Harris Proposes that Medicar cover Long-Term Care at Home

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i remember the early days of ACA, during Clinton's presidency, where there were so many naysayers who said it was too hard, too big, would bankrupt our country, etc. It took years, but it finally happened, and we are better off with it.

This has the same energy. There is definitely something here to work with. The American Dream isn't to work your entire career only to have to sell your home and assets in order to live out your final years in a group home.

ummm, why should I have to fund your retirement years thru my taxes?
Most of the time a group home/nursing home would be the most affordable choice. Otherwise your family can step up and manage your care in one of their homes (or your home I don't care where). But why do you get your dream of keeping your "home and assets" while I get taxed more to pay for it? If you want to stay in your home, you need to purchase LTC insurance, save enough, downsize to an affordable place that you can also afford to pay for the aides. Otherwise, yes it is more affordable to manage your care in a facility. If you don't want that (or your family doesn't want that), then they need to figure out how to pay for what they want/desire. It's not the govt job to provide you the dream retirement if you cannot afford it

You are not funding anyone else. When people start working they pay taxes and medicare. People pay into medicare their entire lives and when you hit retirement age you are forced to take medicare and pay a premium every month. A facility is $200K a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How are WE going to pay for this? The country is bankrupt already, and our kids and grand kids will pay for all these. She is buying votes, and both Trump and Harris are buying votes.

No, the country isn't bankrupt already. What are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i remember the early days of ACA, during Clinton's presidency, where there were so many naysayers who said it was too hard, too big, would bankrupt our country, etc. It took years, but it finally happened, and we are better off with it.

This has the same energy. There is definitely something here to work with. The American Dream isn't to work your entire career only to have to sell your home and assets in order to live out your final years in a group home.

ummm, why should I have to fund your retirement years thru my taxes?

Let's be clear - this is a measure proposed for providing some support for people who have a medical disability or illness, such that they are unable to perform TWO basic functions. I.e they cannot safely walk by themselves AND they can't toilet themselves.

Medicare already does cover a home health aide in such cases, for a short period of time. I.e. if you are hit by a car and break both your legs, and you are on Medicare - medicare will pay for the hospital treatment, and for your surgery. It pays for your nursing care in the hospital and it pays for your stint in a rehab hospital plus physical therapy. So yes, your tax dollars already are paying for such care for anyone on Medicare who is in an accident or has a stroke or whatever. The key is, Medicare will only cover the aide for a couple of months. Until you recover.

This measure would mean that people could get help for such care even if they aren't realistically ever going to recover from the stroke or accident... or if they have ALS or Parkinsons. There's no reason coverage is available for a car accident or a stroke, versus if you can't bathe or toilet yourself because your nervous system stopped working. They are both medical needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote buying--not sustainable.

It currently costs $30 per hour for home care.

It costs $262,800 for 24 hour care for a senior in home for 1 adult under care.

This is not fiscally supportable.

That is what nursing homes are for. You can get that care for $10-12K/month. Yes, not the same as 1-1 care, but fact is most cannot afford that. So most do nursing homes, with local family visiting as much as possible

Think outside the DCUM bubble. Most seniors can’t afford that.

This is not going to be a simple piece of legislation. Obviously there would need to be some serious hammering out. I do think it’s solvable and we can start with taxing billionaires. Healthcare in the US is a for profit industry. Estimating the cost of programs based on current care costs probably doesn’t yield a good estimate. Look at the salaries and bonuses paid to top Insurance execs and Eldercare company execs. They are enormous. Higher tax on UHNW and a system outside of the for profit industry are good places to start the framework.

We already pay a ton in taxes. We paid medicare taxes on all income. We have paid in 100x+ more than we will ever receive. I don't need to be taxed more.
I do agree we need to fix healthcare.
But I don't think it is the governments job to tax people in order to provide LTC for elderly.

Do you have hundreds of millions of dollars? Are you a corporation? If not, I’m not suggesting you should pay more tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are WE going to pay for this? The country is bankrupt already, and our kids and grand kids will pay for all these. She is buying votes, and both Trump and Harris are buying votes.

No, the country isn't bankrupt already. What are you talking about?

Which world do you live in? Do you know how much is the national debt?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are WE going to pay for this? The country is bankrupt already, and our kids and grand kids will pay for all these. She is buying votes, and both Trump and Harris are buying votes.

No, the country isn't bankrupt already. What are you talking about?

Which world do you live in? Do you know how much is the national debt?

Yes, I do... but we also have national assets and a positive net worth. We are not remotely a bankrupt country.