>without lowering the costs associated with being old
Not exactly accurate. The costs of being old at the same QoL and for the same lifespan as a 65+ person in 1935 is probably cheaper than it's ever been.
The problem is we're living much longer and our QoL is higher and "healthcare" to achieve that is stupendously expensive.
Other countries reduce the cost of meds or services for people above a certain age, or have age/income relatd tax benefits and payments. The us is the wealthiest country in the world, so doing so would have been a mere exercise of political will. Instead, pushing money to the top has been the goal.
>reduce the cost of meds or services for people above a certain age
Show me the demographics of these countries. Are babies being born at rates assumed by their old-age social safety nets? Or even above replacement rate?
Canada does, and the population has grown due to immigration. Google says Germany does this. You can probably find what other g20 countries do this. There are also supplemental pensions and/or tax credits or deductions based on age and income.
Editing as I can’t reply to reply below. Births are drains on the system for 18-28 years. Canadian immigrants must pass a points based system that biases towards needs. such people can pay their taxes from arrival. Refugees aren’t quite the same, but I don’t know the correct labels for the difference.
I thought us Medicare is somewhat comparable to normal healthcare in the other g20 countries? Sufficient to show how others handle the problems and possible strengths and weaknesses. Never used it, not familiar with its details. Readers can comment.
Not exactly accurate. The costs of being old at the same QoL and for the same lifespan as a 65+ person in 1935 is probably cheaper than it's ever been.
The problem is we're living much longer and our QoL is higher and "healthcare" to achieve that is stupendously expensive.