I think this is a possible solution to a lot of problems in the United States. If the government ran nursing facilities we could end a lot of problems for families of old incapacitated folks and also have a safe place for people who are mentally incapacitated to live out their lives instead of being homeless. Why is this not a good idea?
$$$
Also, looks really bad if they aren’t perfect.
Yeah, the government shut down a lot of mental hospitals in the 1980s because there were a lot of abuses happening.
Unfortunately the need for those types of places (minus the abuse, of course) still exists.
I don’t see how we get past the $$$ issues. Long term care is incredibly expensive and we already pay them social security and medicare. We certainly don’t tax enough to add in another entitlement.
Have you been in a nursing home lately? They aren’t to great in general, but they’re a lifesaver for a lot of Americans with incapacitated family members.
1 Like
I imagine that you could charge them some modest amount that they would pay for with their SSI / SSDI income. But that wouldn’t begin to cover the cost, it would just make a dent.
Right, and considering how much of the federal budget goes to subsidize elderly I don’t think I’d be in support of more.
The people that matter in a nursing home are the caregivers. If they aren’t incentivized by $ or a desire to do great work, then you have subpar workers and it will be a poor outcome for the patients. The government has never been a model of incentivizing the best to join up.
Maybe I still think of nursing homes in the pre-technology days, or I project my own fear of loneliness onto a population that has a different mindset at end-of-life.
1 Like
My rough criteria for “should the government get involved?”
- The private sector cannot provide it, or could but at a significantly higher cost.
- The private sector is making an existing problem worse. [Related: the private sector is unwilling to make changes to correct existing problems.]
- Government involvement could provide a solution that the private sector could then adopt. [Not feasible in all situations, but should be for a number of them.]
- Government involvement does not significantly increase costs for taxpayers over the long-term. Ideally, net it should be no more expensive.
Nursing homes? I think the private sector generally does an inadequate job of taking care of the elderly. If you want good care, that co$t$ dollar$. If you don’t have that, you’re stuck with something comparatively worse. Does the government taking it over make things better? Possibly, but I don’t know that it’s cheaper. Maybe it wipes out the for-profit aspect, but now every worker in a nursing home becomes a government employee, with all the usual government employee benefits. That … will not be cheaper long-term.
What I’d rather see: government incentivize good care of the elderly, especially in NFP locations. That, I think could be done at a relatively minimal cost. The details of that are way beyond my level of expertise. The administration of nursing home facilities remains a state-level power, and so you’re still dependent on states giving a shit about their elderly.
1 Like
Public euthanizing centers. A better and more practical solution.
1 Like
when you factor in how many residents of nursing homes have run their assets down and qualify for medicaid, don’t we sort of already have the public/private partnership in place?
so the idea then is that the assets wouldn’t be run down for those who have them (or failed to protect them)?
if there is a shortage of them, then there are incentives the govt can provide to get them built or build themselves.but I don’t know what the need is here.
the OP seems to suggest it would solve two problems. One, families wait FOREVER to put granny in the home. a govt run facility won’t change that mindset IMO. Two, solving the problem of too many homeless will require govt intervention (IMO) bc the private sector won’t just build the housing on its own or private citizens will block the proposed location as too close to nice stuff (NIMBY).
I keep telling people that we have this huge desert of Federal Land where no one lives and there will be no BY’s for people to clamor about N being I. Create a home for the homeless, hopefully with the idea of getting them back to being a productive member of society. Won’t be the Ritz, but it’s a roof and meals and a cot.
1 Like
No one owes anyone else support. If you grow old and you can’t support yourself, you have two options:
- live homeless and probably freeze or get sick eventually die miserably
- kill yourself
The government doesn’t have enough money or efficiency to prevent 1. The government can help with 2. economically and mercifully.
This isn’t true. The government already pays for nursing home care for everyone that has no money. You just pay for it yourself until your home is gone and savings are down to 0 and then they start paying for it. So basically the middle class is screwed.
1 Like
indefinitely? That doesn’t seem sustainable. And I’m not sure I want to live in that environment if it IS sustainable. Like twig said, too many horror stories of mistreatment for the old/incapacitated/mentally challenged. I don’t know why we want to keep people alive in a subpar environment, it’s worse than torture.
Full disagree if you’re talking mandatory, easy agree if you’re talking voluntary.
We had large state mental hospitals for many decades, which were largely phased out in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Many mentally ill people wound up homeless or in prison instead. This were pretty grim institutions in many cases.
It’s a relatively high bar to have someone committed to a mental hospital against their will now, and state sponsored institutions that “warehouse” mentally ill people have very few beds.
2 Likes
obviously not mandatory
I mean, some people would disagree.
But full agreement that euthanization should be easy, legal, and free. If we wanted to add some stipulations like a doctor’s check-off (to avoid people with manic episodes, depression, etc. from unnecessarily using it) I’d be open to that too. Unfortunately that could hit complications like doctors who require a husband’s signature for a hysterectomy but an ideal world could work something out.
1 Like
If only we were as rich as the UK. THOSE GUYS HAVE EVERYTHING.
If your needs are primarily health-based, the NHS arrange and pay for your care under NHS continuing healthcare (NHS CHC). If you are eligible for NHS CHC, your care home placement will be free . … This is called NHS-funded nursing care (NHS FNC).
OR Italy, or Denmark, or Spain or…damn, we are poor.
4 Likes