To bring this back on-topic, just for a moment, the question raised is "Is it better to be an old poor Australian or a Prisoner?"

The rationale being that prisoners are better fed and cared for than some pensioners. This makes the argument entirely about the economics of the elderly, given that no-one would choose jail if they were able to look after themselves financially.

So it occurs to me that the question is really about the value of freedom.

Put crudely, would you trade your freedom for a life where you had none. More importantly, would you commit a crime sufficiently heinous to incarcerate yourself for the rest of your life - if not, would you be better off after your release?

Alternatively, we could simply rephrase the question as "are we comfortable living in a society where the elderly are less well provided for than the criminal classes." That would at least allow us to debate what the phrase "provided for" means in this context. Because it quite quickly reverts to the same freedom/non-freedom question.

Clearly the optinum way to care for the elderly in a manner that society can afford is to consign them to a facility that operates along exactly the same lines as a prison, but without the pejorative context. Communal facilities, spartan surroundings, no choice of neighbour/next meal/recreation etc.

Personally, I'd opt for freedom. Every time.

IF WE DECENTRALIZED PRISONS.[ sorry duty of care homes/rather than bulk housing/we coulD EMPTY THE VICTIMLESS CRIME AND Insert intensive ong term care into jail.where the prisoners gain freedom by giVING QUAIlTY OF LIFE SERVICE/UNDER MONITORING 24/7

PUT long term care into jails?

IT SI BE FUNNy/im living with a gob of retted teeth
but will SOMEHOW MAYBE DIE WITH BETTER THAN I CAN use today

life assurance..raTHER THAN IN-SURE-TRANCE

Sorry OUG, but I think you've lost it. Your recent posts on several threads, with all your references to court and jail and teeth and the USA's world dominance conspiracy, are a bit off the air.
Time to get a grip?

Pericles,

The cost of aged care is a real worry, as well as the shortage of quality care places.
Could it be that salary costs are just too high - based on all the current demands for qualifications?
Perhaps the 'right kind' of carers, sans 'qualifications' could do just as good a job, but without the skyrocket wages?
(Of course the mighty buck, the profit motive, comes into all of it as well. No-one does much 'for love' anymore.)

And skyrocketing land and building costs also come into it - for aged-care facilities, and for the elderly to have been able to purchase their own home, or else then to rent in their retirement.
I feel our governments should provide much more affordable quality care for the elderly - and a lot more affordable housing in general.

As for the aged pension, is it sufficient - given current general living costs?

> "are we comfortable living in a society where the elderly are less well provided for than the criminal classes." <

Are they really less well provided for?
If so, what might be needed to correct any deficiency?

That's confusing matters even more, Saltpetre.

I was merely suggesting that the opening question might be more adequately phrased as...

>>are we comfortable living in a society where the elderly are less well provided for than the criminal classes.<<

...using the writer's own premise that a) prisoners have their every need catered for while b) pensioners are left to fend for themselves.

So when you then ask...

>>Are they really less well provided for?
If so, what might be needed to correct any deficiency?<<

...you are questioning the opening poster's starting position.

Sadly, I can't help you with that, as the point I was trying to make had to do with the value of freedom to control one's own destiny. I certainly don't actually believe that we should herd them into homes and treat them like prisoners, if that was worrying you.

It does of course leave open the question as to what exactly is the responsibility of "society" in this context. Tasks and responsibilities that used to be the unquestioned lot of family are now assumed to devolve onto the State.

Why should this necessarily be the case?

Pericles, you raise a very good question.

>It does of course leave open the question as to what exactly is the responsibility of "society" in this context. Tasks and responsibilities that used to be the unquestioned lot of family are now assumed to devolve onto the State.

Why should this necessarily be the case?<

In your previous post you also offered an 'optimal' suggestion, but then voted against it:

>Personally, I'd opt for freedom. Every time.<

I opt for freedom too - but I'm not sure how long I (and many others) will be able to maintain it, as I/we descend into frailty and ultimately the probability of alzheimers/dementia and incognitum.

I have no children, no wife, and only a small family group with their own lives to lead - so I'm really on my own recognizance, and getting on.
There must be many in the same or similar position, or worse.

My brother and I had to put our mother and father into aged-care towards the end of their lives. It was a distressing choice, and even more distressing reality. The wounds of caring for an age-disabled parent, at home and in a 'facility' leave scars.
It's reasonable having home-care, meals-on-wheels and visiting nurse, but it's still not great - but quality nursing home care is really scarce, and even the best is not 'ideal'.
As a mate said "when I can't wipe my backside, I want out".

Society's responsibility?
Our fortunate society of 'entitlement' has evolved to provide all manner of welfare, including the aged pension, home nursing and government-supported nursing homes, and various NGO's and charities also chip in (some very substantially).
We are 'the Lucky Country', but some feel it's still not doing enough.

Around the world many do with much less, and a lack of real freedom causes much conflict, turmoil and despair.
Even so, I feel we should have better aged-care, nursing homes and affordable housing.
Better 'sharing' appears the only avenue - with the well-off (everywhere in the world) putting more into the 'kitty'.
We've moved too far forwards to go back now.

saLTY PETER/QUOTE..<<Better 'sharing' appears the only avenue - with the well-off (everywhere in the world) putting more into the 'kitty'.
We've moved too far forwards to go back now>>

i jusT BEEN READING up on tonineE..the basis of 'PENSION/SCAMS'[EXCUSE FOR EXTRA TAXATION..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tontine

Each investor pays a sum into the tontine. Each investor then receives annual dividends on his capital. As each investor dies, his or her share is reallocated among the surviving investors. This process continues until only one investor survives.

Each subscriber receives only dividends;
the capital is never paid back.*

There are strictly speaking four different roles in the transaction: (1) the government or corporate body which organizes the scheme*, receives the loans and manages the capital; (2) the subscribers who provide the capital; (3) the shareholders who receive the annual dividends; and (4) the nominees on whose lives the contracts are contingent.[3]

In most 18th and 19th-century schemes, parties 2-4 were the same individuals; but in a significant minority of schemes each initial subscriber-shareholder was permitted to invest in the name of another party (generally one of his or her own children), who would inherit that share on the subscriber's death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tontine#Uses_and_abuses
Sometimes the names in (4) were famous people such as kings and queens. This eased the problem of death-verification and also reduced the risk of murder etc. to improve one's chances.Because younger nominees clearly had a longer life expectancy, the 17th and 18th-century tontines were normally divided into several "classes" by age (typically in bands of 5, 7 or 10 years): each class was effectively a separate tontine, with the shares of deceased members devolving to fellow-nominees within the same class.

In a later variation, the capital devolves upon the last survivor, so dissolving the trust and usually making the survivor very wealthy. It is this version that has often been the plot device for mysteries and detective stories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tontine#Popular_culture