General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWorking until they dropped dead kept the old people from becoming moochers and parasites, dontchakno
The elderly poor had it so good back in the dayPaul Rosenberg has a very interesting interview on Salon with Nancy Altman and Eric Kingson, authors of
"Social Security Works!"
http://www.salon.com/2015/01/31/tea_partyers_union_members_democrats_republicans_all_love_social_security_so_lets_expand_it/
...............
Rosenberg: You point out that before Social Security came into being, old age and poverty were synonymous, and old age was commonly looked at with dread. Few people alive today have any memory of that, but could you talk about that reality, what it was like, and what kind of difference Social Security made?
Altman: When Social Security was enacted, every state except New Mexico had poorhouses. I know that sounds like Dickens, but this is just 80 years ago. The residentsthey were called inmateswere not working-age people, or children; they tended to be people who have been independent all their lives, but dependent on wages. When they were no longer able to work, if they didnt have children who could take them in, they literally went to the poorhouse. It was often common at that time that if the worker died, the family would split apart. Orphanages were full of children who still had a parent living who couldnt support those children. Often youd see people begging on the streets; there were lots of stories about that.
Yes, these poorhouses existed all the way up until the 1930s.
Here's what the population looked like:
The second one is a poorhouse broom factory. Working until they dropped dead kept the old people from becoming moochers and parasites, dontchaknow.
Conservatives won't admit that this is the system we will inevitably adopt if they have their way. It's where their philosophy leads. Sure, some people will have children who will be forced to take them in at the expense of their own kids. And some people will make enough money in their lifetime to be able to support themselves in old age (assuming they don't have to spend every penny on medical care, which is probable.) But in the conservative/libertarian system this will be the inevitable end for a whole lot of people.
By the way, they are also trying to destroy disability insurance and are questioning whether mental illness really exists, so there are going to be a lot of folks in the poorhouse. They seem to be willing to spend whatever it takes to keep massive numbers of people in prison however, so I'd imagine that most of the sick, old and mentally ill poor could wind up there, so that's good. They'll have a roof over their heads at least.
More, plus links:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-elderly-poor-had-it-so-good-back-in.html
Lars39
(26,109 posts)silverweb
(16,402 posts)[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]His father brought him as a toddler to the Sacramento area from Italy and then abandoned him. He was sent to a poor farm and raised there. As soon as he was old enough to be useful, he was put to work on the farm until he reached age of majority, then was turned out to find his own way. He was fed and clothed at the farm, but barely adequately, and said he was always hungry. It was slavery, pure and simple.
He received no education at all except in farm labor. He's nearly 90 now and still completely illiterate. He unsuccessfully tried to count on his fingers to tell me how much rent he pays currently for his squalid room, and he can't even read street signs.
He worked all his life as a farm laborer because he didn't know anything else. He has a friend nearby who brings him food every day and looks out for him. Without that friend and Social Security, he'd be another old man living on the streets.
Our society leaves a very great deal to be desired in terms of basic decency, and the damned TeaGOPers want to flush people like Mario and millions of others down the toilet.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)The site is locally significant because of its association with social welfare and early 20th century poor farm relief programs. Counties operated poor farms throughout the U.S. until the system was reorganized in the 1930s and then largely discontinued after Social Security was set up during the Roosevelt administration.
http://www.clark.wa.gov/planning/historic_sites/PoorFarm.html
Social Security didn't start serious payments until a bit after 1940.
Coventina
(27,121 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)...fap fap fap...
ymetca
(1,182 posts)today there aren't any poor houses. My wife and I take care of her elderly mother, while trying to raise two teenage boys, in a cramped apartment. Neither my mother-in-law, nor my wife and I have the money, nor the heartlessness, to place her in one of the many "retirement villages" sprouting up like weeds all around us. They all cost just slightly more than all she has in income. We would have to finance her living in one of those places. And if she falls out of bed one night? Their policy is to call 911. They do nothing.
Wait, I take that back. My mother-in-law is living in a poor house --it's ours.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)usually available.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Medicaid would take all her money and give her less.
you're a big help, what with claiming all over these board that ssdi is rife with fraud and advising people with means to get on Medicaid, which means getting rid of any assets they have.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)was submitting information there may be some assistance for this family, what did you do? BTW, it does not take all of her money you should become aware of how Medicaid works before you jump on me.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)gave up all her assets.
you're a big help
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)know what is available then yes I am a big help. Don't advocate for the disabled if you are not interested in helping the disabled.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)wasting MORE money and making things increasingly harder on disabled people to catch phantom 'cheaters'
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)that's why I call them 'phantom'. no net gain; net loss, in fact.
like: the big 'savings' from your first link was $7000; the bulk of the 'cheating' that person did was at the VA.
SSDI already does regular reviews of every case. You want to spend more tight money on tracking down 'cheaters' than it's worth; investigation that will wind up finding a tiny fraction of 'cheaters' and costing more than the year's benefits 'recaptured'.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)and everyone's seen that you don't even know the difference between SSI and SSDI.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)spewing typical third-wayer fare. Ann Richards is probably spinning her grave knowing that her image is attached to such nonsense.
This is an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter. That should probably tell you all that you need to know about the poster, Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton supporters in general.
ymetca
(1,182 posts)is not enough to cover the expenses. At this point we're just thankful she has enough retirement income to pay for most of her meds, and help offset our additional water, electric, food and other costs.
I didn't really mean my post to complain, just to acknowledge we're lucky. I know there are many others who are not as fortunate. I wish (and vote) for people who at least try to empathize toward the plight of others.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)care. Yes, there is a limit on the amount of money she can receive monthly and her assets but I would suggest seeking assistance through Medicaid and perhaps other programs available in the community. I have been where you are, it is difficult caring for our loved ones, making the best decisions for them. In my parents case they were both place in nursing homes, why, because they deserved 24/7 care and family members was not able to do so in the home.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)someone in a nursing home, especially one paid by Medicaid (=lower quality care) is not optimal if there are other options.
You seem intent on promoting Medicaid.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 31, 2015, 06:48 PM - Edit history (1)
the right answers admit you do not know. You don't know a lot about nursing homes either do you. Have you ever advocated or worked as an omsbudsman?
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)To get the care after Y days then the nursing home can sell your assets to recoup their costs. They told my brother-in-law that he would have to sell everything so that my sister could get the care at the nursing home. Of course this would make him homeless, but that did not matter. You know "for profit care" comes first.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Home and there is an amount of money which can remain with the non institutionalized spouse and it depends on state by state. The money is what is received by the one in the facility and again there is a max by state. One of the sources to check with is Alzheimer's Groups, they normally have the i formation by states. One would also have to locate a nursing home which would accept Medicaid payments. They normally take all but $40 dollars from the money source which allows for hair cuts and personal items. There are good nursing homes and bad ones but a lot depends on the family, how often they visit and their interaction with the staff.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)There just may be some programs to help in assisting with her care such as some home health
care. Yes, there is a limit on the amount of money she can receive monthly and her assets but I would suggest seeking assistance through Medicaid and perhaps other programs available in the community. I have been where you are, it is difficult caring for our loved ones, making the best decisions for them. In my parents case they were both place in nursing homes, why, because they deserved 24/7 care and family members was not able to do so in the home.
So not only do you not know the difference between SSI and SSDI, you also don't know the difference between MEDICAID & MEDICARE.
Or maybe you're just out spreading BS
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Note, Medicare will cover 20 days of skilled nursing care. The program I was giving information about was Medicaid. Go back and check.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)23. Get over yourself, where is your proof where medicare takes everything, when you get
the right answers admit you do not know. You don't know a lot about nursing homes either do you. Have you ever advocated or worked as an omsbudsman?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6161163
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Spinning what I post gets confusing, the words are in my post, easily proven.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)You say Medicaid takes everything.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)The latter is cheaper. Some states will pay family members to act as caregivers in lieu of paying a stranger to come in and 'do' for the person. It's not a lot of money but every bit helps.
I come from a culture where what you are doing is the norm--three or four generations under one roof is just the way it is. I know not everyone buys off on that kind of thing nowadays, though.
nt
world wide wally
(21,744 posts)legal guns.
Turbineguy
(37,343 posts)money from their parents and start a business? Or become investment bankers and steal other people's retirements?
rickford66
(5,524 posts)WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)Plenty of exercise, good company and healthy good food, what more could they want.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Sad. Unfortunately, I think instead of this being a thing of the past it will become a norm of the future.
intheflow
(28,477 posts)Seriously. My retirement, the little I had, went the way of WaMu. I went back to grad school and now have student loans in the tens of thousands of dollars, so there goes my social security. I will have to work unto death just to live into old age. Older adults can't win for losing in America.