How familiar! Here am I, at 65+, retired and living in the Philippines with my wife in her early 50s and a teenage son. We were doing OK financially till my mother-in-law had an accident and required a hip operation. Even though she was covered by PhilHealth, the 'gap' meant that my older career sister-in-law's savings were exhausted, so she turned to us, and now our savings are almost exhausted too!

I've been here 728 days today and had a slight hunch something like this would happen, so it wasn't a total bad surprise. So now I'm thinking of returning to Australia to find some casual work for a few months. I don't think my chances are Buckley's, because I'm in pretty good nick and mentally quite alert, but I would have to be dealing with other younger people's prejudices.

But I suppose if I were living in Australia, I wouldn't have retired from an excellent public service job at the age of 63, so I'd either be dead by now or in debt up to my eyeballs. Either way you look at it, superannuation is no guarantee of anything. Even governments can go belly up. Just think of Iceland's parlous position, and count your blessings.

logans run.

I wish our pollies were as insightful. Whenever the aging population gets a mention, it is usually in the context of an impending calamity, with ridiculous proposals for its resolution. It is nice to see someone in our throw away society with an interest in value adding. It seems beyond the comprehension of some that an aging population is not an inevitable catastrophe.

Instead of a baby bonus, it may be the case that an exercise bonus could deliver far greater economic benefits.