sloopjohnc wrote:I have enough until I'm 81. if nothing happens, which won't probably be the case.
At some point, I'll seriously have to consider when it's hose in the exhaust pipe time.
Unless our social system vastly changes. I'm nearly at the tail end of the baby boom so I'm pragmatically thinking most government funding for medical and living will be depleted by the time I really, really need it if things go on like they are.
I have a different prediction, which may be less catastrophic, but which is still dire.
I don't foresee the total collapse of social services like Social Security and Medicare. However, I have serious questions whether the system in place is adequate to address the needs of the elderly when there is no one else around to advocate on their behalf (i.e., legal guardian).
Nursing homes are NOT covered by Medicare, and they cost about $10,000 a month. After they drain all your assets, your nursing home costs may be eligible for Medicare. The question is what sort of care do you get in a nursing home.
These are businesses after all, and their point is to make money. If the care that they provide for a patient costs substantially less than $10,000 a month, it is in their interests to keep the patient alive. If it costs around $10,000 or more, then it is not in their interests to keep the patient alive.
That does not mean, of course, that the nursing home will deliberately kill a patient. it does mean this, though: health care for the elderly often takes the form of maintenance. You have to check and re-check things again and again. Does the patient have bedsores, etc.? The nursing home allocates a certain amount of resources to a given patient UNLESS there is an outside advocate constantly getting in the face of the home and insisting what needs to be done.
What happens if you don't have an advocate to do that for you?
Here's one data point.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... edirect=on
The investigation afterwards undoubtably is happening because the victim is the father of the former national security adviser to the president. However, all these political connections were not enough beforehand to prevent the death in the first place.
What would have prevented the death would have been if H.R. McMaster had quit his job and stationed himself at the nursing home to oversee his father's medical care there. Of course, if he did that, it would be redundant to use a nursing home in the first place.
As a general note, I do understand that the point of this thread is a lottery-type scenario. In the US, we have the reverse lottery scenario otherwise known as health care costs. The difference is that it isn't really a lottery, that is to say, an event with an unlikely chance of winning. In the health care lottery, the high probability that one will get the "winning" ticket that will wipe out any accumulation of wealth save those that belong to, let's say, the "one percent".