Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Only if nothing is done by society to fix the problem.

How much additional obligation do the rest of us have to people who had their entire child-free lives to save money and didn't, already receive a check from the government every month, and get free health care? Do individuals have no responsibility at all for their own situation?

Yes! You assume she ever had two pennies to push together to put toward saving and that saving would have been enough. All the evidence is to the contrary. Frankly, government spending is completely independent of government income. The government could create whole economies based upon shoveling mountains from one place to another ad naseum without fear of run away inflation or other issues. Some could say that’s what the DOD already does.

It's difficult for me to believe she was in the workforce for more than forty years and never had an extra dollar to save.

Nothing will be done to improve it. That requires decent people. Our civilization is on a hyperbolic trajectory out of decency, disregarding all accumulated wisdom of civilization builders, exchanging it for short-term profit.

Could you be more specific about what "decent wisdom of civilization builders" we've disregarded...?

We completely disregard "evolutionary development" of civilization and replacing it with artificial reductionist constructs without understanding their consequences. Like allowing "unlimited" QA, and expecting money to trickle down, somehow pretending that passing through super-efficient money extractors won't get in the way. Increasing costs/financial burden on regular population while keeping real wages on the level 30 years ago, and then being surprised B2C businesses can't grow anymore or go bust. Pretending that simple performance metrics tell us all we need about economy, while having supercomputers in our pockets we use to take selfies and present our vapid lives. Developing tech that could solve many problems of mankind and turning it instead into enforcers of disgusting ways that didn't work before and in some countries already into tools of ultimate oppression. We are in the initial phase of world-wide civilization collapse, yet we pretend everything is rosy and could go on like this forever (while competent are buying bunkers in New Zealand).

That seems pretty complex for distilled wisdom... ^

IMO we just live in fairly unprecedented times. Most people are still learning how to cope with new technologies and moral norms while trying not to completely throw away sacred traditions.

Put your citizens first. Once they are all protected, clothed, fed and sheltered, then and only then should a civilization support others.

She is already getting social security.

Ok. So society has already done a little. And? Obviously, this isn't the solution that has solved the problem without some real changes to social security and/or support systems for the poor. It doesn't change the fact that society still needs to do something.

I disagree. This woman needs to be realistic. It says she spent her social security on things like prime rib at the diner and a $100 guided tour of some building. I am decidedly low on sympathy for such a person.

$1200 a month is a little? Seems pretty generous to me.

There are going to be a lot of homeless elderly in the future.

Or if, you know, we had social values where it’s OK to have your children take care of you.

Mind if I expound on this?

My mother died in July at 59 from a brain hemorrhage. I took her in 2 years ago, and I paid ~$1000/month for her prescriptions before the ACA kicked in. After it kicked in, her prescription costs dropped (thankfully, as I was going to Canada to get non-controlled prescriptions) but her provider costs increased.

Only because I’m a tech professional in a top earning tier was I able to do this while supporting my wife and daughter. What is the solution for the rest of Americans?

Side note: After her death, I received ~$48k in medical bills that weren’t covered by her health insurance. Bad news for those providers.

Those debts clear with her estate.

Thanks for pointing that out to people who might not know. I’ve already sent certified letters to all providers that there are no assets, no estate, and no payment will be forthcoming.

So your solution was to shaft the hospitals $48k? Sounds like an applicable solution for the rest of America. This is why healthcare costs are so high.

Wow, that's a really nasty comment. Debts expunge upon the deaths of the debtor. Why would you expect him to pay those debts?

This isn't "why healthcare costs are so high".

The health care people in my family call bills like that "the wipe". After death, all of the billing agencies have a go at the estate hoping that in the chaos of the loss, they can soak up what's left of the estate while everyone is distracted.

It's absolutely despicable. More than walking away, very choice words and a lawyer on your side are in order.

My solution was to follow the law. My mother died in poverty with no assets or estate, therefore her debts die with her.

Next thing you will be telling me is that the CEO of a company should be responsible for company debts?

And when your children can't really afford to take care of themselves?

The problem runs way deeper than Oh But The Degeneracy Of The Family can address it.

Living together takes care of a major expense. There are 125 Million homes in america. There are 0.5 Million homeless.

Maybe we should start a foster-care system for homeless like we do orphans.

I'd bet that < 10% of homeless would be willing to participate even if there were enough households willing to host. But, that doesn't mean we should ignore those 10%.

Elder-care is a whole different story. Especially in later stages of life.

There is no circumstance in which elderly living with their children is more expensive than living on their own. Having one rent in stead of two is a huge cost savings.

A larger apartment in the urban area where I live is significantly more expensive than my mother living in a rural area with her family.

And those, like the woman in the story, who don't have children?

It depends. Sometimes people can't, and that's about it.

But lately, I have more and more friends that don't want to have children.

The girls are in their 35s and guys in 40s, add or take five.

They share and attempt to behave as if they are in their twenties.

They enjoy the easy Toronto life, spend everything they earn, cluster together with others of similar lifestyle, and reinforce each own egos that they are doing it right.

In a way, we live in amazing times where that is possible. But sometimes, life changes, and at that point, not having family to take care of you, is just bad.

So, for the woman in the story, if bad luck put here there that's sad.

If it was her own choice, well, it is harsh, but not forming and helping a family, as your parents did with you, and helped out their parents, is a selfish act, and I guess the price is similarly horrible.

Edit: Clarity. English is such a weird and misinterpreted language.

I'd say raising children to be your caretakers when you're old is far more selfish than simply not having children.

You know, it's not about that. It's family, plural.

Synergy, something more than the parts.

My grandma and grandpa showered together in their 70s as to not break bones in the bathroom.

This is, I imagine, vastly different from what they did there in their 20s.

Each decade brings new challenges and lifestyle.

Man is a pack animal. We need our tribe and our pack.

Choosing to be alone will reap many temporary benefits. However, it's a gamble, as society, and the very core of what drives us, isn't meant to function in isolation.

Life is with other people, and more so with ones that are of your own kind, to face whatever the times may bring.

Take this as you will.

Family. Not caretakers.

Yet that's exactly what it seems you've implied.

No. That's all you.

Wow. Children as a retirement plan. And you are calling people who don't do that selfish?

In some cultures, children are the retirement plan but usually the help is mutual. The children stay with the parents till marriage, the parents help with major purchases, looking after the kids. At some point the children are self supporting and switch roles. The custom of young adults gaining independence early does have a cost.

I never wrote retirement plan.

That's certainly what "investing in family" sounds like in context of the discussion.

I clarified what I meant.

Everybody is supposed to have children despite what our hedonistic view of life might say.

No one is "supposed" to do anything. If we were "supposed" to have children we wouldn't have a choice in the matter. I can't tell if you're serious or not.

Wait. It's not?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com