do you know if these rules apply to the homes you mention?

 

Along the path Aldeth has started down....

I've been to a few nursing homes to visit. The span of living conditions is remarkable in the bigger nursing homes (my grandfather was in one that had over 1000 units). The elderly who lived off the government typically shared a room. Those that had their own money to subsidize their social security had individual rooms in more optimal places. Still others (who had even more money) lived in small apartments.

Retirement communities are very similar (I was raised in the Phoenix area -- retirement communities everywhere). There is a full range of accommodations in one community -- small apartment, mobile homes, small homes and luxury homes. The people subsisting off social security are certainly not in the luxury homes.

Government aided can mean many things. But it usually does not mean the government is buying it outright.

By the way -- most of these elderly went through the tough times too. They struggled, they scraped by, they lived in conditions which are unacceptable by anyone today. They've worked their entire lives support their family and their government -- a little assistance is good. What makes you think you deserve more than they do? And why do you think they don't deserve what they have?

 

Man, I don't even know where to start here.

T2:

I disagree with this. For my own situation, which I've just been thrown into during the last few weeks -- my mother has just been sent to a nursing home -- she has Alzheimer's disease. I've gotten an intense immersion into the world of Medicare and Medicaid -- and what is allowed and what isn't. Most of the people in nursing homes fall under this "assistance" category, depending on what type of "rated" facility they are in. Having spoken with many social workers and attorneys over the last few days, my eyes have been opened as to how this part of life works. To qualify for Medicaid, a person can have no supportive income from any outside source -- there are very strict rules as to what an offspring can provide in the way of resources. One mistake, and you disqualify the party you're trying to help. I truly don't think it's a matter of offspring not wanting to help -- it's more of concern as to what is ALLOWED, according to our wonderful government.

I read all of your posts -- but I was struck by Kit's the most. I don't understand why you would attack the elderly population in such a manner, accusing them effectively of gross indulgence, when they've (most people) worked their whole lives for whatever they have. You have your whole life ahead of you. Why begrudge the seniors of our society some short lived happiness? -- if you can even call it that. Many seniors move to these "assisted living" centers because they need help, or they have conditions that will worsen with time. Most facilities of this nature have graduated health services, from independent living, to assisted living, to rehab and critical care. I think it makes sense for the people who need care that CAN'T BE PROVIDED AT HOME, to move into these places. My father took care of my mother for 2 years.....she almost died 2 weeks ago. He can't care for her anymore -- he has simply run out of steam. So she is in one of these places, getting 24/7 care round the clock. Sometimes there's no other choice -- if you want the best care.

Kit -- as far as social security....you have got to be joking. When a person dies, the death benefit that you get for burial expenses can be as little as $250. $250 for working an estimate of 45 years?? Yes indeedy....our senior are so indulgent.

 

In New Zealand, the elderly get nothing. If you don't save any money for your own retirement, you're stuffed.

 

Kit, you've posted some pretty idiotic screeds before, but this one takes the cake.

First off, quit whining about how bad you "young people" - excuse me - you young white educated mormon people have it in the state of Utah. Gimme a break. Utah has one of the lowest crime rates in the country, and speaking as someone who grew up there, consider yourself lucky. You certainly could be worse off. **(clarification added below)

Second, you've been paying social security for 5-6 years. They've been paying it for 50+. It's THEIR social security a hell of a lot more than it is yours.

Third, most of these "old people" you deride busted their ASSES to make a living and support a family when they were your age, so try and show a little respect from your cushy perch atop the MTV generation, m'kay? Boy, wouldn't it be swell if you and your fiance had to try and start life off in the Utah of the 1950's. Or better yet, in RURAL Utah like my parents and grandparents did. You know - the ones who're stealing your social security. You'd be singing quite a different tune, Mr. "I have it so tough."

On that note, most baby boomers are well off because they've worked and saved and paid into the system their entire lives, not because the government has a grievance against the young. If any of these "old farts" are living in luxury, it's because they retired rich - period. Most senior citizen have a very tough time getting by, especially if their kids don't help them out. Evidently you've never heard the term "fixed income."

Fourth - and this is just an aside - last time I checked, you were a Sean Hannity-listening, Bush-supporting Republican, right? Are you actually whining that the government isn't giving you ENOUGH handouts?

My grandparents are both in one of your so-called assisted-living retirement center "resorts" right now, and both are dying. They aren't playing golf and throwing parties and pruning in the jacuzzi - THEY'RE F***ING DYING. If they had their choice, they'd be living (and yes, dying) in their own home, and so would 99% of seniors. Most seniors hate the fact that they have to move to these places, but do so out of necessity. Did that even cross your mind? Isn't it nice that they're able to move into somewhere decent than some rat-infested sh*thole? Or is that what you'd prefer, since you're footing the bill and all...

Despite Medicare, despite nursing home insurance, yes - despite government handounts, and despite my grandfather being the most frugal, penny-pinching old bastard I've ever met (god love him) and saving up a few hundred thousand dollars for he and my grandmother to retire on, by the time they do finally pass away, they'll probably be close to broke.

Without government assistance of any kind, their medical care would have bankrupted them years ago. But god forbid, an able-bodied, naive 20-year-old and his fiance should have to clip a few coupons.

Too late!

Lazy ass old people. Why don't they work for a living! What did they ever do for this country! Oh yeah...

Do you read this crap aloud before you type it? Good gawd.

Smartest thing you said up there, BY far.

Please, in the future, at least make an attempt to know what you're talking about before contracting diarrhea of the mouth.


** EDIT: Just to clarify - my mention of Kitrax being a Mormon had NOTHING to do with his religion, and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Mormons dominate the state of Utah. Kind of along the same lines as an Italian Roman Catholic complaining about not getting a fair shake in Vatican City, or something similar. My apologies if it seemed otherwise.

[ February 25, 2006, 07:07: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Thank you, Death Rabbit. What he said, in spades!

I remember when my grandmother went into a government-sponsored old age facility to die (which took her 10 YEARS to do, by the way, poor lady). Before she could be admitted she had to spend enough time in a private facility to completely exhaust her savings. Only when she had NO MONEY AT ALL left, could she be admitted to the state facility.

Doesn't sound like luxury to me.

 

Kitrax buddy, were you even thinking when you wrote this? You are an inteligent person, you know many things about many topics, why would you choose to rant about something you know so little about. I suggest that you do some research about these so-called goverment subsidised houses. We have a very nice retiremant developmant here and the only way someone is going to get a place in it is to pay for it. Pay a lot for it. There are many ways to get ahead in this world. I work three jobs to provide for my family. I'm not bragging, there are probably alot of people that work more and harder than me for less money. Yes starting out is hard. Eleven years ago when we got married, we were both working at McDonalds.

Don't even get me started on the inadequacy of medicare/medicaid. I have been in the medical field for 14 years, and these insurances don't cut. If you want to rant about something b***h about the many young and old abusers of medicaid/medicare, not the people that need it and earned it.

 

I would agree with you, Beren, if he'd started this discussion in the vein of "this is so unfair, please help me understand this - I don't get it," which he pretty clearly did not. He started off by insulting members of this board in the very first sentence, and didn't consider for a minute how callous and ill-informed his rant was from start to finish. Quite simply - he didn't think. Emotional chord or not, I don't think he should be cut any slack for that. He went beyond sticking his foot in his mouth...he went well past the knee cap. Innocent ignorance is one thing - and certainly nothing anyone should get offended over. Ignorance combined with vitriol - especially in someone who's an alleged adult and old enough to know better - is quite another.

I don't expect everyone who begins a discussion here to do hard research. This is a learning environment after all. I do, however, expect them to - as my Dad is fond of saying - use their head for something besides a hat rack.

Regardless - you do have a point, and I will do my best to remain civil for as long as this thread is open.

[ February 23, 2006, 16:10: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Another thing I'd like to point out (I'm really not doing this to deliberately pile on) is that baby-boomers who are currently retired and living in luxury aren't old enough to receive social security unless they were in some way disabled.

Baby boomers ecompass those people born from 1946 through 1964. Meaning that the youngest ones are only in their early 40s - still in their working primes - and even the oldest ones will turn 60 this year. As you have to be at least 62 to qualify for ANY social security no baby boomers are collecting (again, unless it's disability, which is entirely separate from what people usually refer to when talking about social security). In fact, it will be a few years down the road before any baby boomers start receiving any significant amount of social security. The minimum age to collect the minimum benefit is 62. The standard benefit you can start collecting at 65. And the maximum benefit doesn't kick in unless you wait until you're 70.

The other thing that many people have pointed out is that your social security check is fixed - it doesn't increase with the cost of living. According to law, my grandmother is entitled to her benefit, plus half of the benefit of my deceased grandfather. My grandfather died a few months after retiring, which was in 1988. Since then, my grandmother has received a monthly social security check of $1200. Back in 1988, that wasn't too bad - it wasn't luxury living, but it was enough to get by on. Now, 18 years later, it's STILL only $1200 per month, even though the cost of living today is more than double what it was in 1988.

So the point is, those who have been on Social Security the longest are the cheapest to maintain on social security. Granted, my grandmother has received more total money in her checks than someone who is 10 years younger than her, but what she costs social security on a monthly basis is less than most seniors who have retired later than she did.

And finally, to end my rant, keep in mind that many people did not plan correctly for their retirement, simply because they had no idea that they would live as long as they do. My grandparents were born in the late 1910s and early 1920s. So essentially, their late childhood and early adolscent years were during the Great Depression. They had it hard. Add to the fact that people back then didn't live nearly as long as they do now. My grandmother, when she retired back in 1988, never expected that she'd still be alive in 2006. From her life experiences, people generally didn't live to be in their late 80s. And social security isn't set up for people to live off of it for 20 years either - that's why we have the problems with social security that we currently do. However, it is misguided to blame the very old for the problems, as they are probably the ones that need it the most. I certainly don't begrudge them what they get.

 

Being attacked? Beren, thanks for your concern and acknowledgment of my limited research of this topic. I did start this thread to start a discussion to help me understand some things, but if other SP members are going to attack, I only see fit to try and defend myself here.

Really? Neither can I! I have to pay $80 for 30 pills of Allegra for my allergies, and $125 for a 30 supply of Advair for my asthma. My medical insurance doesn’t cover either of those two drugs, and I was offered an “alternative” to both, but neither of them worked.

At this point, all I know is that the government *helps* pay for the houses so they are less expensive than the average house prices around town, and yes there is an age limit. I don’t know if it’s 55 though. It might be 60 for all I know.

So glad you said that Spell. This *is* my main point in all this. I do have my whole live ahead of me, *but* that life would be a little better if I had some support from the good ol’ government. The elderly *had* their entire lives to SAVE, for their retirement. Instead of lowering costs to public colleges, rising the minimum wage, or offering any other assistance for the youth to get started off in life, the give money to the other end of the scale…the end that most Senators and Congressmen are at!

The point behind this is, the way things are going now, by the time I’m their age, there isn’t going to be anything LEFT! Hell…I have not problem with them getting it now. The fact is, there are a whole lot more of them than there are of us…if that makes sense.

Actually, that’s the main reason we had to move back in with my parents. Both of our paychecks were spent on bills before we even had them cashed. There were a lot of times where food came last and even more times where we couldn’t afford food after paying our rent and my meds.

No, I don’t listen to SH. He’s the “town crier” of politics…which I hate. I don’t really support Bush. He was just the lesser of two evils, and now that he’s been elected, I think we (as a country) should stand behind him… And if you call me an Republican, is just because Democrats are friggin’ idiots.

Fighting with personal emotions is useless with me. Trust me, you don’t want to see my total lack of empathy here.

Oh, I do love when people put words in my mouth!
Let’s re-word that in *my* way shall we? “Why didn’t they *save* for a living?!”
Don’t get me started on War vets. If anything *they* are the ones who deserve all the money I give to the government. *They* are the ones who should be living in the nice retirement “villages”. *They* are the ones who should be taken car of in the best possible way by the government. *They* have my respect and did what I wish I *could* do for my country.
Again, curb your emotions…they get you in to trouble.

I love how emotions make a simple joke seem like an insult. The fact that Splunge has a joke about his age in his OWN profile makes your statement asinine!

umm… My dad is in his early 60’s and he’s collecting SS. In his old words, “Because I can.” I’ve snuck a look at his 401K…which is quite large, he’s currently working a job that pays $30 an hour, and he’s got enough stock/bonds/CDs to support my mom for the rest of her life should he die…oh, and let’s not forget his life insurance policy…

Death Rabbit, I like you…If you could keep your “pimp juice” or your emotions…or whatever you call them under control, we should be friends!

You are all forgetting the fact that there are *TWO* types of "housing" I mentioned. The nive houses founf in these "Government aided villages" and then the 20-something tower where everyone who lives there is packed in like sardines.

Let me word this as simple as I can:

Why does the government need to aid these "luxury" houses? I’m sure that money could have been used to keep several elementary schools in the area from being closes this past fall.

[ February 24, 2006, 01:31: Message edited by: Kitrax ]

 

Hmmmm - I think Beren was making a point of how no one should be responding to anyone else on such a personal level on this issue. And I would suggest that the moderators be given their due respect without any interference, or needless feedback on the public boards...

 

One of the reasons why some old people now should have stuff paid for them is that when they were growing up, the government lead them to believe that they would be looked after in their old age. This was a reasonable assumption 50 years ago as the elderly population was a smaller proportion of the overall population that it is now. So, having been given this assumption, it is probably a bit mean to turn around and say "No, we 're not going to pay for your retirement." when they had no chance to prepare.

For us on the other hand, we know that the economics of being supported by the government in retirement does not stack up, so we know we have to live within our means during our working life in order to pay for our retirement. We have been given ample warning on this so can be expected to have to fend for ourselves.

Part of what Kitrax is referring to is the inescapable fact that standards of living in most Western countries will inevitably fall over the next few decades as globalisation evens out some of the inequities in wealth distribution between countries (why pay someone $20 an hour to do something in USA when we can pay them $2 an hour to do the same thing in India?). Western countries cannot continue to borrow money for foreign imports without eventually suffering the consequences. This is something that we and our children will have to deal with in some way at some point.

 

Kit,

Your entire post was full of and and more exclamation points than a sorority newsletter. Don't tell me I'm the one who's overcome by emotion after a rant like that. You made an ass of yourself with that post - be man enough to admit it. Blowing off my reaction by telling me to curb my emotions is as inaccurate as it is childish. The fact is, you were extremely disrespectful. You went off like a maniac without giving a single thought to how people might react to it, and I obviously wasn't the only one who thought you were talking out of your ass. Grow up a little, huh? Take a little responsibility for the things you say, how you say them and how people react to it. It's part of being a man.

I like you too, incidentally. You know who else I like a lot? Darkwolf. Does that mean I won't jump up his ass when he says something stupid? HELL no. Does that mean I hate the guy? Certainly not.

Again - think before you speak, it gets you into trouble. Keep your immaturity under control and we'll be BFF, m'kay?

Good question. One you should have posed from the get-go instead of making yourself into a victim and seniors and senior-aged politicians into money-grubbing treasury robbers. Spare me the "putting words in my mouth" business - that's what you said.

These "luxury" retirement homes are certainly not a commonplace thing for most of retired America, and the ones that are are most likely a tax benefit to the home builders who make them. The builder likely gets a nice tax write-off for contracting to build them, and qualifying seniors get a discounted rate in owning/renting these places. It's a relatively small and short-lived benefit when you consider the percentage in taxes these people have been paying into the system over the years. When they were young and starting out, the government didn't give them a break on rent or housing costs, and neither will they give you one. That's life. These "luxury" homes will still house the wealthiest of seniors, while the poorest will waste away in government sponsored nursing facilities or their own homes.

As for your Dad raking in social security money even though he doesn't need it - good for him! He's paid into the system, it's his money. Sure, it seems unfair, and I personally think there should be an income limit put in place for social security pensions (hence, if you don't need it, let it go to the ones that do). But then again, since he paid into the system, he does deserve it, and no one has the right to deny him his SS check for as long as the system is in place. That's only fair.

I for one am not counting on getting any money back from social security either. If it's going to die off, then it will and there's nothing I can do about it. I've accepted this, despite the fact that I believe many claims of SS's immenant demise to be generally exaggerated. So rather than attack those who're getting what they deserve from SS and the fed, I'm maxing out my 401k, learning the ropes of investing as we speak and taking care of myself. I'll be fine when I retire. As far as I'm concerned, there is no SS - I just get taxed a little more than I'd like. Or at least that's what I tell myself so I can worry about more important things. Say lah vee. (I don't know how to spell it in french)

But regardless - I don't think the elderly should be "put" into sub-standard facilities just to save a few bucks, like they were obsolete appliances or something. You've proudly pronounced your lack of empathy, and I pity you for that. I really do. Losing your heart at such a young age is a pretty sad and pathetic thing, in my book. Fortunately, there are enough people out there who actually give a rat's about the quality of life their family members have in their twilight years. Enough so that, combined with the elderly voters who benefit directly from such government funding, there is enough political pressure from constituancies across the country to keep these programs in place; they still exist and continue to be approved in state and federal fiscal budgets. It's not some government conspiracy - voters WANT these programs and benefits in place. You don't like it, then go ahead and write a strongly-worded letter (with plenty of these - - they're awesome!) to your congressman and demand he stop wasting your money on those...let's see, what were they? Oh yes - old farts.

As for your poorly made “Why didn’t they *save* for a living?!” point, it's largely irrelevant. As I mentioned, my grandparents DID save for a living. Like many from their generation who lived through the great depression, they never wasted anything and pinched pennies like they were all little round copper winning lottery tickets. But thanks to the outrageous cost of healthcare - specifically, perscription drugs - they're savings have dwindled down far below what they could have anticipated. So even the people who DID save responsibly are getting screwed. Which brings me to my larger point...

If you want to rant about something - something you actually may know a little something about - why not rant about U.S. drug companies artificially inflating the costs of perscription drugs? If you lived in Canada, you'd be paying about a quarter of what you're paying now for your asthma and allergy drugs. If anything's keeping you from getting a fair shake as a young couple in the good old U.S. of A, it's that. After all - many seniors don't start regular perscription drug use until they become older and infirm near retirement age. You've started out from a young age needing to buy overpriced drugs just to live a normal life. Doesn't THAT piss you off more than some retirement community? You're probably in a better position to b*tch about the perscription drug situation here than the elderly population any day.

I think your anger here is misplaced. Maybe if you curbed your emotions a little, you'd have figured that out by now.

 

Heh. The most expensive--for the taxpayer--form of welfare goes to corporations. Not the elderly, not the sick, not the infirm, but millionaires. If you feel the need to be angry about SS/welfare/what have you, be pissed about that. And, as DR says, the prescription drug thing.

 

Early 60s huh? Could he be perhaps, oh, I don't know, 62? If you read my previous post, I clearly stated that you could start collecting benefits as early as 62. You get MORE if you wait until you are 65, and even more if you wait until you are 70, but there's no rule out there that says you have to. People who wait longer get more because they will spend a shorter amount of time on SS.

Another thing about your dad: If he was born prior to January 1, 1946 - and if he's in his early 60s it certainly suggests that this is true - then he is NOT A BABY BOOMER. Basically, unless he got into his "early 60s" in the last two months, he's older than the entire baby boomer generation.

Let's review some facts about retirement age and when you can start receiving social security as a baby boomer:

1. The earliest you can start receiving SS benefits is 62 years of age.
2. All baby boomers are less than 62 years of age.
3. Therefore, no baby boomers are receiving SS.

 

Reading this caused me physical pain. As a CPA (and I'm sure the attorneys on this board will back me up) I can't tell you how important it is to get assets out of the name of the elderly to protect them. My dad turns 72 in March and for the past few years we have been gifting all of his assets to myself and my sister. We have been putting them in a seperate brokerage account as we all still consider it Dad's money, but now once the statute expires the government will not have any ability to go after that money. It is one of the hardest discussions a child must have with a parent and one of the hardest thing for a parent to do. However, at the end of the day most parents would rather see their money go to their children than to the government.