Working Australians are going to be required to pay a $30 billion tax in the form of a 'Medicare' style levy to provide facilities and care for the once upon a time baby boomers of the 50's and 60's, now elderly and retired, no longer working and in need of aged care. The majority of Australian are in favour of providing sustainable care for the elderly. Prior to the last election Labor was opposed to any form of levy or tax for such a purpose.

The fact that many elderly folk are asset rich, generally in the form of home ownership, are now wanting and expecting younger battling Australians, who have little prospect of ever owning their own home in the future, to pay for comfortable care and accommodation for them in their old age seems a bit rich to me.

Australian taxpayers already spend $25 billion annually on provide aged care for the old. Anther $30 billion?

"Prior to the last election Labor was opposed to any form of levy or tax for such a purpose."

Actually they SAID they were opposed - being opposed isn't the same as SAYING you're opposed. No one goes into an election promising a tax increase. But they did promise all sorts of goodies for the aged care sector, which now needs to be paid for and its slowly dawning on Labor that the money tree out the back of the PM's office has already been picked clean.

I'm not especially in favour of this type of levy or any additional payments to aged care. Benefits need to be fully means tested and if the aged want to go into care they should be forced to use a large portion of their acquired wealth to met the cost.

But its rather rich of Labor to now be pretending to be fiscally conservative once the election is over when they were promising Utopia without costs before it.

Dear Mhaze,

«if the aged want to go into care they should be forced to use a large portion of their acquired wealth to met the cost.»

Very true, but in most cases aged people do not want to go into care - but are forced to.

And nobody should be made to pay for a "service" they do not require!

Sixteen percent of all Australians are over 65. Spending $30 billion on them would seem to be a better deal than the current $30 billion being sent on the mere three percent of people claiming to have some connection to aboriginality. Particularly as you can lie about that connection, but you can't lie about your age, which is verifiable.

As for the poor-bubba-young, they will be treated the same way when they reach old age - with the same benefits, and also the same contempt and lack of respect that they show towards the elderly now.

Rather than complaining about elderly health care- I would prefer to look at how we can make ourselves self sufficient- and getting better managers- that can create efficiencies and cost savings. It seems to be indicative of a failing society when they see the elderly as a cost rather than a resource.

The proposed $30 billion levy comes on top of the already generous taxpayer funded handouts to older Australians in the form of pensions, concessions and care subsidies. Young people rightly ask, if I pay additional tax to support old people, what guarantee is there I will be afforded the same generosity in my retirement, the answer is none at all. The other vexing question is, many old folk who are 100% supported by the state are extremely asset rich, mostly in the form of property owned. Young people rightly ask, why should I pay extra tax to support old people who live in a very expensive property of their own, whilst I have no prospect of ever owning my own home, and I should pay more tax for the privileged!

I thought I would take this opportunity to say I mostly agree with Paul. First time for everything. Too many older Australians are preserving their assets when they should be spending them on themselves in their old age.

The irony of that in the context of this discussion is that the beneficiaries will be the younger generation that Paul is advocating for and who are the greatest advocates for not forcing mum and dad to downsize and use assets for aged care etc. because they want to inherit.

Some financial institutions have offered reverse mortgages so that older Australians can draw on equity in their house without having to move out, but the take-up hasn't been huge. Nothing looks like it's going to change, except that the age of retirement will probably continue to increase (as it should).

" but in most cases aged people do not want to go into care - but are forced to."

I call bullsh!t. As in not true. As in a made up claim.

I can see that some people are forced by greedy relatives to move out of their home and into aged care when it isn't necessary. But that'd be a very small minority. And indeed, if they were forced to use the home to fund the aged care, the incentives for such relatives to do this would be removed.

Dear Mhaze,

I agree that those who go voluntarily to a nursing home should pay for it, in full - but only few go voluntarily without helplessly kicking and screaming. The majority are dragged and incarcerated in nursing homes against their will, and it makes practically no difference whether that is done by their own family, by social workers or by the police.

Elderly people should be allowed to stay in their home even if that means that they will die there. Better still they should be allowed to receive self-funded care at home, which government presently makes extremely difficult and available only for the richest.

You see, there are millions of potential devoted and compassionate carers in 3rd-world countries who will be more than happy to come over to Australia and care for an elderly person for the remainder of the elderly's life, to live in just one room in his/her house, to work hard, almost 24x7, only so they can send their salary back home to their families, then return there once their job is over. Other than working they would be doing little else in Australia, so other than seeing them doing the shopping for their client, their impact on Australia will be close to zero.

Elderly people with even modest savings or alternately with an appropriate insurance, should be able to afford their services, yet cruel government wouldn't allow them entry visas. That's the reason for the current aged-care crisis and the suffering of the elderly, who should like the rest of us pay for what they want and not be robbed for services they do not want.

The single, Caucasian male worker has paid more tax than any other group in Australia. Let's see how Gen Z will contribute !

Comrade Grahamski,

If you take things in a moderate progressive liberal way, you would find yourself agreeing with Comrade Paulski more often. Keep agreeing with me and I will expect to see you at the next meeting of the Politburo.

Have the granddaughter around for dinner tonight, 17 and she's got wheels, so upwardly mobile these days. She said; "Pop you're still posting on THAT forum thing I see!" Yep, a question girl; "Do you think you'll ever be a pensioner, one day?"...."I hope not, but if I am I expects I'll have to pay it to myself."...I said; "That might be the case girl".

She wants to know who is Comrade Grahamski,.... "The Commissar who runs this Forum"....she's shaking her head..."Pop haven't you got anything better to do?...Commissars, more like nut cases, why would he be agreeing with you". ha ha.

What a miserable clown Paul is. Probably funded much more highly by some public service pension than the poor oldies.

What he happily forgets is that those oldies getting a pittance today have funded the education & health care of those now expected to contribute a little to their old age. They also built the world the young enjoy today.

Also remember the money to pay pensions comes not much from taxes, 50% pay no net tax anyway, but from government charges on mining & agriculture.

Hassy,

Have paid income tax every year for the past 50 years, and I don't get an aged pension, like those of you who have contributed nothing. I do believe you are on some kind of Australian Military Pension for your munbo jumbo behaviour in the Boer War. Am I correct? Did you not say you spent years away from Australia, sailing around the Pacific?

Have paid income tax every year for the past 50 years, and I don't get an aged pension
Paul1405,
Well, that just proves that you've had good income to afford you not requiring a Pension ! My bet is is you flogged negative gearing to to the absolute last Cent which of course is merely Welfare for high income earners !
It also suggests you were a Peter Principle bureaudroid !

1. Communists often try to discredit the old in order to inculcate Marxist Communism.

2. Also divestment of the old from their property could be a form of wealth transfer to multiculturalism- and to kill Anglo culture.

Mostly if Communists say to do something we should probably be doing the opposite.

DIE policy is the fashion of the age.

A hundred million dead under Communism in the name of equality.

mhaze,

One of my grandparents had to go into a nursing home after having a fall in their retirement village home. However, they had to spend 4-5 months in a public hospital until a nursing home space could be found for them. It's not something they wanted as they were forced into it. The food in public hospitals too is generally terrible. Could you imagine eating that for 4-5 months? I'm glad I've never been put through that. My relatives eventually found a nursing home bed, but I can assure you my grandparent would have preferred to stay in their own home. It was close to their friends and the church they went to.

Came out of the navy after a crash left my back unfit for carrier arrested landings, but no compensation as I was still fit for executive branch if I was interested. I suffer from it a bit now, but probably no worse than a bloke who spent years loading trucks, repairing them, or laying bricks.

Not only that, I was up there ready to keep you safe, when you were still in dirty nappies. Yes I know, I shouldn't have bothered.

Yes I spent some years out of the country, but was transferring quite a bit of earnings to my bank account in Oz for most of that period, unlike migrants who send our money back "home".

NathanJ,
I haven't spent all that much time in Public Hospitals but enough to categorically state that I have never had one of those bad meals you mention. I have had bad meals in expensive places but not in Hospitals !
Conditions in Public Hospitals are as good as we can expect if not better run by the staff considering the Peter Principle managers they have to work under !

Meals in public hospitals tend to be bland and somewhat repetitious, but they are of a reasonable quality, if not lacking in taste. Can always get a 'Chicken Chow Mein' smuggled into the ICU if you know the right person, and get out of bed at 2am and make yourself a cup of coffee in the staff kitchen. Some concerned nurse might question why a heart attack patent in intensive care is making himself a cuppa at 2am. Well, just say; "I'm a Fatalist, and besides I like coffee", a week later he's still there, and still making himself cups of coffee.

"One of my grandparents had to go into a nursing home after having a fall in their retirement village home. However, they had to spend 4-5 months in a public hospital until a nursing home space could be found for them. It's not something they wanted as they were forced into it. "

Well its an issue of semantics. I also had a relative who was forced into a nursing home following a series of falls at home where it became abundantly plain that she was no longer capable of living independently. Since I had guardianship which she'd signed many years earlier, I made the ultimate decision to put her in a nursing home.

That she didn't want to go isn't, in my view, the same as being forced. By that time she was incapable of making a rational decision as to her best interests and being in the nursing home was the ONLY viable option. Not only did it give her several extra years but it also improved her quality of life since she was in the company of similar people, received 24hr care, and her diet was vastly improved. Additionally it significantly improved her husbands quality of life since he had been slowly killing himslef trying to look after her at their family home, when he was clearly incapable of doing so.

Whilst she was at home, she received significant government funded help as well as help provided and/or funded by her family. But there comes a point when significant in-home help is insufficient as compared to 24hr care.

There are only two ways a person can be forced into a nursing home if they don't want it:

* if a legal guardian authorises it.
* if the medical profession determine it to be in the patients best interest AND gets a court to agree with that.

People being unnecessarily forced into a nursing home may happen but is extremely rare. I'm sure there are urban myths out there to the contrary, but it just isn't so.

Dear Mhaze,

What you did to your relative was indisputably legal - but not moral.

So what if she was no longer capable of living independently - at least she was capable of dying independently, at least she could have preserved her dignity while starving at home, like the elderly Japanese people who at the end of their useful life walk up Mount Fuji to die there in the snow. Who are you (or a medical professional for that matter) to tell that her best interest was to live rather than to die? All people end up dying anyway!

Your relative got care she did not ask for. Her dignity was violated and she was incarcerated among people she did not approve of. Is that something you would have liked being done unto yourself?

Even if being in a nursing home was the only viable option for her to live (and that too is only because Australia does not allow caring visas to non-family people in 3rd-world countries), your relative had the viable option to die, which she would eventually anyway one day.

Her husband's quality of life could too have been significantly improved if Australia allowed your relative to bring in her own cheap but dedicated 24x7 carer from overseas to care for her in her own home.

I wonder what did HE say in the matter?

Yuyutsu,

I'd said that she'd had some falls. The second last one resulted in her ripping her leg open on a piece of metal in the laundry requiring 20 stitches, a blood transfusion because of her weakened state, a 4 week stay in hospital and a regime of pain killers.

The last fall occurred in the middle of the night as she tried to get out of bed. She couldn't get up again and so rang me to come help. When I arrived she was on the floor, covered in piss, sh!t and vomit and somewhat delirious due to what turned out to be a significant UTI.

Explain dying with dignity to me again.

Hi Yuyutsu,

I don't often back mhaze, but he's acted correctly in the case of his grandmother. What would you expect him to do, let her die. Don't forget sometime back you were calling for the extinction of 97% (I calculated) of the worlds population. Remember that call!

Dear Mhaze,

That your relative had some falls is a fact.
That your relative was found with a ripped leg that required 20 stitches and a blood transfusion is a fact.
That she could not get up again and called you is a fact.
That she was covered in excretions and delirious is a fact.
That otherwise, if not taken to hospital she would most likely die, is a fact.

That her preferred response to these facts was to be taken to hospital and subsequently to a nursing home, is not a fact but a speculation - unless of course she told you herself that this is what she wanted.

Rather than "dying with dignity" (your expression), I was referring to being allowed to live the last moments of her life with dignity, that means to have her wishes respected, that means to be related to as a conscious being, as the sovereign subject of her life, rather than as an object, a mere body that must be kept breathing at all costs.

To make that difference, all you needed was to ask her, then respect her choice - and my apologies if you have in fact done that.

Dear Paul,

«What would you expect him to do, let her die.»

It is not for me to expect anything of Mhaze:
just like his relative has her choice, he too has the free choice to act morally or otherwise.
All I was saying was that IF Mhaze wanted to act morally and do the right thing by his relative, then s/he should have explained the grim facts to her and asked her whether or not she wanted to be taken to hospital, then to a nursing home - and then follow her wishes.

«sometime back you were calling for the extinction of 97% (I calculated) of the worlds population.»

Why only 97% - ALL human beings are destined to die, 100%.
But I did not call for killing anyone - that would happen by itself!
The only question was whether and to what extent to replace them who die.
It is there that I expressed my view that replacement should be reduced in such a way that the world's human population comes down (within some century or two) to 100-200 million people.

Yuyutsu,

The woman had dementia - diagnosed three separate times by three separate professionals. As such she was incapable of making a rational decision about her future or her best interests.

That is the purpose of a guardianship document - for people to make rational decisions while still able to do so about who they trust to make decisions on their behalf when they are no longer capable of doing so. In this case, I'd had long conversations with her prior to her executing the guardianship document about what she'd like to see happen in the event of her deterioration.

From what you've written, it seems you have little experience as regards people in their declining years. Unfortunately there is a prevalence in the world today for people to speak forcefully and with full moral authority on things they are utterly ignorant of. Leaving people who are no longer capable of independent living to wallow in their squalor out of some misguided belief in their independent rights is neither moral nor caring.

Decisions made by loved ones about the best interests of the slowly dying aren't questions that the outside puritan has a say in. Might I suggest spending a few visits to your local nursing home to see the state of people there and find out why they are there.

After my mothers health was destroyed by the dreadful people employed as weekend nursers at a large southern Brisbane public hospital, she never walked. From independent in her granny flat to totally bed bound by Queensland health in a few days. I wouldn't feed most public health people.

The nursing home was great, doing everything they could for her, but she hated the life style. I couldn't even take her for a drive, as it was too hard to get her into a car. I know, we tried, she was just too frail to man handle safely.

Dear Mhaze,

If you discussed your relative's wishes in advance and she told you that she would want to be in a nursing home in these circumstances and has not told you otherwise since, then all is settled and fine. You can only go by your sincere best guess of her wishes.

I already visit nursing homes since my orchestra plays in them regularly.
We try to alleviate their suffering with music and make them smile for a moment, even sing along, but it is not a place I would want to be in myself.

My own choice would be to be cared for privately at home, just as my elder relatives in other countries were cared for in their last years by a dedicated private carer. The Australian government doesn't allow it, so my second choice is to be allowed to die peacefully in my own home.

"as it was too hard to get her into a car. I know, we tried, she was just too frail to man handle safely."

Yep, I know what that's like. The woman I speak of was also too frail to walk from her bed even to a chair in the same room. So in the nursing home she needed to burly blokes to get out of bed and into a wheel chair each morning and night. Also to lift her onto the loo.

I was able to take her out IF I was able to find a second relative to help get to to and from the car seat.

Yet Yuyutsu seems to think we could have (and should have) hired some little Filipino girl to do all that on daily basis.

"my elder relatives in other countries were cared for in their last years by a dedicated private carer. The Australian government doesn't allow it,"

That's utterly untrue. The one thing the Australian government most wants is for people to remain at home for as long as possible because of the cost of subsidising nursing home care. If someone wants to self-fund home care, not only would the government not stop it, they'd welcome it.

Dear Mhaze,

«Yet Yuyutsu seems to think we could have (and should have) hired some little Filipino girl to do all that on daily basis.»

There is a small bedside crane designed specifically for lifting patients from bed to a wheelchair and vice-versa. For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMnpCOJ5zHA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzouYWmAJSk

Even a little Filipino girl (and some are not that little) can operate that crane, several times a day even.

«If someone wants to self-fund home care, not only would the government not stop it, they'd welcome it.»

They may say they do, but they won't allow a visa for the carer (unless they are a family member). There are millions of Philipinas and Philipinos alone, let alone Sri-Lankans, Indians, Vietnamese and Africans who are eager to come and stay with and care for an elderly person in their home for a modest salary. They have free 6-month training courses available before they arrive, arranged by work-agencies in the hosting countries - the only thing stopping them from coming to Australia is the lack of visa.

Note also that people in other countries who are not sure they will be able to financially afford an appropriate overseas carer should they need one in their final years, can take in advance a special insurance policy for that event.

Yes Yuyutsu, I've seen the lifts in action in real life. There's a vast difference between lifting a 20-something who is cooperative and able to roll and hold a position as seen in the glossy videos , as compared to a 80-something who doesn't cooperate, can't roll on command and resists because they aren't used to dangling in mid air. The nursing home I saw it used at, found that upkeep due to break-downs was very expensive and they needed three because one was almost always out of action. But I'm sure the home-care patient will be happy to lay in bed for a few days while their lifter is repaired!!

Look, I will agree that given unlimited funds to pay for all the mod-cons, 24/7 year-round care and constant medical attendance, its theoretically possible for an ailing dementia patient to remain home. But most people don't have unlimited funds. That is the real world.

From the earliest days Aged care has been the moral responsibility of the young, not a 'Burden'.
Just as caring for the young is the moral responsibility, not a 'Burden' for the older !
To suggest anything else is lacking humanity in peoples' mentality !

There comes a time when it is impossible for the elderly to live any form of independent life.

My mother was living independently in her granny flat until about 95 years old. She had us doing some things, home assist 3 half days a week, her phone, a help caller pendent around her neck & us just 25 meters away.

Then her cordless phone died. She never learnt to work any of the 3 new ones we bought her. Then she spent a night on the floor because she forgot what the help pendent was for, then she broke a hip.

It is sad but true, Independence is taken from us by age, & only an institution can have staff watching all night to help those when they need it.

There comes a time when it is impossible for the elderly to live any form of independent life.
Hasbeen,
Not according to Paul1405, he's convinced he'll either never get old or need assistanc

pay more tax for the privileged!
Paul1405,
By privileged, they usually mean those who worked not the thousands of bureaudroids with a Mill or two in Superannuation & without a care in the World !