The Elderly...

Remove all ads!

Ok, a little too much emotion out here. Let me throw this into the monkey-works.
Social Security, one of the things everyone's complaining about, and the beginning of this whole trend, was created to be a short-term fix for those screwed by the Great Depression. In those days it was expected that people save up for their own retirement and that their children would help support them. The government didn't get involved. Then the market crash sucked up all the retirement investments of a lot of people, along with other things. The government had to respond and they thought up social security, but this was never designed to last more than a generation, and that generation was retireing at the time. If the government had shut down social security then, which would have been easy, and returned to the expectation that parents save for retirement and the younger help the older, the government could give benefits on top of that and I don't think anyone would be complaining. Now, however, the system has become so screwed up that no one can see how to fix it, only that it desperately needs fixing.
Puts a little perspective on things, huh.

 

I haven't read all of this, but here's my opinion anyway.
I'm glad they get nice homes, at least. Most of them just get thrown into an asylum or locked up in some small room. Still, I believe that those "material" benefits is what they need the least of all. Attention is what they need, a person to talk and listen to, other than those who they see every day. Sure they need meds and that to postpone death a little bit more, but if they don't use this gained time properly, it is worthless, a long dull waiting until they die of sorrow or loneliness.
It is true, however, that young people suffer from capitalism's contradictions. In fact, it is widely (I think) known that children, females and old people are the ones that get the worst part. But it's not from the elder that you have "to take" to "give" it to you.
And I'll say what most have said here. In other countries, you get barely anything. But if I'm not mistaken, you, as a common american, don't give a damn about what happens outside your bubble.
PS: rest of american people don't get offended, please.

 

That "government" did not think up social security. Social Security is a German Bismarck Realpolitik thing from the 19th century that was later adopted by various other countries, among them the USA.

Interesting would be to compare the reasoning that drove Bismarck to implement a social security system and the reasoning and problems that later in those various goverments had and faced as they copied the system from the Germans.

Last time I spoke with a mathemagician, he said that there's no problem with pensions per se, the problem is with people that want to get retired under the age of 70.

People live longer and are healthier while many jobs got less and less physically demanding and no one wonders why the grocery is full with vegetable and fruits.

The failure of the Swiss implementation was to omit a passus that would tie the retiring age with mortality and automaticly would augment the retiring age.

 

Uhm, for Bismarcks part the faulty assumption that there will always be a high enough fertility rate? He did not foresee the "Dink family" - double income, no kids.

That and Jugendwahn running rampant. Someone of the age of 50 in search of a job gets laughed in the face by potential employers.

 

Hmmm...

Huh...I could have sworn that I read somewhere in here about having to be disabled to get SS...or something like that. I only posted the fact about my dad to show that wasn't true, per say. The fact is, I don't remember offhand how old my dad really is. All I know is his turned 60 not too long ago…and the only reason I can remember *that* is because the running joke in our family is that we're going to stick him in a "home" a.s.a.p.

That's not very true, I can think of several people at my work alone who got hired on less than 1 year before I did, and they're all between 50 and 60 years old. Besides, it's ileagal to discriminate against age like that, and if the person could prove it, that company would have a nice lawsuit on their hands.

Well...it seems my main point was mutated in to a discussion of *what* SS *is*, and who came up with the idea *first* , ect... So I think I'll take my usual leap of absence from this forum.

Oh and for a fun little fact on me, brought on by DR's single line of insults:

#1: I am not a Mormon - I was *raised* Mormon, but hell...if they knew half the stuff I've done, they would dis-fellowship...err...dis-communicate? Eh, whatever...they wouldn't like me, needless to say.

#2: The schools here suck, and I haven't started college just yet. So I'm not *that* edumacated...

#3: I'm not white! I am a naturalized American coming from Western European bloodlines! Oh wait...I guess that makes me a Caucasian...but I'm still more *tan* than *white*...

Oh yeah...the total lack of empathy thingy...I personally prefer it. Why?
#1: We're all going to die at some point and time.
#2: I can't be offended, so people don't have to watch what they say to me or around me.
#3: Life is a bit less stressful
And for a quote, " It's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care..."

[ February 25, 2006, 00:21: Message edited by: Kitrax ]

 

Maybe it's different here in Canada. I've seen some of the old folks homes around Edmonton -- I'd die before I put my father into one of those. Three years ago a lady died from being brutally scalded in a bath by some incompetant fool at an old folks home.

Another old lady my Mom used to visit, the staff kept writing in their reports that she "refused to eat". Well, these geniuses were putting her salad in front of her with the cling wrap on it -- the old lady couldn't get the wrap off -- once my Mom did this for her she ate the whole damn salad -- she wasn't refusing to eat, the staff was too stupid to see the old woman needed help.

I'd rather see my dad (he's 82) and his peers getting "too much" (as illustrated by Kitrax) than "too little" (as I've tried to illustrate). Given all that the old folks have to put up with, I don't begrudge them the few perks they may get. The penalties they get handed to them by mother nature cannot be balanced no matter what.

On a slightly more cynical note, the aged are becoming a VERY powerful voting block, and since many have been forced to retire, they've got nothing else to do but be politically active. ANY Western politician who ignores the elderly is not going to do very well at the polls.

 

@ Kit,

We were actually beginning to move this discussion in an interesting and constructive direction, maybe even find answers to your actual and eventual question. But evidently all you wanted was your little tourettes session, so - whatever floats your boat, I guess. I agree, I think it's best you resume your 'leap' of absence from the heavy mental lifting involved here in the Alley. So enjoy random babbling, best of luck to you and the fiancee, and if you two ever have any kids I sincerely hope the apple falls extremely far from the tree. Like...Wisconsin far. Who knows - they might even remember how old you are.

Just FYI - what disabled people draw is 'Disability.' Retired persons draw 'SS.' They are seperate and, if memory serves, not mutually exclusive - so you can receive both at the same time if you qualify.

Oh, and if calling you young (which you are), white (which you are), educated (which you are - high school is still an education, and enough to find half-decent employment in most of the country) and mormon (which you were until recently) is considered a line of insults to you, I'd hate to see you react to something that actually WAS an insult. I was merely pointing out (another point you missed completely) how ridiculous a person with so many inherent advantages in America sounds when complaining about not being given a "fighting chance." I hope you get a chance to spend a little time in a 3rd world country at some point in your life, so maybe you'll come to appreciate how blessed you are and see what it REALLY means to struggle in life, because you have no idea. Not that you care or anything, but...can't fault a guy for hoping, I guess.

@ LKD

Negligence and abuse in nursing homes is pretty common here in the States, too, I'm sad to admit. The staff generally make terrible money working in a job many of them hate, and often eventually come to resent the old folks in their charge. Which is no excuse for the abuse and negligance, of course. They're still heartless jerks, but it's just yet another reason why putting the elderly away in these kinds of places, like Kitrax was advocating, makes most people shudder. Not all retirement homes are abusive, of course - but it happens often enough that most people consider such a place to be an absolute last resort. It's certainly not the way I or anyone I know would want to spend my last years on earth.

This actually makes me curious about the way your government handles the perscription drug situation. I suppose Canadian drug companies could just as easily jack up the prices there as they do here. Are they prevented by your government from doing so, or are they just...ya know, ethical?

[ February 25, 2006, 03:18: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

No problem, Beren - it's finished, I won't address him in this thread again. I'm actually more interested in keeping this discussion going with the other members, as it's a close-to-home subject for me at the moment, so I won't further risk it's closure.

 

You live in Utah, not Germany. It stands to reason things might be different in Dendriville.

 

Sound of a creaking rocking chair is heard. We seem to have several topics going here.

I saw Kitrax's post shortly after he made it. It did not offend me or upset me. I actual understand or at least think I understand where he is coming from.

As to the "villages" he is upset about my question is are they actually government funded or are they Adult Communities? Normally government funded housing is for the low income and there is housing for anyone of any age who meets the qualification. I'm have no idea how much the federal government gets involved. The ones I know about are state or local govermnet subsidised.

Adult Communities are to the best of my knowlege privately built. They do fall under HUD rules because we do get a small property tax break. That's it. I am responsible for the upkeep of my home.

As to SS if I had to live on what I get from SS I couldn't do it.

 

Rabbit, I don't think that the companies in Canada are any more ethical than anywhere else, though I wish I could say they were!

I'm not sure that the Canadian government has price controls on the drugs people get, but I do know that while we have automatic, universal Medicare, we do NOT have an automatic, universal drug care plan. We have cheap government run plans you can sign on to (Blue Cross, it's called) but if you can't afford that, you pay for your own prescription drugs no matter how old you are. Of course, if you are that poor then things like welfare and social assistance cut in and probably cushion the financial blow.

I'm likely to learn more about this since my own recent fall from grace -- I lost my job teaching, and one of the nice things about my job was that it had a 100% direct bill drug plan. For a prescription that would cost me $75.00, I paid a whopping $1.25 dispensing fee at the local drugstore. Now, well, I'm on a much suckier public plan -- I sure hope I don't get sick anytime soon! Or, barring that, that I get a new job soon . . .

Continuing the shift this conversationnhas taken from the elderly to drug prices, I should point out that the government has a great option if they feel a big pharmaceutical company is unfairly jacking its prices -- they simply allow generic companies in to undercut the big boys. That happens eventually anyhow, but governments can shorten the time a particular company has a lock on a particular drug and thus hit that company hard if they are gouging the consumers. Sounds a bit like a standoff, doesn't it?

[ February 25, 2006, 06:58: Message edited by: LKD ]

 

The moderators were thinking that there have been enough personal remarks on this thread. Why is it that none of this getting through here? Just when it appears things have a chance of settling down a bit, someone has to go and make a personal remark again. In other words, more "baiting."

If all of you want to continue to debate this issue then it would be better to leave the personal remarks aside, before something more drastic happens here...

 

Hmmm... I guess the best term to describe them is:

"Government *aided* Retirement Community"

From the big billboards set up in the unfinished areas, it looks to me that the government only partially funds these houses, so they only cost around $100,000.00 instead of the typical $200,000.00+ that the average house is going for around here...

In fact the actual billboard I drove by today said this exact phrase:

"Government Aided Community for Seniors With an Active Lifestyle!"

I guess that community is going to be one of the nicer ones with a park and trails winding through the community...

I hope that clears up some stuff up.

 

But is it being built by Halliburton? The seniors may be enjoying their homes, but I'm sure some well-connected corporation, which had made lots of donations (and not to the needy) is enjoying all that government cash for building that "govenment aided" community...

 

There are developments like this all over Florida; my in-laws used to live in one of them. I don't know if there was actual government subsidies for the costs of the homes - actually, I seriously doubt it - but those communities do have special, lower property tax rates. Since the minimum age to live there was 55, the residents don't pay anything towards the public school system.

 

@dmc: A website to the signs? Err...If I was really motivated I could take a digital photo of the sign and post it in my online photo album.

@CtR: Halliburton? Doesn't sound familliar. There are a handfull of housing developers here, Ivory, Hammilton, Liberty, and D.R. Horton are but a few of them. It could be one of them...

 

I'm assuming CrR was being sarcastic with the Halliburton reference. Halliburton is the company that has got a whole bunch of juicy contracts in the re-building of Iraq, which has caused some consternation with the current Bush administration, as Cheney was in upper management in Halliburton prior to being vice president and is still hold a whole bunch of shares in the company, and thus is still involved with the compnay (at least financially).

 

That's exactly right, Aldeth