• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Death Lottery

Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm unclear here. Are saying the government or the public or one's children should provide financial support for their aging parents who have accumulated wealth because having to use that wealth is bad because the kids won't get it?

Or are you only saying if the entire family doesn't have quite enough resources the income earners have to decide how to dole 'not enough' money out?
Click to expand...


I don't have a strong opinion on what the solution to the problem ought to be. It's too complicated of a problem to give a meaningful answer off the cuff.

What I am doing is pointing out a problem that often gets overlooked, and a source of that problem.

The problem I am pointing out is that we have created a "creepy" (your term, and an accurate one) situation for millions of families. Because of the way we fund retirement savings and elderly care, we have created a situation in which millions of people look at their aging parents and see a potential financial windfall, but only if they drop dead soon. That's creepy, for sure, but it's very real, and there's no way for realistic people to avoid noticing it.

Now, most of us are relatively decent people, and we don't find ourselves yearning for mom to drop dead on the golf course before she spends all of her money on tee times and plane tickets. Most of us wish our aging parents the ultimate in happiness in their golden years, and don't envy them one bit the right to enjoy their hard earned rewards.

On the other hand, there comes a time when mom can't go to the golf course, or walk without a walker, or talk normally because of the stroke, or get up to go to the bathroom, or recognize her family members. Somewhere along the line, someone starts noticing that mom is a senile, marginally conscious, shell of her former self, and it's costing $5,000 bucks per month to keep her that way. If it's her own money, we might notice that although we have no right to it, there would still be a lot more of it in our hands if she were to end this miserable existence soon. If she is all out of money, and we are footing all or part of the bill, it would be extraordinary if we did not begrudge the rather large material sacrifices we were making to prolong her existence.

And how did we create this situation? Well, we did it by expecting us to fund a large portion of our retirement funding, including our health care, with saved money. Sure, government will provide that money, but only at a minimal level, and all of ours has to be gone in order to get the full benefit. That means that all of us who do the responsible thing and save money for retirement are creating a signficant source of financial security for our children, but only if we die before it's used up. How could they not notice?

So, what should we do about it? I have no answers. No matter what we do, the problem cannot be totally solved as long as our productive days end before the end of our lives. On the other hand, I think we could follow policies that would lessen the problem.

I would say that old age pensions, including health care and some degree of assisted living services that are necessary for health and quality of life, should be provided to seniors free and without condition. That way, ordinary people wouldn't have to save up as much. We still could. The responsible among us still would. As long as we are capable of enjoying life and being happy, we want to have some spending money in our pocket, and government shouldn't take care of that. However, by the time we get to the point where someone else has to wipe the drool from our chin, it would be nice if government would take over the tab, so that at least our kids wouldn't resent our continued existence.

At keastm that's what I think I would support. As I said, I don't have strong feelings on the subject. It's very complicated. I'm curious what other people have to say about it, which is why I started the thread. Note that what I am focusing on, though, is slightly different than a typical thread on related topics. Usually, the focus is on how we pay for elder care. That's one aspect of the problem, but only one. I also wanted to focus on the inevitable resentment associated with the private funding of elder care, and the need to pay for it at all.
 
Meadmaker said:
I don't have a strong opinion on what the solution to the problem ought to be. It's too complicated of a problem to give a meaningful answer off the cuff.

What I am doing is pointing out a problem that often gets overlooked, and a source of that problem.

The problem I am pointing out is that we have created a "creepy" (your term, and an accurate one) situation for millions of families. Because of the way we fund retirement savings and elderly care, we have created a situation in which millions of people look at their aging parents and see a potential financial windfall, but only if they drop dead soon. That's creepy, for sure, but it's very real, and there's no way for realistic people to avoid noticing it.
Click to expand...
This is a cultural thing, not something 'controlled' by laws or society. I certainly didn't feel that way about my Mom. I don't agree with you that it has to do with the circumstance of eldercare. I think it has to do with the love within an individual family.

Meadmaker said:
[most not this way acknowledged]

On the other hand, there comes a time when mom can't go to the golf course, or walk without a walker, or talk normally because of the stroke, or get up to go to the bathroom, or recognize her family members. Somewhere along the line, someone starts noticing that mom is a senile, marginally conscious, shell of her former self, and it's costing $5,000 bucks per month to keep her that way. If it's her own money, we might notice that although we have no right to it, there would still be a lot more of it in our hands if she were to end this miserable existence soon. If she is all out of money, and we are footing all or part of the bill, it would be extraordinary if we did not begrudge the rather large material sacrifices we were making to prolong her existence.

And how did we create this situation? Well, we did it by expecting us to fund a large portion of our retirement funding, including our health care, with saved money. Sure, government will provide that money, but only at a minimal level, and all of ours has to be gone in order to get the full benefit. That means that all of us who do the responsible thing and save money for retirement are creating a signficant source of financial security for our children, but only if we die before it's used up. How could they not notice?
Click to expand...
I don't buy your underlying premises here. I never viewed my parent's money as 'my' money.

Meadmaker said:
...
I would say that old age pensions, including health care and some degree of assisted living services that are necessary for health and quality of life, should be provided to seniors free and without condition. That way, ordinary people wouldn't have to save up as much. We still could. The responsible among us still would. As long as we are capable of enjoying life and being happy, we want to have some spending money in our pocket, and government shouldn't take care of that. However, by the time we get to the point where someone else has to wipe the drool from our chin, it would be nice if government would take over the tab, so that at least our kids wouldn't resent our continued existence.

.... I also wanted to focus on the inevitable resentment associated with the private funding of elder care, and the need to pay for it at all.
Click to expand...
As one's parent ages, you want them to be comfortable and happy. I think access to home care is a much bigger issue than the expense of nursing homes and what not.

It's hard to relate to your premises here.
 
Meadmaker said:
We have a growing problem in America. It probably affects other cultures as well. I call it "the death lottery". Here's how it works.
Click to expand...

No the problem is the untraditional and unrealistic expectations of the 1950's. Being a burden on your kids as an old person is part of the traditional family. Kids being the #1 traditional retirement plan after all. It is the expectation that you will not be a burden on your children and can maintain independence that is a relatively new idea.

As far as nursing homes, well how often do you see people terribly afraid of being a burden on their kids?

Inheritances were only for the upper classes anyway so why try to extend them to everyone?
 
lionking said:
Do you have any evidence for this? I think it's nonsense.
Click to expand...

Like what? Poll results? How many people are going to answer a poll question, "Do you wish your parents were dead?"

How about this, though. I don't know if the term is known in Australia, but for the last few years, American politicians have spoken of the "Sandwich Generation", caught between their aging parents and their growing children, being forced to choose between providing care for their parents or college for their kids. It's enough of a problem to spawn a political cliche.

Those politicians don't bring up the obvious way out of the "sandwich" but it would be absurd to think that some people might prefer it if they could just remove one slice of bread.
 
I'm a baby boomer, I know all about aging parents. Your assertion is rubbish and, frankly, says something about you.
 
lionking said:
I'm a baby boomer, I know all about aging parents. Your assertion is rubbish and, frankly, says something about you.
Click to expand...

Hmmm....I think what we write says something about each of us.


Try googling '"sandwich generation" wish dead'
 
jayh said:
This won't change till we're willing as a society to put a cost-benefit analysis to medical procedures with little chance of real success.
Click to expand...

I am not yet convinced that this is the best of all possible solutions, but I am heartily convinced that we, as a nation, should have a rational discussion about the issue you raise. Of course, this approach will be impossible because as soon as a politician suggests even talking abut it, political commentators such as Limbaugh, Beck, and O'Reilly will scream, "DEATH PANELS!!11!! OMG, THE NAZI LEFT WANTS TO KILL GRANDMA!!!111!!!"
 
One thing that struck me in the healthcare thread was a US poster referring to expensive, heroic interventions done to keep someone breathing on their deathbed a couple of weeks longer as "saving lives".

I recognise there's a spectrum of benefit, and it's probably more difficult than one thinks to draw an exact line (I suppose that's where the QALY comes in). However, when I talk about saving a life, that's not really the sort of outcome I'm referring to.

Rolfe.
 
Meadmaker said:
If, on the other hand, we drop dead suddenly shortly after retirment, our heirs win! All that money we saved up to support us for many years with very expensive health care can now pass to our middle aged children. Cha-Ching!

It's a very bad situation. Many of us find ourselves looking at our parents (or our in-laws) and hoping for a speedy death.
Click to expand...


I call them GRAPES.

Got Rich At Parents Expense.
 
Travis said:
I was in a hospital waiting room awhile back (for someone else obviously) and it struck me how most of the people getting surgery were 65+ getting procedures that cost upwards of $100k that may extend their life 6+ months.
Click to expand...

Watch out or they will put you in charge of the "death panels".
 
Travis said:
I was in a hospital waiting room awhile back (for someone else obviously) and it struck me how most of the people getting surgery were 65+ getting procedures that cost upwards of $100k that may extend their life 6+ months.
Click to expand...
How were you able to obtain the information on what surgeries they were getting as well as their medical prognosis?
 
I always assumed that my parents worked hard all their lives and saved so that they could have a comfortable retirement. Their money is their money (or more specifically my Dad's money is his money - Mum died last year) and I expect it to be spent in their welfare.

If I have to pony up a few thousand, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands (if I can afford it) to provide additional care then it's the least I could do in return for them providing for my every need for 21 years.

Now, granted that we live in the UK so that medical care is pretty much taken care of thanks to the NHS. Personal care on the other hand is not and I expect that to run to £30,000 - £50,000 a year when the time comes. I hope that, subject to quality of life being maintained, I have to pay it for years when the time comes.

That being said, my Dad has recently gifted Mrs Don and I around £250,000 (this is in addition to the £6,000 we get tax free). Should he survive 7 years then this will be free of inheritance tax. Should he require it back it is ring-fenced from the rest of our savings and of course it's his whenever he wants it.
 
Ur doin it wrong.

Four years ago my mother and I bought a house together, but it's in my name although she paid a quarter of the purchase price. (Solicitor's advice because mother was 90 when we bought the house, and I have no siblings.)

She brings around £13,000 p.a. income to the household budget.

Works for us!

Rolfe.

ETA: The first line not directed to The Don, as I didn't see his post before posting. I heartily approve of his take on this.
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
Of course, this approach will be impossible because as soon as a politician suggests even talking abut it, political commentators such as Limbaugh, Beck, and O'Reilly will scream, "DEATH PANELS!!11!! OMG, THE NAZI LEFT WANTS TO KILL GRANDMA!!!111!!!"
Click to expand...

Only if a left wing politician presents it.

As long as the death panels are run on a for profit basis in the free market, they're fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom