4 ms·
It's a complex situation no doubt. There is massive shenanigans in the billing aspect of this (thus the attraction of profit hungry assholes). Society has care
by kickout 4y ago
It's a complex situation no doubt. There is massive shenanigans in the billing aspect of this (thus the attraction of profit hungry assholes).
Society has cared for it's elderly basically forever, and _now_ we're saying it's too expensive? As the article mentioned, the incentive for the religious group running these places was theological and human centric. Those religious groups are/have collapsed so there is this giant vacuum attracting all the wrong people. I honestly can't believe there isn't enough money in the 'system' to provide decent care for the vast majority of elderly. The numbers cited today (likely correct) aren't sustainable b/c it's basically free money to harvest (at the cost of human comfort). Regulate the industry and prosecute the bad actors. If member's of congress had family in these facilities, it would like be solved. They likely don't for the same reasons they don't have the same healthcare benefits as most Americans. Disconnected from reality.
(I say this as someone well aware of the costs of nursing homes, and specialized care.)
- drekipus 4y ago> Society has cared for it's elderly basically forever, and _now_ we're saying it's too expensive? Because individuals used to look after their own elderly. Now there's a lot more institutions involved, meaning a lot more other people work, meaning a lot more other people need wages paid. It's a bad, crappy job that no one wants to work in, and no one wants to pay high fees for looking after mum and dad
- kickout 4y agoCorrect. I don't disagree. However, in my experience increased money and scale (i.e tens of millions of people need this assistance) don't seem to be helping the problem. In my head I think its similar to the problems of public education in America. We pay extremely high $/kid on public education due in some areas, it doesn't improve outcomes. It's like the whole model is un-scaleable or something.
- John23832 4y agoEh, not true. Communities looked after their elderly. We've just removed any aspect of community from society. Individualism to a fault is causing these problems.
- danny_codes 4y agoTotally agree. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and it seems there are many causes. Increased ability to move, and desirability of moving (school, jobs, exploration). Bad city design (at least in North America, we have a car problem) meaning it's difficult to have a local community. The decline in religious involvement and no replacement lined up. A culture of extreme individualism to the point of absurdity. These all seem tractable, but it is sad that we've let it get to this point. I feel there is a shifting in the wind though. At least for younger people, American capitalism and individualism seems to be viewed with increasing skepticism.
- drekipus 4y agoYes, totally agree with that.
- sershe 4y agoThe answer is much simpler, there used to be much less elderly per working person (and that only covers modern times, too, in a country with massive in-migration of new working people; plus it's obvious it's going to get worse): http://vis.stanford.edu/jheer/d3/pyramid/shift.html http://vis.stanford.edu/jheer/d3/pyramid/shift.html That is also why Social Security seemed like a good idea at one time.
- bell-cot 4y ago> Society has cared for it's elderly basically forever, and _now_ we're saying it's too expensive? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_pyramid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_pyramid The pyramid shape for traditional (generally pre-modern-medicine) societies is very, very different from the shape for modern, "wealthy" societies. In the former, infirm old folks are a lot rarer. Add in far larger, tighter family networks, and the "women care for the old" social standards, and the "outside of what families quietly manage themselves" portion of the problem, which society needs to deal with, is vastly smaller.