Intergenerational Conflict

Intergenerational Conflict For many years, there has been discussion about the best ways to deal with rising costs of medical care for the elderly. Many say that those expenditures should be sacrificed so that the same money can be used for other purposes, including education and expanding other portions of the economy. And there is no doubt that all the figures concerned with the issue are alarming.

Here are just a few: The Census Bureau estimates that the elderly population will more than double by 2050 to 80 million as the baby boomer generation grows older Medicaid spends roughly $60 billion on long-term care, and the Congressional Budget Office expects it to rise to more than $75 billion by 2020. Private long-term care insurance expenditures are expected to rise to little more than half of Medicaid expenditures -- $36.2 billion.

(Fox-Grage) But it would be the worst sort of shortsightedness to try to cure our medical expenditure bill by denying services and care to the elderly.

Instead, we should attempt to cure the current -- and future -- medical costs dilemma by improving our attention to living in less medically damaging ways, many of which are already known to us, and more of which will become known as science deals with and investigates the costly problem of aging, and to mitigating the costs of eldercare when it is inevitable by creating more 'organic,' and community-based programs in response to the problem.

Indeed, rather than sparing the current generation the burden of paying for eldercare, cutting Medicare and Medicaid benefits now would ensure several very undesirable outcomes. First, the human suffering would intensify, and it would be the parents and grandparents of the current young, working generations who would suffer. This alone would cause intergenerational stress of extreme proportions. Even when an 'elder' is being cared for, in some relatively acceptable fashion, it causes generational stress. Washington Times writer Adrienne T.

Washington reports on visiting a relative in a nursing home, and being appalled when a strange 'elder' Washington was helping broke down crying because she had not been treated kindly in such a long time. In addition, most people think the government will take care of it if they need a nursing home's care, but they would be wrong. Medicare/Medicaid pays very little, and only 4 million of the wealthiest of the senior population can afford supplemental policies, which cost $900 to $2,400 a year.

(Fox-Grage) The burden of paying for those could conceivably fall on the younger generation if the government bowed out of long-term care and left it to individuals. Second, it would not address the real issue at hand which is this: all generations need to begin to take better care of themselves to avoid the illnesses that can be avoided (cancer from smoking, for example), and possibly diminish the severity of those that may be inevitable for many (Alzheimer's).

Washington points out that most insurers do not reimburse patients for weight-loss programs but do pay for dealing with illnesses related to obesity, such as hypertension and diabetes. She also cites Rand Corporation, which claims obese patients spend 36% more on medical services and 77% more on prescription drugs than those of average weight. Smokers spend 21% more on care and 28% more on drugs.

Third, in the event that people do get sick, even after taking preventive health maintenance steps, such as not smoking, a better solution would be community-based services before people get to the point of needing a nursing home. Several states, including Wisconsin, already have such a program in place. And they find it saves on the average nursing home cost of $3,000 a month for bare-bones care, coming in at about $23,000 a year.

(Fox-Grage) It is clear that medical costs in old age begin in the things we do when we are younger, and putting a.