On the care of the elderly

Post Reply New Topic

I read a book recently

http://thailandfever.com/

which compared Thai and American cultural norms.

Thai people are brought up with the notion that they need to support their parents financially, and to provide for their parents the highest possible lifestyle.

Americans, on the other extreme, are brought up to value independence and self-reliance. They take care of themselves, and generally don't give their parents so much as a penny. Nor do the parents expect it.

Thais can typically look forward to being supported by their own children in their old age, and would have an incentive to produce more children than in America.

If Americans were to concentrate on the financial costs and benefits, then most would probably decide that the costs outweighed the benefits, and opt against reproducing.

In America, the government takes on the role of the parents, where the Social Security Administration takes taxes from working people, and distribute the money to retirees. The working people hope to live long enough eventually to collect Social Security retirement benefits, and feel absolved of any personal obligation to their own parents. Employers have also tended to take on the parental role for their employees, and have been relied upon to provide health care and pensions.

Now, we have the disciples of Alisa Rosenbaum O'Connor (better known as Ayn Rand), who see old people who can no longer support themselves as being worthless life forms that should be consigned to death in the gutter.

So, what is the superior system?

You can set them afloat on a ice berg. I am joking,saw it on the movie North(I think?).
Many people here used to keep their old folks at home,but now that you have family members that are spread out in various states some of the oldsters preferred the local nursing home because most of the residents are people they have known all their life.
If it's practical to keep them home that would be best.Sometimes you can't,like if you have to work,who's gonna watch Gramps and make sure he doesn't wander off onto the interstate?
But I have seen people in homes that don't need to be there,they have all their mental faculties but may need a walker or some other type of assistance.Or maybe they have no family.

I vote for family because what other option is there really?

For government to do it, you might as well toss them into the gutter, because what a government wants to spend on it, the elderly home will be just a step above that.

Retirement communities are nice, if you save up for them, but even they will kick people out needing more than the most superficial of care.

In the end, family is the only safety net you can trust to try and be there...if you have any kind of functional relationship. It might be a burden, but it's cheaper to care for an elderly parent that it is to use any kind of care service or nursing home.

Where did Rand ever write that. Title, page and line please.

ruveyn

I think the Asian system is nice. We should try to look after people as long as possible. I know I don't want to end up in a nursing home. I've heard some horror stories from friends who've worked at them. But, I don't have any children, so I don't know. It's better than being in the gutter I guess.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Ayn_Ra ... overty.htm



It is immoral for people who are old and don't produce any more to receive the products of the work of others. Social Security is slave labour. And, people who work and support their elderly parents are both insipid and immoral. Just ask any Libertarian.

Ideally it should be a combination.

1) The person should hopefully have saved during their working life to pay for their costs of living in old age
2) The children have responsibilities towards their parents and they should work to care for their parents, or provide money towards the cost of a carer (as well as giving some care themselves e.g. visiting as often as possible)
3) The government should pay some kind of pension. This can go towards care costs. If the children are being full time carers, then the government should pay them for their work.
4) The former employers of the person should also offer some kind of pension.

If a person become elderly without savings or children, for any reason, then the government should pick up the bill. The quality of that care should depend on why the person could not care for themselves. People who have been in low paid jobs (and their partners) and those unable to work get preferential treatment over anyone who chose to get by on benefits, but those people should still get all they require.

I think we end up paying for the care of our elderly one way or the other. It would be good to have more home-care options to minimize the cost of housing the elderly. And perhaps Western families could become more supportive. Although, there should be some sort of subsidy for families taking care of their parents, like there is for those taking care of children (at least in Ontario.)

I don't see where Rand states that the elderly should be left to die on the gutter.
They aren't mentioned at all.

In Rand's novels the very old and the very young do not play much of a part. In Atlas Shrugged she only mention two children (ages 4 and 6) in Galt's Gulch where the Producers hid out.

None her "older" characters seem to be out of their 50's and most of her characters are in their 30's.

Rand herself was around age 50 when Atlas Shrugged was published.

ruveyn

She must have imagined herself remaining 50 forever.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoAKer8lfds[/youtube]

According to her, if no-one loves you, then no-one should take care of you. Which would have the practical consequence of consigning the bulk of the elderly to the gutter--at least in America. She never said that the elderly or infirm should have a special exemption that would permit them to be the recipients of altruism. Altruism is an utter no-no in her philosophy.

Still patiently waiting for the chapter and verse where she said that the elderly should be left to die in a ditch.

Well, you show me chapter and verse where she says that the elderly have an entitlement to a dignified existence.

Why am I thinking of the grandma in Tobacco Road?The one that keeps living on weeds and such?(the book,not the movie.)

I never said she didn't, you imply that she did.
Don't try backpedaling out of it now.

"Small minority?" Everyone who lives long enough will, sooner-or-later, get to the point where he is unable to hold a job. Everyone else is only temporarily able bodied. Mrs. O'Connor says that her "small minority" have to rely upon "voluntary charity."



She would limit voluntary charity to recipients who are deemed "virtuous." No charity grounded upon need, flaws and weaknesses. Nothing for anyone with any sort of moral failure. Off to the gutter, then! Calling someone a T-word, and lying about German pirates, both constitute sufficient evidence of moral failure.

It would be very pleasant to finish off one's life as Hugh Hefner is doing. But, alas and alack, very few of us will ever attain his level of supreme virtuousness. Even at half his age.