You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
I really miss leaders like Dave Durenburger. The thing that troubles me about long term care is basic distrust of insurance companies. I worry about loopholes they could find to prevent a person using the product they have been paying for. Even without loopholes, if a majority of boomers bought this product and a majority of boomers uses this product how is it finacially sustainable? One more thing, I would love to see more of a push toward making good health choices to keep us healthier longer.
Why does their failure to plan ahead be our concern. Call a family member if you need help.
ebonyanivory: Some people, through no fault of their own, have no younger family members. And even if family members are willing to care for an older relative, they may not be able to. For example, my grandmother lived with my mother and stepfather till she was 97 and became unable to walk. At the time, both my mother and stepfather were 76, and the two of them together could not lift her. My mother was an only child, and my siblings and I either had full-time jobs or lived in other states. That was reality.
If ever there were a case for having a hefty estate tax, and dedicating all of its revenue to longterm care costs for fellow citizens (ie really put that money in Gore's lockbox), this could be that case. Of course, no govt revenue ever stays in the lockbox, does it? ;o)
pdxtran: Then you and your siblings should have help pay for the care provided for the grandparents. Just because you refuse to provide for your own families you think the rest of the tax payers should shoulder the burden?
We can keep people living older, but we can't keep them living younger. Caring for 80 and 90 year olds was never planned for in social security, medicare, private long term care, pensions, 401(k)s or any other old age support mechanism. As a member of the "sandwich" generation," with kids in college and very aged parents to care for, at the same time trying to save for my old age, I know full well that this problem needs to be addressed. I'm afraid that the trend toward self-inflicted "second amendment solutions" for the aged is going to become the norm. This situation is neither solvable nor sustainable unless the recently announced Mayo research to keep us YOUNG and not just ALIVE pays off.
This article raises many good points around this topic. One of the largest issues we face is defining retirement/old age and when we should be able to grab the gold watch. I read an article titled "80 is the new 65". Most Gen Xer's and younger will need a different frame of mind on retirement and the age of retirement. If you are at a place where you are financially secure, you have the option to retire. If not, most people will have to plan on retiring much, much later than 65 and take responsibility for providing for themselves.
So tell me again how a smokers dying at an earlier age cost society so much more money? You seriously think the elderly non-smokers never have hip replacements, heart problems, arthritis, or dementia on top of the long term care costs to society or their families?
johnnycgood: "So tell me again how a smokers dying at an earlier age cost society so much more money?"
How can we assure they die at an early age and don't suck up decades of cancer therapy? Death Panels?
The taxpayers should not be footing the bill for the baby boomers messing up. Spend more than they make and now cry that they need help. They are totally screwing over the younger generation.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks