On the care of the elderly

Post Reply New Topic

/\ Nope, we're still not there yet since I see no reference to the elderly being thrown in the gutter, just more Randiphobia driven paranoia.
You lose.

Didn't I already tell you that the German pirate thingy is now considered trolling?

On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me if that ruling only applies to me.

She isn't going to come out and say "Consign the non-virtuous elderly to the gutter!" When you work through her logic, what other conclusion exists?

Several other conclusions. The major conclusion as that the children of a family take care of their elders. It is not the proper function of society at large or the State.

Mom and Dad brought us up. The least we can do is see to their needs when they are old. How is that for a conclusion?

ruveyn

Given our society's penchant for individualism, I really don't think that many of us would go in for that.

In the book that I mentioned above, one huge source of conflict in Thai-American marriages is that the Thai wife sees it as her duty to provide the highest possible standard of living for her parents, while the American husband would prefer not to see his wealth and income depleted to support his wife's parents. The American outlook is "no-one is ever going to take care of me. So, I don't want to take care of anyone else."

Moreover, in the Thai system, one regards one's children as investments. Thus, a big incentive to produce a large family. In America, there really is no financial incentive to reproduce.

I don't think that you will find Mrs. O'Connor stating anywhere that people are under any obligation, moral or otherwise, to take care of their elders. Only if people wish to do so, and only if they deem their parents sufficiently "virtuous." In Thailand: your dad might have beaten you, raped you, and sold you to a brothel, but you still have a moral obligation to support him financially.

Supposedly, the Libertarians prize Independence over Inter-Dependence. Taking care of one's parents would intrude upon the value of Independence.

I think that "Children should support the parents" would be the wrong conclusion to read into Mrs. O'Connor's writing, because, for one thing, Americans just aren't going to do this. It ends up being a convenient code word for "the government shouldn't support the old farts" and, if either the children don't want them or they haven't reproduced, then they ought to die in the gutter.

And, surprise surprise

http://blog.aarp.org/2013/05/30/immigra ... 4&USEG_ID=

immigrants are heavily subsidizing the care of our elderly.

Moreover, as the immigrants arrive as adults, ready to work, the costs of their upbringing are borne elsewhere. The need for and consequent expense of domestic fecundity are sharply curtailed.

And, should they repatriate themselves upon retirement--Medicare benefits aren't applicable overseas.

We have a pretty decent system going, and it would be foolish to scrap it.

Conservatives will scrap social security by starving the beast.

Well, well, well...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6grCka0FOg[/youtube]

Mrs. O'Connor was a closet socialist. As all of her teabaggers are.

Awww. No-one thought Mrs. O'Connor virtuous enough to want to support the old bag during her dying days.

Rand fails to explain how the entrepreneurs sustain themselves after their 'strike'.

Untrue. Over a period of 12 years the strikers have built a self-sufficient community in the rocky mountains of Colorado. The community is hidden by a refractive layer of heated air which makes it look like a piece of a mountain. The strikers meet in the community for a month every year, if they are still on the outside. Many of strikers have taken up permanent residence.

The premise is of course unworkable. even if a few thousand of the brightest and best quit cold, there would still be enough people to take their place and keep the economy humming.

Look up "Galt's Gulch".
ruveyn

Will this whinefest over that old woman ever come to an end?

Wow. The first three choices of this poll by and large seem horrifying like options to me. Many families are dysfunctional or lacking in resources; government programs often carry unintended burdensome consequences tone deaf to the individual's needs; and I hate for any person to fall through the cracks. Technology has complicated and elongated the process of caring for our elders; I wonder if technological advances will ever simplify it.

That's what I would like to know








I'm sure that this fad will eventually fade, but when?

How would you like to be forced at gun point to take care of an old person who you do not know or to whom you are not related? Are you a slave?

ruveyn

Social Security was voted in by a Democratic process so Social Security is ethical.