• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Caring for Older Relatives Is So Expensive That Even AARP’s Expert Filed for Bankruptcy (1 Viewer)

XDU

Banned
Joined
Jan 5, 2022
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
407
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Here in Los Angeles, if you want a caregiver for your loved one, many agencies will charge almost $40 an hour.

Some people have had to resort to a home equity loan or reverse mortgage.

Some caregivers, however, are willing to work for $20 an hour, which is more reasonable.

Kudos to those families whose members share the caregiving duties, with each sibling, for example, being Mother's (or Father's) caregiver for the morning or evening shift one or two days a week.

If the government paid for caregivers, that would be the sign of a truly humane society.
 
20 dollars an hour to wipe someone else's drool? I'd rather flip burgers, and eventually I'll make it to fries.
 
Sounds like we need to just eliminate medicare and let free market competition drive down prices! /s
Nah. We need social conservatism so people are organically inspired to live healthy lifestyles instead of indulging in decadent and hedonist libertinism.
 
Nah. We need social conservatism so people are organically inspired to live healthy lifestyles instead of indulging in decadent and hedonist libertinism.

:LOL:
 

Medicare assumptions, long-term care insurance policy surprises, and inflation have all made things more difficult.

How does WSJ write this article without a single reference to Build Back Better? Or the great national semantic debate we had six months ago over whether referring to investments in the caregiving economy (to address exactly these issues) as “human infrastructure” is unacceptable and for some reason therefore not worth doing?
 
How does WSJ write this article without a single reference to Build Back Better? Or the great national semantic debate we had six months ago over whether referring to investments in the caregiving economy (to address exactly these issues) as “human infrastructure” is unacceptable and for some reason therefore not worth doing?
...because in the private sector, there are already arguments over what qualifies as a responsible use of wealth and whether children are being burdened more than their fair share or if it's just an exchange for inheriting more than ever before.
 
...because in the private sector, there are already arguments over what qualifies as a responsible use of wealth and whether children are being burdened more than their fair share or if it's just an exchange for inheriting more than ever before.

Doesn't really explain why the WSJ left out the year-long legislative process that's been happening around this very issue (culminating in the House passing $150B for home-and-community-based care in its Build Back Better bill, and the Senate GOP + Joe Manchin deciding to kill it). Bizarre to leave out that context when BBB has been the domestic policy issue/discussion for most of the past year and it contains the caregiving economy component of Biden's agenda.
 
Nah. We need social conservatism so people are organically inspired to live healthy lifestyles instead of indulging in decadent and hedonist libertinism.
Which, supposing your suggestion could even be accomplished, would take at least two generations to do so. So, what do you propose in the meantime? What about you? Who will care for you? Aging is quite natural, you know and even with good habits, your body will break down and need care if you live long enough. Or, if you are younger, are you willing to devote 100% your time, week after week, to taking care of just one of your parents?

IMO, we need "Death With Dignity" laws. If they are not available, there is always the car in the garage. Not dignified, but I won't live a life of pure existence. Quality of life is much more important than quantity to me,
 
Which, supposing your suggestion could even be accomplished, would take at least two generations to do so. So, what do you propose in the meantime? What about you? Who will care for you? Aging is quite natural, you know and even with good habits, your body will break down and need care if you live long enough. Or, if you are younger, are you willing to devote 100% your time, week after week, to taking care of just one of your parents?

IMO, we need "Death With Dignity" laws. If they are not available, there is always the car in the garage. Not dignified, but I won't live a life of pure existence. Quality of life is much more important than quantity to me,
We should have discipline in the mean time where those who make bad decisions suffer consequences for what they've done.

Children who grow up to become adults need to realize their parents did not do what they were supposed to when it came to preparing for their elder years.
 
We should have discipline in the mean time where those who make bad decisions suffer consequences for what they've done.

Children who grow up to become adults need to realize their parents did not do what they were supposed to when it came to preparing for their elder years.
That doesn't at all sound psychotic as ****.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom