Joel Blau writes: "No, to the contrary, socializing the cost of paying for elderly reduces resentment of the burden they may constitute. Besides, your position assumes that all children can take of all parents, which is economically speaking is just not true. If you are saying that those who can't should then be covered by means-tested programs, then your position is internally inconsistent, because you are then favoring other people caring just for the poor. Should they alone suffer from a deleterious effect on family relations?"
I am willing to agree that socializing the cost reduces the resentment, but isn't that simply another way of saying people prefer the illusion they are getting a free lunch? However, basing public policy on hiding costs can be problematic and have unintended consequences, right? For instance, would you agree that the existence of social security has a very negative effect on the savings rate (i.e. because people expect a government pension, they save less for their retirement than they would in the absence of social security)? I don't assume all children can take of their parents. My position is that you should take care of my parents only if I cannot, and we should not create disincentives to me taking care of my patients (and preparing for my own retirement). David Shemano
