The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Aged care crisis - Australia's greatest shame > Comments

Aged care crisis - Australia's greatest shame : Comments

By Tristan Ewins, published 17/7/2013

We need a comprehensive National Aged Care Insurance Scheme along similar lines to the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
whilst I am extraordinarily conscious of the amount of money being spent on aged care and not completely against the idea of an insurance scheme for when we are old, nothing changes the fact that we will get old, and we will die. That is what we call a fact of life.

What drives me berserk with anger is when supposedly "intelligent" experts spend any time at all on extending our lifespans, to the point where I have actually heard these experts talk about keeping somebody alive until they are 150. What planet are they from? WTF will feed these people? WTF will care for them? WTF will pay the bills?

We already have an ageing population which has 60% of the population paying the bills of the other 40%, in terms of pensions, allowances, the dole, and so on ad infinitum. Where will this need to extend people's lifetime to 150 years End?

It is high time that the money wasted on research into extending peoples lifetimes stop and that money directed towards something a little more useful among the thoughts could actually be aged care.
Posted by Daemon, Wednesday, 17 July 2013 10:16:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we invested $15 billion a year in today's terms in National Aged Care Insurance - that would be only 1 per cent of GDP - and yet it would make a massive difference. The point is that with increased funding not only can we extend peoples' lifespans - but crucially we can maintain a better quality of life. This also applies to keeping people out of high intensity care until they really need it. (that means more low intensity care, support for Carers' etc) Read the article through and see the suggestions I make. If we can help the disabled, we can also improve the quality of life of our vulnerable aged. (unless you oppose the NDIS as well) As I argue, today the problem is so bad we have malnutrition on a massive scale; and people are denied what should be a human right for the best quality palliative care. If people think it will 'cost too much' we will see how they feel when it is their quality of life - of that of their loved ones - at stake.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Wednesday, 17 July 2013 10:56:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Tristan,

I take that on board and I hadn't actually discounted it as an issue. I think it would be a great idea if people could actually put together a process where their health insurance covered them into their old age, even if that means a publicly assisted insurance scheme such as you are suggesting.

That does not however we move the main point that I made, which was that if people spent a hell of a lot less money on finding ways to increase people's lifespans, and instead worked on the idea of management of Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases of the elderly (and in some cases not so elderly), the whole process would be better off.

My biggest grief about the whole process is that I do not believe money should be spent on research into keeping people alive until they are 150 years old. far better to spend the money on research into management of current illnesses and diseases then run around trying to keep people alive who would have no quality of life.
Posted by Daemon, Wednesday, 17 July 2013 1:36:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,
I don't understand how insufficient funding, for there is currently some degree of state based funding of disability, outweights disgraceful policy that encourages people to undertake endeavours that result in 100's of innocent men, women and children to die at sea.

I think your prorities are a tad askew.
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 17 July 2013 3:13:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well one thing we can be sure of, Tristan did not teach math. If he did he would know that there is no 15 Billion for anything. There is no 10 Billion for an NDIS, or a Gonski, or 100 Billion for a National Broadband Network.

For god sake mate, go get some year 12 math student to do some math for you, then write 100 times, We do not want to be another Grease. Then open your eyes & observe the world.

All these things would be lovely, particularly for someone like me who is near that part of their lives, but they just AINT on mate. The system won't allow any more money to be poured into taking in each others washing.

Yes you are right, it's the wrong system. Just like socialism which works until you run out of other peoples money, [about last decade for the western world], women in full time work is great, until you run out of old time grannies & mums who stayed at home, & did all the caring we now pay through the nose for for.

They were the ones who cared for the elderly, the disabled, & their kids, [no child care required thanks], in a system that worked. Sure we had less SUVs, pleasure boats, & overseas trips, but we all lived well, if less exciting lives.

Time we went back to the old way. Unfortunately I don't see any way back without a huge catastrophe first, thanks to ideas like this.

As for 10 Billion for the aged care we should be doing ourselves, forget it mate, we are going broke now, we don't need to hasten that any more, with hair brained feel good schemes.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 17 July 2013 3:24:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

Why not use the extra 3% that is going to be paid into superannuation when it rises to 12% for longevity/long-term care insurance? With longevity insurance, you would get nothing until you turn 85, for example, and would then get an annuity, reducing worries about outliving the money. A great many people are never going to need long-term care or will be cared for at home. From a US website

http://www.aaltci.org/long-term-care-insurance/learning-center/probability-long-term-care.php

"What percentage of people who purchase long-term care insurance will utilize their policy at some point before they die?. They need to know this in order to properly price the policies you buy.

"We asked them [actuaries] to provide data at various ages from 60 to 80. And, here is the answer.

"The lifetime chance someone who buys a policy at age 60 will use their policy before they die is 50%. So, 50% will use their policy and 50% won't. The actuaries did this based on a zero (0) day elimination period. Obviously it assumes you keep your policy in force by paying premiums.

"Most people today, however, purchase coverage with a 90-day Elimination Period (a 90-day deductible, or where you or someone else will pay for care for 90 days until the policy kicks in. That is a significant way to make coverage today affordable. So, I went back to the actuaries and asked them to take this into consideration. What happens if you purchase coverage with a 90-day deductible?

"For someone with a 90-day Elimination Period, the lifetime chance of someone buying coverage at age 60 and using policy benefits was 35%. So, 35% will use their coverage and 65% will not. As you might assume, the decline is because during those first 90 days, some people will recover and some will die."

They also have a table showing that 44% of the people who do enter a nursing home will have a stay of less than a year and 74% less than 3 years.
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 17 July 2013 4:06:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy