Well given what they've already contributed they should be immune to market forces and multi millionaire "service Providers"? What has happened to social cohesion and not for profit care of our kids and the oldies!

Perhaps we need to replace aged care with compulsory euthanasia?

Or alternatively GM induced robust good health that virtually eliminates the need for aged care for anyone?

We could save billions!
Rhrosty.

Whenever I hear the familiar hype of "people are living too long, HELP the sky is falling in" I go on Red Alert. The expert on the hype of course was Costello 10 years ago when the "reasoning" went as "people are living too long, it's the Pensioner's fault, so I need to steal $65 billion from the people to fund my own UNfunded Super". AND he got away with it!

And just now Hockey did a repeat in order to tighten the Age Pension Asset Test starting 2017.

So pardon me if I DON'T go all "Logan's Run" in respect of this issue.

But there is great irony in the method the author tries to use to justify his particular "urgent issue". He says:

"If you were born in 1945 that rose to around 68 years of age. etc etc"

So the hype item he uses is taking what the United Nations has apparently said and applying that to our Australian "situation" (and forgetting all about the fact ALL those kids by 2067 will have so much Super, thanks to Keating, they will not be getting an Age Pension). But if we use the same "method" for his males born in 1945, then Hockey would not have a problem right now as the average male would only be looking at 3 years of Age Pension.

I am not saying his figures are wrong but rather that they lack qualification, hence it may well be true that "a male born in 1945 AND exposed to the ebola virus could expect to live to 68". Whatever, the TRUE figures are known as they are IN the legislation, FROM the ABS.

This all leads to the HUGE issue of "the G Word" but my space has run out so "more to come folks..."

To continue, and quoting FROM the SSAct:

A male born in 1945 and retiring in 2010 at 65 had a life expectancy of 82.70 (86.15 for females), and in the 5 years to 2015 that has risen to 83.54 (86.62 for females) so the average rise in life expectancy is around ONE year in every 10 years (at present), which is hardly the "runaway longevity increase" touted by Costello, Hockey and every "financial analyst" trying to push a particular issue.

G Word still to come folks

Littleozemailpensioner, it is not only the Governments 'touting' the coming explosion of older people in our society, but the medical and scientific communities also predict that people will live longer.

We do need to plan for this, or, as is happening to a certain extent now, there will be a backlog of elderly eligible nursing home patients 'living' in public hospital medical wards, to the detriment of all others who are waiting for acute hospital beds.

For the elderly to have to live so long in the sterile, busy, impersonal environment of public hospitals is truly awful.

The government talks about providing 'aged care packages' so people can live longer in their own homes. The trouble is that most people can't afford this sort of 'help', unless they don't pay rent, and own their own homes.
Even then, the cost is often prohibitive.

So they can always agree to go into a nursing home or 'Aged Care Facility', if they sell their family home to pay for the huge bond and ongoing living expenses.

The problem there is that their loving kiddies are often upset that their 'inheritance' will need to be used to care for mum or dad in their old age, so they keep the poor sods at home a lot longer than they should be, physically and/or mentally....

Littleozemailpensioner, it is not only the Governments 'touting' the coming explosion of older people in our society, but the medical and scientific communities also predict that people will live longer.

---

Exactly as I am saying, ie all those touting have an agenda, but if there WAS a trend to an "explosion" it would be showing up in the REAL figures from the ABS, and my statement of those trends above says no.

And that leads to Grandfathering as from 1 Jan 2015, the irony being the ABS longevity figures are part OF the legislation that says how much Age Pension a person might get over those 20 years, and as a woman you might be concerned that females stand to get about $20,000 less in Pension over 20 years purely because females in general live longer than men.

But that is just the tip of the iceberg reason why the Grandfathering legislation was snuck in under the cover of darkness, as the main reason is that if all those pensioners being induced by the govt and BigSuper to STAY with Grandfather actually LEFT, the govt would be up for $200 billion extra Pension over next 20 years.

So far govt has saved $5 billion but will the secret last another 19.5 years?