Infrastructure
 

Infrastructure is defined as physical and organizational structures and facilities needed for the operation of a society or enterprise according to the online dictionary.

Here is a breakdown of the infrastructure bill Biden is proposing:

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/ne...an/4820227001/


For the most part, I like what is proposed. I do, however, have to stretch my mind around some of the components as being part of infrastructure.

For example, I understand how improving the electrical grid and expanding internet access is considered in infrastructure, but, I'm having a bit of a problem with the inclusion of elder care in infrastructure. I know there is a need for what is proposed and I support that effort, I'm just having ha hard time connecting it with "infrastructure".

What are your thoughts about the proposed infrastructure bill?

Looking at the elder care, everyone who lives long enough will need assistance of some kind. Why should it not be in the same category as roads bridges internet ect?
If the government had been putting the surplus paid in on SS over the years into nursing homes and staff training educational reimbursements. Think of where we be now.

Why should those who save own property don't rob Peter to pay Paul. Pay taxes like they should will loss everything to pay for care. Then those who have nothing to lose or take get care paid for by the government.

I too question inclusion of elderly care in infrastructure because it is not a publicly owned entity like seaports, airports, roads & bridges, electrical grid and the almighty internet. As with any bills, there are always political considerations and here is where I would like Biden's administration to favor the swing states over the red states.

Oerets, I know what you mean regarding the situation many face in their old age. There are few legal ways to protect property and assets from the cost of medical/old age care.
I just have a hard time using funding for elder care when it is designated for infrastructure.
I think they should allocate more money through Health and Human Services for the expansion of established programs that assist the elderly. That funding has been stagnant for many years despite the fact that the boomer tsunami was coming.

Rajoo, the public does pay for programs that assist the elderly. While elder care is not an "entity" as such, it does cost tax payer dollars.

Much like a school road airport energy are considered in common interest for the nation and it's economy. So must the health and well being of the citizens. Universal healthcare daycare and eldercare also is a part of the picture for the vast majority of the nations workers.

I have a BIG problem with being forced to pay the expenses of those who take steps to protect their assets from nursing homes or medical bills. Or those who lived like there was no tomorrow knowing full well that when it does come others will be responsible.

I have a old french word for them......muchier! (Moocher)

Oerets, What do you mean by, "those who take steps to protect their assets from nursing homes or medical bills"?
One kind of steps are you talking about?

I'm sure you have seen the ad to protect your assets. Usually this is by a setting up a Irrevocable Trust. Gifting assets such as signing over a home to kids.


Getting the assets out of your name. Whole industries out there to do these and other methods.

My point is who ends up paying the bill for the care? It should be evident that most people feel it should be a benefit. One where you are on equal terms as the person who has zero assets to loose. Should they be rewarded for their choices? Where the person who does better is punished for saving?

Much like the extra rider I carry on auto insurance to cover the drivers with no insurance or under insured ones. Why should I be paying for them saving money? Shouldn't they be force to cover themselves fully?

Or the tax doggier ad for IRS relief, pay pennies on the dollars owed......

I have problems with all of those who are willing to take and then let others pay their tab.

FYI, the vast majority of the so called Tax Relief companies are scammers. The people being ripped off are the people using those companies to try to avoid paying their taxes.

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/article...lief-companies

You are more then likely correct in that point.


The issue I was attempting to point out is that there are many who want to enjoy the countries fruits. Just want others to pay the way for them. I feel that taxes should be use the cover the costs of expenses.

Back to the grouping elder care into the blank term of infrastructure. I see it as a way to show the citizens that government does care about their needs more fully. Not just in the roads schools water electricity also their care when sick and old. Fact is now a person in need of care will in most all cases get attention. Just where the funds come from is at question.

I'm in complete agreement with you on that.

Oerets, I'm still not sure about your thoughts on protecting assets. I've not heard of "Tax Relief Companies" and had to google that.

At the risk of derailing this thread, Do you mean that people who have a house and other assets shouldn't protect those things should they find themselves needing long term care?

This is why I ask... having worked with the elderly before retirement, I have seen many who have lost everything in a matter of months due to the cost of long term care. At that point, they end up on public assistance. So, when one spouse is in long term care at the taxpayers expense, the other spouse if evicted from their home and has lost all the savings they may have had.

Maybe I'm missing your point.

It is a hard problem, with right on both sides. I think in most cases a spouse is supposed to be able to continue living in the home, but the state will want it upon his or her death. There is a legal maneuver, the irrevocable trust, which can evade this claim of the state if done soon enough.

Wide entitlement to support, for medical and long-term care and other needs, is the best answer, so taxpayers can feel that they along with everyone are entitled to non-means-tested benefits, without the need to spends down to poverty first.

Donquixote, I've not seen a case where the spouse can remain in the home. But then, I don't know all the particulars for every state so i don't doubt your statement.

Back to infrastructure....... I was also wondering if Biden put things in his original proposal that he knew would be negotiated out. A way of giving him a buffer to keep things he really wants to keep in the proposal.

The few time that I have knowledge of, when one spouse goes on Medicaid for long term care. The other can stay in the home until a point then also go into care or move on. Being a 1/2 owner. With the 1/2 being sold to cover expensive of care at this point.

My point of argument is in this country it is very apparent what the majority of citizens what. That no one looses their home, savings to pay for long term care. It is not fair or equatable to have the some who choose to save work hard be punished when those who have not get care at tax payers expense. That is why I feel it should be considered as such, a benefit for all, in infrastructure supported by taxes.

My point of argument is in this country it is very apparent what the majority of citizens what. That no one looses their home, savings to pay for long term care. It is not fair or equatable to have the some who choose to save work hard be punished when those who have not get care at tax payers expense. That is why I feel it should be considered as such, a benefit for all, in infrastructure supported by taxes.

I totally agree.

From wiki.....


""Infrastructure is the set of fundamental facilities and systems that support the sustainable functionality of households and firms. Serving a country, city, or other area, including the services and facilities necessary for its economy to function.""

I can see where the argument can and should be made that the heath and care of it's population is one of the pinnacles of the economy. Just not being thought of as one because of those that have good care now take it for granted. Seem to know just where and who would have to pay. The old I've got mine, screw you!