Tristan says "To really adequately meet standards of intellectual ,cultural, spiritual engagement - Again these standards and promises are empty without funding. Only funding means there will be books, information and communications technology etc."

Surely you must be joking. Since when did Australians become so incapable of meeting their own needs that it became the governments responsibility to provide for their "intellectual, spiritual and cultural engagement". What has happened to these people and their families that they are unable to provide their own books, communications technology and other pass times? Should the government also supply these things for me and my family too? Is no-one responsible for themselves and their families any more in your opinion?
You obviously will not be satisfied until the government (taxpayers) control, pay for and regulate absolutely every aspect of our lives.

The problem is not unlike the issue of paedophile priests, in that the overwhelming majority of priests were not paedophiles - but they turned their backs on victims and were more concerned to protect the industry. The aged care industry has to similarly acknowledge it has some bad apples, but it is because of subhuman attitudes (like some of the selfish and ignorant people - who have so appealingly responded to this article) that the baddies get away with it.

I don't believe that we should prolong death, but nor should defenceless victims be allowed to be mistreated. Elder abuse is not acceptable - full stop. The obsession with youth, and denial of ageing, is a media driven disgrace.

For those who think that money shouldn't be spent on the elderly, they need to bear in mind that it costs far more in intensive care for a premature baby. Today's young, who remain at home and sponge off their parents until their mid thirties, are far more of a drain on working families than the elderly.

Some respondents seem to be suggesting we opt for a eugenic society - as Hitler did - and euthanize all sick and disabled 'unproductive burdens'.

Ageism is a sick replacement for racism and sexism - and a royal commission is needed to bring it out into the open.

Dear Tristan,

Once again - Thank You for this article and I
fully support your insurance scheme for the elderly.
I think it's not only a great idea but a necessity.
If people live long enough, dependence becomes inevitable.

Extreme
old age, beginning around the eighties, is accompanied,
sooner or later, by a slowing or even crippling of mental
and physical processes. Unable or unwilling to take care
of an elderly relative, younger family members usually
arrange for the aged person to move to a nursing or
old-age home. This prospect is hardly an appealing one,
however, at best, it means living in an unfamiliar
environment where one relies for medical and other needs
on professional staff rather than on family or relatives.

Some homes offer superb facilities, but many are dreary,
shabby, and ill-equipped places, run by people whose
concern is not in the best interests of the elderly but rather
in whatever profit they can wring from the enterprise.

I'm not sure what the exact percentage of the elderly are in
nursing or old-age homes at any given time, but most do
conclude their lives in that kind of setting. Today, fewer
than one in five dies in that familiar context; most of the
rest meet death in a hospital or nursing home.