[bluekachina]

In a civil society, the most vunerable are protected. Their needs are looked after. Of what purpose for a nation's wealth but to look after her people?

The Age pension was the first payment issued from the Commonwealth Government and dates back to 1909. It is available to men aged 65 years and over. The age for women to become eligible is being progressively phased upward from 60 to 65 years, in line with males. Women currently become eligible for the Age pension at 63 years and 6 months. Unlike pension payments of many other countries, workers do not contribute to a pension or insurance within Australia, and the payment is available subject to means testing. This ensures that only those that require assistance receive it.

Activities which a job seeker may have to agree to engage in, in order to continue receiving Newstart Allowance include applying for a specific number of jobs (usually ten) per fortnight and recording these applications in a Centrelink issued diary, undertaking vocational education or training, paid work experience, participation in a labour market program or Work for the Dole project, and other activities, such as voluntary work if considered appropriate by Centrelink. For example, more elderly customers who have been made redundant and are approaching the pension age, and who may face considerable difficulties re-entering the labour market, are often permitted to fulfil their plan by engaging in voluntary activities alone.

Commonwealth Seniors Health Card- a HCC issued to senior citizens

Pensioner Concession Card - this offers additional benefits to the Pensioner, including pensioner transportation fares (in some areas), and a certain number of free country rail journeys within the holder's state.

link

In the United States it sounds like you would rather just throw them out on the dust heap.

If a nation with the per capita income of Australia can provide for the general welfare of it's citizens, what is wrong with the United States that so wealthy a nation cannot?

Have the American people become so beaten down that they will stand for such a disgrace?

Do the American people have so little respect for themselves, that they allow such circumstances to exist?

There is a great evil growing in America. I fear for her people and the rest of the world.

I would like to hear from posters in other nations, how they provide for their old folks.

[Ludi]

In the US we mostly take care of our rich folks.

[BasilBoy]

In a civil society...

It could be argued that America is not a civil society

If a nation with the per capita income of Australia can provide for the general welfare of it's citizens, what is wrong with the United States that so wealthy a nation cannot?

The United States can also provide for the general welfare of its citizens. It's just not financially profitable...

Have the American people become so beaten down that they will stand for such a disgrace?

Beaten down by being dumbed down...

Do the American people have so little respect for themselves, that they allow such circumstances to exist?

Yes, and little respect for others...

There is a great evil growing in America. I fear for her people and the rest of the world.

How do you think I feel, I live there. We do have the capacity to do some real good things. Let's hope we harness our resources to transform our country into something other than a financial parasite. I'm doubtful...

[Ludi]

The United States can also provide for the general welfare of its citizens. It's just not financially profitable...

The United States is Constitutionally obligated to promote the general welfare of its citizens. Except that is now called "entitlements."

[Pops]

I've met few Americans who would drop their Mom & Pop on the side of the road - quite the opposite in fact, they'll employ any measure to keep that old gals body going regardless of whether Mom is there or not - especially if the insurance is paying.

It's how to take care of other people's parents where we run into problems.

[Cid_Yama]

Even the Vietnamese are taking care of their elderly. Have the Republicans no shame?

Over the past five years, the EPA has launched many emulation programmes, and built a fund and houses for elderly people. In 2009, associations at grassroots level have encouraged benefactors to build nearly 72,000 houses for poor people and presented warm clothes to nearly 600,000 elderly people. By the end of last year, the funds for the poor had raised nearly VND5 billion at the central level and nearly VND469 billion at the grass-root levels. The money has helped thousands of poor elderly people.

link

[Daniel_Plainview]

If a nation with the per capita income of Australia can provide for the general welfare of it's citizens, what is wrong with the United States that so wealthy a nation cannot?

While the US's current dysfunctional regime is pathetic to the extreme, things will grow far worse once the mammoth national debt begins to infringe upon the US's ability to provide for its elderly and poor.

[ian807]

I can speak to this fairly directly. I've lost both of my elderly parents in the last three years.

What happened was this. When they couldn't care for themselves any longer, they sold their own house and moved, reluctantly, into a new house near my sister. The house was big enough for my sister and her family. Everyone moved in together and my parents had, essentially, 24/7 care.

Elder care is nontrivial. Was it expensive? Yes. Difficult? Oh, Yes! You really can't imagine it until you do it, but resources were pooled, as were time and tasks. I didn't live close enough to directly contribute so while my sister and her family took a much needed 2 week vacation at the beach every year, I used my vacation time to take care of my parents.

Was this better than assisted living? Who knows? It had its ups and downs. Neither my sister nor my father were easy to get along with. They fought. Dad resented my sister even while he was grateful. My Mom had mixed feelings too, even through her dementia.

They both died in hospice, quickly, surrounded by family making sure it was painless.

That being said, we had money to make this happen. Many don't. We could provide care. Most can't. The money just isn't there. Would I have put either of my parents in a care institution that takes Medicare? It can be done. We have them, although the waiting list is long. Nobody wanted to do this. Nobody.

I agree though, that it borders on criminal that we can gin up 700 billion for bailouts and a few billions for a new bomber, but can't quite find the cash to care for old people. If I believed in Hell, all of Congress and their K-street handlers would be roasting there for that one.

[Sixstrings]

In a civil society, the most vunerable are protected. Their needs are looked after. Of what purpose for a nation's wealth but to look after her people?

Well, I don't know about Australia but in the US the purpose of the nation's wealth is for the enjoyment of the top 1%.

Regarding elder care.. could you tell us a bit more how it works in Oz? Give us an example of an elderly Australian who has no personal assets and needs nursing care. In the US, nursing homes take the patient's Social Security check (which I think averages around $800 a month), and they also make money billing Medicare for medical services (medicare is our elderly and disabled government insurance).

For these folks who have nothing to pay but their SS check, the kind of care they get is notoriously bad. Biggest problem is patient neglect; not getting turned in bed, stuff like that. Whereas if someone honestly tries to take care of their elder parents at home and makes one mistake they can get arrested for elder neglect. So we actually have a liability situation to where it's risky to care for your own elderly family.

Now, if you have money to put with it then nursing home care improves corresponding to how much you can pay.

How does that compare with Australia? Would you say the nursing homes for your poor elderly are good quality? And what's the funding mechanism, do they take the patient's pension check or are they directly funded by government?

As for the other social systems you mentioned, sounds equitable. A permanent dole instead of the begging-for-unemployment-extensions mess we have in the US (and at 99 weeks, they get cut off for good and are on the street no help anymore). Your system also recognizes that older folks who aren't quite retirement age may in practice be unemployable, and allows them to draw a check in exchange for volunteer work. Sounds very fair.

Overall, seems like Oz has most things right. We Americans are still stuck in the 19th Century.

[Tyler_JC]

Anecdotes don't count for anything. Look at the numbers.

Transfer payments as a share of GDP, Australia:



Transfer payments as a share of personal income, USA:



Personal income is 80% of US GDP.

The second chart exaggerates transfer payments by 25% but even adjusting for this measurement difference, America spent around 11% of its GDP on transfer payments in 2005 compared with only 8% for Australia in that year.

[Sixstrings]

Anecdotes don't count for anything. Look at the numbers.

We're talking about on-the-ground realities, not anecdotes. It's a simple question, what happens if you're old sick and poor in Australia versus the US.

The second chart exaggerates transfer payments by 25% but even adjusting for this measurement difference, America spent around 11% of its GDP on transfer payments in 2005 compared with only 8% for Australia in that year.

Those numbers don't surprise me -- Australia has a rocking economy right now. Whereas the US is in terminal decline. We've globalized our corporations, shipped too many jobs offshore, and import too many immigrants to further debase American wages.

As "American" companies continue to employ more Chinese, Indians, Mexicans, really anybody BUT an American, you can expect more and more Americans to depend on government for income. People have to eat Tyler, they need shelter -- what would you have the jobless do, start a hedge fund or trade on Forex?

[bluekachina]

Due to services and payments from Centrelink and HACC my grandparents were able to remain in their home until they passed.

HACC provided a home carer who would come in once a week to clean, do laundry, and grocery shopping. Once they had needed something repaired on the house and they even sent someone out to fix it. They would have provided more had they needed it.

My Grandparents final years were worry free, there were many more services available to them, had they chose to take advantage of them.

There really is an abundance of services available and it is comforting to know that in one's final years your needs will be taken care of.

I have no experience with the hostels, but they are available for those that need them.

Agedcare Australia is a good reference site that can answer all of your questions.

[Tyler_JC]

The maximum Social Security benefit for a married couple if the higher income spouse retires at 70 is $46,000.

Or if you retire at 65, the benefit for a married couple would be $39,000.

At 62, the benefit is only $34,000 but you'll be alive for a very long time to collect it.

The Social Security system in the United States is actually pretty generous for the current generation of retirees. You just have to have a work history in order to collect it.

http://www.dinkytown.net/java/SocialSecurity.html#calc

Moreover, it's not supposed to be your ENTIRE retirement plan. It's a supplement.

As for Australia, the kind of benefits system currently being offered to retirees is NOT sustainable. The proportion of the population over 65 will double in the next 35 years. That means either doubling tax revenue or halving benefits.

[bluekachina]

Aren't the US Social Security payments based on how much you made when you worked? As in, don't those with the least need get the highest payments? Seems backwards to me.

Our system is based on a means test. Those that need it get it. We don't give people payments who are totally capable of meeting their needs. We don't deduct from their paychecks throughout their lifetime either. We see this as a right, and an obligation to care for our elderly and those in need.

We have a kinder, gentler society for it.

We are doing just fine here. Our system is perfectly sustainable. As someone on here said, "It's a matter of priorities."

To me, it seems your whole system is set up to discriminate against the poor.
Seems very callous and cruel.

It seems that the difference is that we have a nation, where even the lowest among us, is one of us.

In the United States I just see an exploited people.

[Tyler_JC]

Aren't the US Social Security payments based on how much you made when you worked? As in, don't those with the least need get the highest payments? Seems backwards to me.

Our system is based on a means test. Those that need it get it. We don't give people payments who are totally capable of meeting their needs. We don't deduct from their paychecks throughout their lifetime either. We see this as a right, and an obligation to care for our elderly and those in need.

We have a kinder, gentler society for it.

We are doing just fine here. Our system is perfectly sustainable. As someone on here said, "It's a matter of priorities."

To me, it seems your whole system is set up to discriminate against the poor.
Seems very callous and cruel.

Then where does the money come from to pay for the benefits?

Just because they don't have a separate line item on your income tax form for "pension benefits" doesn't mean they aren't taxing you to pay for benefits.

Social Security is means tested to some extent. Those with significant amounts of income in retirement must pay taxes on that income, thus negating much of their SS benefit. I do agree that there should be more means testing in the American welfare state, but there's a risk that too much means testing will reduce work incentives.

[bluekachina]

Yes, I understand. If their lives aren't miserable, they won't slave for you like you want.

In our society, those that have the most are taxed to provide for the basic needs of those who have not.

We are not concerned with exploiting the working class.

[Crazy_Dad]

Interesting thread - for me at least.

I had the wonderful good fortune to have the best possible parents and childhood. Middle class paradise.
My parents did it hard at times and went without at times. But I remember a happy and supportive childhood. Even now my children adore their grandfolks. As I did mine.

When my grand parents were still spry they were talked into moving to a retirement home - too early in my opinion. Later on my Grandfather especially was still out and about on public transport going to his favorite pub - despite being legally blind! Which is a tradgedy for a man who loved books.
He used to say to be two things every time I saw him. As well as pop quizes...
1. The knowledge of the world is contained in books. Read.
2. The human body has 206 bones

He would act out shakespear etc. I miss that childhood.

Eventually my grandparents were move to hospice care. This cost most of their accumalated wealth to do so. They hated every moment. My parents (boomers) were too busy trying to rebuild a future for themselves after some bad ecenomic crap (The recession we had to have) but were there 3-4 times a week to help out despite the hospice care. I hated seeing every second of it.

I love my folks and I intend to do what they couldn't. Move my family back home to help out. When the time comes. They are still spry and a great help with my kids.

I also have experience in aged care whilst a young student doing nursing prac - I quit as it was too disturbing for me. I just didn't see it as a career I could handle - that was at 20 years old. I'm 20 years older now.

My new family(Remarried after being let down badly and having the financial penalties that entails)
will move in when the time comes. We rent and could never afford to buy. I will only put them into care at the last possible moment. Thats a personal value judgment and only to ease suffering if it occurs.

We as a culture (Anglo-saxon) undervalue our aged and should do better even in Australia.
Thats my story.

[Tyler_JC]

Yes, I understand. If their lives aren't miserable, they won't slave for you like you want.

You don't think incentives matter?

There are a lot of people in their 60s who are healthy, smart and willing to work. But they also value their free time. If you tax them too heavily or take away their pension benefits if they perform outside work, they'll stop working entirely. Society will lose out on all of the productivity of these people. That's a bad thing.

When the Baby Boomers start to retire, we're going to have a huge shortage of experienced workers. We need at least some of them to continue working in order to prevent the pension system from collapsing.

There are some people who work very physically demanding jobs and simply won't be able to work past 65. But for the rest of us, it's just not practical to expect society to be able to support you for 25+ years in retirement.

I mean, just look at Japan's budget situation. If something is not sustainable, it will not be sustained.

[Ludi]

There seems to be kind of a job shortage these days, especially for older folks. Isn't society already losing out on the productivity of older folks when they have been laid off and aren't being re-hired?

[diemos]

There seems to be kind of a job shortage these days, especially for older folks. Isn't society already losing out on the productivity of older folks when they have been laid off and aren't being re-hired?

Most jobs in the western world are make work to provide an excuse to put money in peoples hands so that they can feed, clothe and house themselves. Most jobs are net destroyers of resources instead of net creators. For many jobs society as a whole would come out ahead if you took away their jobs and gave them a small stipend to feed, clothe and house themselves.

You'll note that we've put 10 million people out of work but you'll notice no shortage of goods and services available. Obviously we don't need those 10 million people to be doing anything.