Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Considering full time care is 250K/ year we'd need taxes from 10 average Americans working to support 1 person with live in care.
The good news is, this person's kids would get to inherit the house! While the 10 average Americans can't afford one.
Of course being elderly and needing care is no guarantee that you’ll own a house, or that you’ll have kids.
And if you have kids, there’s a chance that one of them is jeopardizing their own chances of a comfortable retirement— and of ever owning a house — because their career goals got derailed because they were providing eldercare. So, yeah, it IS good news.
Under this plan, they are not. They are just reaping the benefits from taxes of 10 average Americans.
Anonymous wrote:Considering full time care is 250K/ year we'd need taxes from 10 average Americans working to support 1 person with live in care.
Eligibility for the program would be restricted to people who independent clinical reviewers determined were unable to perform two activities of daily living (e.g., bathing, toileting, or eating). That’s the standard that many State Medicaid programs already use, and it could be assessed annually during the initial implementation period to further develop and monitor the uniformity of functional assessments over time.
Second, the program would include cost-sharing that varied according to people’s means. Medicare beneficiaries with high income and assets would receive modest assistance from the program to defray a portion of the costs of home care; those with fewer assets and less income would pay much less.
Third, beneficiary contributions to the costs of their care would depend on both their current income and their accumulated assets, but through cost-sharing rather than a strict cutoff. For example, at the cost listed above, we could allow all qualifying Medicare beneficiaries to fully retain income up to 150% of the poverty line ($22,600 in 2024) and assets up to $30,000; beyond that limit, individuals would still qualify but would pay cost-sharing out of their resources to defray taxpayer costs.
Fourth, only care provided by formal caregivers associated with home care agencies would be covered. Hours of support would be based on need, but provider agencies would be subject to a population-based hours of service budget. The combination of resource-based copayments with population-level budgeting will ensure that the costs of this program will not explode.
Finally, Federal Medicaid savings from shifting home care benefits from Medicaid to Medicare would be used to defray the costs of the program.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No one would be happier than me if this aid came about.
However
We have such a large number of aging people about to need this care and it is SO expensive.
I don't understand how we could pay for it, as a nation.
Increase taxes
Cut spending in other areas.
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
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We have a waiver program for the poorest but the income care is limited to 10 hrs a week. Would be lovely to see Medicare cover more!
So let's get some things straight.
Medicare is for elderly.
Medicaid is for the poor and has asset qualifications.
Both programs are currently going insolvent in the next decade - even without this program. So no people did pay in all that much over the years.
Even if this passes good luck finding reputable people to be in house aids.
Impossible. Impossible without massive immigration, anyway (as a pp pointed out).
But even with mass immigration, there is no guarantee that the immigrants will choose to become caregivers for elderly.
I have four sisters-in-law who are immigrants and not a single one of them is a caregiver for elderly people.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We have a waiver program for the poorest but the income care is limited to 10 hrs a week. Would be lovely to see Medicare cover more!
So let's get some things straight.
Medicare is for elderly.
Medicaid is for the poor and has asset qualifications.
Both programs are currently going insolvent in the next decade - even without this program. So no people did pay in all that much over the years.
Even if this passes good luck finding reputable people to be in house aids.
Impossible. Impossible without massive immigration, anyway (as a pp pointed out).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We have a waiver program for the poorest but the income care is limited to 10 hrs a week. Would be lovely to see Medicare cover more!
So let's get some things straight.
Medicare is for elderly.
Medicaid is for the poor and has asset qualifications.
Both programs are currently going insolvent in the next decade - even without this program. So no people did pay in all that much over the years.
Even if this passes good luck finding reputable people to be in house aids.
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
My understanding is that this proposal would cover not just seniors but also family members with disabilities requiring care. This would allow someone at cerebal palsy or MS to remain at home, receive care during the day, then be with family at night.
Shouldn't that already be covered under medicaid (assuming you are talking about people that are under the age of 65?)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This would require massive immigration to actually staff, no matter how much money was available, and at the same time those immigrants are being sought after by other countries with declining demographics.
well, we have that already ... massive immigration. too bad they are all unskilled.
Who do you think work at the low paying jobs, including elderly and nursing care.
Exactly. Elder care/home health aides, landscaping, produce field work...these jobs are ones most Americans will not do, and yet they are VITAL.
When my (late) Dad needed help at home, it's nearly impossible to find/keep, because there aren't enough immigrants even. There are elderly people who end up in MUCH more expensive nursing homes, because of not being able to find home help.
We were able to keep Dad at home until the last 3 weeks, mainly because of my Mom caring for him, me helping, and what help we were able to find. Without the help, he probably would have spent at least a year in a nursing home, which is far more expensive than the occasional help.
There are a lot of immigrants who do not work in elderly care. Should the US have some type of rule that people can only immigrate here if they are willing to work at least X number of years in elder care?
No of course not. You can do the job. Why don’t we force you?
If I wanted to immigrate to another country and that was a requirement, I could choose to do it or choose not to immigrate.
But my situation is irrelevant. PP said that we need immigrants to do this work, and now you are saying that immigrants should not do the work.
So which is it?
The only person saying immigrants should NOT do the work is you.
Most of these jobs are filled by immigrants. Many also pursue a nursing degree to increase their wages and employment prospects. When they leave, the jobs are often filled by a new round of immigrants.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This would require massive immigration to actually staff, no matter how much money was available, and at the same time those immigrants are being sought after by other countries with declining demographics.
well, we have that already ... massive immigration. too bad they are all unskilled.
Who do you think work at the low paying jobs, including elderly and nursing care.
Exactly. Elder care/home health aides, landscaping, produce field work...these jobs are ones most Americans will not do, and yet they are VITAL.
When my (late) Dad needed help at home, it's nearly impossible to find/keep, because there aren't enough immigrants even. There are elderly people who end up in MUCH more expensive nursing homes, because of not being able to find home help.
We were able to keep Dad at home until the last 3 weeks, mainly because of my Mom caring for him, me helping, and what help we were able to find. Without the help, he probably would have spent at least a year in a nursing home, which is far more expensive than the occasional help.
There are a lot of immigrants who do not work in elderly care. Should the US have some type of rule that people can only immigrate here if they are willing to work at least X number of years in elder care?
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
My understanding is that this proposal would cover not just seniors but also family members with disabilities requiring care. This would allow someone at cerebal palsy or MS to remain at home, receive care during the day, then be with family at night.
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
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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This would require massive immigration to actually staff, no matter how much money was available, and at the same time those immigrants are being sought after by other countries with declining demographics.
well, we have that already ... massive immigration. too bad they are all unskilled.
Who do you think work at the low paying jobs, including elderly and nursing care.
Exactly. Elder care/home health aides, landscaping, produce field work...these jobs are ones most Americans will not do, and yet they are VITAL.
When my (late) Dad needed help at home, it's nearly impossible to find/keep, because there aren't enough immigrants even. There are elderly people who end up in MUCH more expensive nursing homes, because of not being able to find home help.
We were able to keep Dad at home until the last 3 weeks, mainly because of my Mom caring for him, me helping, and what help we were able to find. Without the help, he probably would have spent at least a year in a nursing home, which is far more expensive than the occasional help.
There are a lot of immigrants who do not work in elderly care. Should the US have some type of rule that people can only immigrate here if they are willing to work at least X number of years in elder care?
No of course not. You can do the job. Why don’t we force you?
If I wanted to immigrate to another country and that was a requirement, I could choose to do it or choose not to immigrate.
But my situation is irrelevant. PP said that we need immigrants to do this work, and now you are saying that immigrants should not do the work.
So which is it?