Sounds fair enough on first read. However, people who are well off also pay the most in personal taxes and have done so in their lifetime. In the case of the Medicare levy, if you earn more you pay more, but get the same benefit.

So, if the Government extended Medicare to cover the cost of aged care, then the same would apply. The higher earners would pay more but all would get the same service. I can't agree with the proposition that because you are wealthy your assets should be stripped in order to get access to aged care. Rather if you are wealthy you pay more tax and a greater medicare levy. That's fair enough. But when it comes to aged care benefits, when the time comes, all sould have equal access.

Translation: we made a lot of friends and gained political clout by supporting free aged care, but now we realise how much it's going to cost us, we've suddenly realised it's a Bad Thing.

Which they could have foreseen at the time, of course, if they'd been willing to do the math: but it wasn't politically expedient.

Paying your way in aged care is the last step in disfranchising ordinary people of home ownership. In the past they have struggled to pay mortgages and to become a landowner. This will now be of short duration as the value of their homes will be sucked into the future vortex of aged care.

Shamefully this extra cash of people’s homes will not translate into high quality services but will be put towards paying the interest payments as new aged care facilities are set up. Our homes will pay for the sites and buildings etc and the care will be funded by overstretched government budgets as it is now.

Our present system of debt and taxes has failed the many homeless and unemployed and despite the apparent wealth of the present baby boomers we are all in for a bleak future until we are able to build strong working families via a healthy system of land tax rather than taxing workers

I believe the new system will be means tested. I did read the figure somewhere, but can't remember the exact details now, however you can bet the Government will have set the figure low enough to catch everyone as land prices rise, provided the USA doesn't lead us into another world war or, as is much more likely, another great and possibly unending depression.

I struggled to build this home and pay it off. I've gone without a lot and still continue to live a very modest lifestyle. My car is 20 years old and I rarely travel anywhere. I only work part time, but for all that I'm very happy with my low income, low expectation lifestyle, however I am a little "old fashioned" in believing that when I die, my home should be sold and divided between my two children. One is struggling to pay off a mortgage, the other can't afford one.

Because of these recommendations, my future looks stark. I am determined not to have to sell my house to subsidise my aged care. I've worked all my life and paid more than enough taxes in that time. I was insulted badly enough when Swan raised the pension age. It looks as though I'll have to take 'exit plan B' while I'm still able to do so in the hope that my demise will allow my children to share in the stingy little bit of financial help they'll get from selling up my house.

Actually (and please correct me if I'm wrong) I seem to remember that when John "jack-boot" Howard introduced or tried to introduce similar changes which would have meant people having to sell their homes to support their aged care, many elderly couples took drastic action and the suicide rate soared to the point whereby Howard had to rescind the legislation.

Look, I'd be more than willing to sell my home to support my entry into an aged care facility when the time comes provided my family was well on their feet, after all, what's the use of a house when you're too old to look after it properly, but since it's not likely that my off-spring will own their own homes by then, I'm damned determined to exit this world before the bloody minded Government and so called "care" organisations force me to sell my home and hand the money over to them. This house and the bit of stuff that's in it is all I have to leave to my kids and by hook or by crook, that's the way it's going to be!

To put this problem in perspective, it is necessary to look at the numbers. Most people will never need residential aged care. For people aged 65, approximately 46% of women and 28% of men will eventually need to move to a nursing home.

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-iar-final-report.htm~ageing-iar-final-report-3.htm

The average length of stay is currently 2.8 years.

http://www.aihw.gov.au/mediacentre/2009/mr20090619.cfm

From a 2003 source, 39% of the people who enter a nursing home as permanent residents will have a stay of less than a year

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-iar-review-framework.htm~ageing-iar-review-framework-2.htm

These sorts of numbers mean that (purely on the basis of luck) some people escape entirely, while assets are wiped out, including the assets of the partner, for the unlucky few. The situation cries out for a social insurance approach. For the current elderly, this could take the form of a levy on inheritances. In the long term, either government regulated long term care insurance (perhaps as part of superannuation) or an aged care levy on top of the Medicare levy might be the answer. The latter could deal with the problem of private companies going belly up, etc.

Longevity insurance could also help. Currently, in the US, $25,000 paid by a woman at age 65 can buy her $12,000 a year from age 85.

http://moneyover55.about.com/od/insuranceknowhow/a/howtouselongevityinsurance.htm