busyDean Baker | The Granny Bashers
Dean Baker, Truthout: "The granny bashers' theme is that Social Security and Medicare constitute an enormous generational injustice because the young, and those yet to be born, will be forced to pay for the cost of these programs for retirees and current workers. Of course, the reality is that the vast majority of the granny bashers' horror stories about generational inequity stems from the cost of sustaining a broken health care system, not from programs for retirees."
Let me make this plain: A society doesn't have an obligation to take care of its elders because they are of use; they are precious resources, but some are too frail to serve any longer and should not be required to do so. A society has an obligation to take care of its elders because YOU OWE THEM for giving you life, feeding you, raising you, and not throwing your whining teenage self in the lake. An individual may not have the personal skills, financial resources, or other capacity to care for aging parents but it is absolutely the responsibility of society as a whole to make sure that every elder is well cared for. And if not, then shame on the society.
March 17 2009, 06:56:05 UTC 12 years ago
However, beyond that I agree with you 100%. The way we treat elders in this culture is shameful, to say the very least. For the most part, they are a vulnerable population in need of support and in some cases protection and more.
Hmm...
March 17 2009, 07:04:07 UTC 12 years ago
Ideally, those people would be in the prison system and cared for there; but by their elder years, the sentences may well have run out. So they'd be the responsibility of society as a whole, because it's still preferable that they not turn themselves into traffic hazards.
I agree that offspring shouldn't be obligated to abusive or neglectful parents. I don't think that offspring who lack the capacity to care for their parents should be forced to try and thus do it badly, either. Stuff like this is why there needs to be a wide strong safety net on a society level, not just leave it all up to individuals. That's especially crucial in a time when family bonds are fragmenting.
On the bright side, it means that if you want an extended family, there's a fairly straightforward way to build one: pick one or more elders who live near you but have no nearby relatives of their own, and just start weaving them into your life. That approach works with most lonely or ostracized people, whatever the reason behind their predicament.
Re: Hmm...
March 17 2009, 07:04:53 UTC 12 years ago
March 17 2009, 11:14:09 UTC 12 years ago
I am sooooooooo sorry that a person has to "put up" with normal human behavior, like a kid laughing, talking loudly or making complaint. But I have news for these people: life is not about their convenience or pleasure, nor will the world (or should it) arrange itself so they can have their idea of the perfect day outside of their little fortresses of solitude. :P
Hmm...
March 17 2009, 19:32:15 UTC 12 years ago
Sometimes that is true, and it's a problem. Other times -- and I think this is getting worse as families fragment -- children are rowdy or destructive to the point that causes a problem. Lots of people, including adults, either don't know how to behave or just don't bother. They don't care if their behavior upsets other people. So some are intolerant of children, and some children are intolerable, and it makes life harder for everyone.
My suggestion is that ordinary child-ruckus should be ignored; children should be warned if their noise or activity level starts to get too high for the place they're in; and children who can't behave decently should be taken outside. Consider how many people are in an area, and what the generally expected level of noise and motion is there. If a child throws a tantrum in a grocery store, that's par for the course: keep shopping. In a restaurant or a bookstore, you might need to carry them out. In a library or movie theater, definitely carry them out. Public space has to balance the needs of various people who use it, and the parameters of different spaces are suited to the people most often using them and the activities there.
Friendly counterpoint
March 17 2009, 11:31:19 UTC 12 years ago
I think the reason we must do it is because any society that neglects those who are not immediately useful or have immediately been of use is a society that decays due to a lack of compassion. I think our obligation to care from elders comes from a fact that we must respect life, we must make sure that we haven't skewed our values so towards youth and towards children and young families that we believe that life has no meaning after 65.
Also, I hope you don't mind me addressing a point you made in another comment:
pick one or more elders who live near you but have no nearby relatives of their own, and just start weaving them into your life.
I find this a little troubling, because I think it's short sighted and missing the point of some people to think that, "Oh, we'll just have the old people as backup childcare."
I think it's still trying to find a "use" for elders, instead of saying that they're worthy on their own terms of being engaged with, not because they can babysit for you or do something you need done - but because they're human beings who deserve compassion and friendship.
It also seems to deny them their adulthood, which is another big problem. When you get to be old enough, people start treating you like a child again, like you suddenly are feeble and can't do simple things for yourself.
I also think that saying you (the non-specific, not aimed at you specifically "you") can just "weave" them into your life kind of sounds, well, arrogant.
I spent a lot of my childhood around older people, and one year, I basically visited a nursing home once or twice a week with my grandmother to help care for my great-grandmother.
And I have to say, those experiences have made me really sympathetic towards older folks, because I understand this is the eventual fate of the lucky ones. The ones that don't die of disease, war, famine, or disaster before they become "old".
I also understand that when I get older, I certainly don't want people to just shove babies at me any say, "Oh, you're a nice blue haired old lady, I bet taking care of this baby will make you feel much better about being old and give your life actual purpose!"
Because honestly? I frickin' hate being around babies, and I can't imagine that will change anytime soon. And even now, as I am very young, I resent any implication that my existence as a woman and a person, is somehow tied to whether or not I reproduce.
I'd more appreciate it, if I found myself older and alone, that somebody would try to engage me in my own terms, instead of thinking that plopping an infant down in my lap will make me feel better would try to engage me in something I actually like. Say, a movie, or books, or going to a museum.
I hope I don't come off too snarky, but these are just the basic reactions I had.
And honestly? I do agree with your basic premise. We should care for our elderly, and it's certainly not their fault that my generation (I'm 24 years old, btw) is getting screwed. I do agree with the article. It's the fact that healthcare is broken, and that we still haven't figured out that a penny of prevention is worth, apparently, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of cure.
Re: Friendly counterpoint
March 17 2009, 21:20:17 UTC 12 years ago
That's another reason, yes. In my experience, though, more people are moved by practical reasons than by moral reasons. The most reliable way to get people to do something is to demonstrate how it benefits them. But the more reasons you can come up with for anything, the more likely one of them will stick.
>> I find this a little troubling, because I think it's short sighted and missing the point of some people to think that, "Oh, we'll just have the old people as backup childcare." <<
Well ... the stuff you added is all stuff that you added, not stuff that I said. I didn't mention children or childcare or any other specifics at all. People can figure out a way to botch just about anything, but that's not the only way it can go. And you can see a hint of my real meaning in the metaphor I used: "weave" means "to go back and forth."
>> I also think that saying you (the non-specific, not aimed at you specifically "you") can just "weave" them into your life kind of sounds, well, arrogant. <<
What I meant by that was, if you aren't satisfied with your life, it is your responsibility to do something about it. Don't sit on your butt waiting for somebody else to fix it for you; that isn't likely to happen. If you want other people in your life, reach out and initiate an exchange. If the first person you approach isn't interested, fine, try someone else. That's how making friends used to work, but a lot of people have forgotten it. If you don't think of yourself as somebody that other people might possibly want to spend time with, then you really won't have any friends. I see this sort of thing as being responsible, not being arrogant. YMMV.
Hmm, I think I'll unpack the process of family-making in another post.
March 17 2009, 13:05:44 UTC 12 years ago
Medicare is for every senior over 65, regardless of income, and covers everything from prescription drugs to adult day care if it is needed. But children don't have a fundamental right to immunizations that are required by law unless their parents can pay for them, and don't get me started on $600-700 a month in child care for which very few parents qualify for help.
I find it a dichotomy that makes no sense. We care for the seniors out of a sense of obligation; fine. We should care for the children because they are the next generation of workers and citizens, and P.S. will be taking care of US. To me, that's the real shame.
Thoughts
March 17 2009, 19:34:52 UTC 12 years ago
March 17 2009, 13:38:50 UTC 12 years ago
The health care system is busted, but that's a more separate issue than this guy claims. The Social Security system is ALSO busted, because what the government pays back is adjusted for inflation. So, it's giving out more, far more, than it's taking in. The truth is, it should have been overhauled decades ago, but that was politically unpopular. Always is.
We do need some form of Social Security, but the system has to change. I don't blame the grannies, although to be totally blunt, I know quite a few old people who are actively repellent to me, politically speaking. I do blame the politicians, and I especially blame the Baby Boomers, who have been seeing this coming, and their big solution is to just retire and jack up my taxes.
Just another fuck-you from Bush.