Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

Medicaid covers long term assisted care. But it requires you to spend down all your assets first, which is not unreasonable for end of life care. You can’t take them with you, and why should you get to save your assets to pass on to your kids while having taxpayers pay for your long term care?

Assuming that care/medication is resonably priced, like in some countries in Europe, Asia, etc. I wouldnt mind my taxes creating a buffer for vulnerable people. One day it might be me or you. In the US, prices are being over inflated because of the insurance system, so yea unless that issue is solved first, nobody would want their taxes going to an overpriced/corrupt health care system.

When I was a student in the UK (not a UK national) I had access to capped prescription medicine at 10USD max price. Even though I rarely used it, it's a great relief knowing you won't go bankrupt if you have a health issue. When I cut my hand once, I was treated in a UK hospital for free, no questions asked. Whats wrong with that?

Again this could only work if things are priced fairly. A blood test should be free or super cheap (<$50) if there is a legitimate reason to do so (relatives with heart disease), etc.

> I wouldnt mind my taxes creating a buffer for vulnerable people.

I would rather my tax dollars go to vulnerable people than to creating a buffer for often relatively wealthy older people so they can preserve their estates. End of life care is a fundamentally different issue than care for other people. I don’t want medical issues to bankrupt someone who has productive life ahead of them. At the same time, if we pay for end of life care for people who often have hundreds of thousands of dollars to their name, that’s less tax dollars we can spend on other things.

Perhaps so. However, it does seem likely that the absurd price of health care (by almost any measure—what other countries pay, by how prices would look in a functioning efficient market, etc.) factored into this.

Nursing home care is expensive because it’s extremely labor intensive. It’s easy to spend $30,000 a year just for someone to watch your kid 8 hours a day. Is it really that unreasonable to spend $50,000-100,000 per year for 24/7 care plus living quarters?

What about passing your assets on to your wife?

Medicaid has special "spousal protections" to handle exactly this situation.

Then if we are too follow your logic, wouldn't it a much bigger priority to put a huge tax (at least 75%) on all inheritance over a certain amount (let's say $10 million)?

What is all this love for middle class welfare? If your dad requires $50k a year in end of life care, why should he be able to leave you a $500k house in the suburbs? I guess it’s unlucky for you if you build up some assets then expensive end of life care wipes it out, but so what? Why do those folks deserve taxpayer support when so many, not even poor people, but median people, never managed to build up any assets at all?

I don’t have any problem with tax dollars helping the neediest, people who would fall below the minimum standard otherwise. I have a huge problem with tax dollars going to help protect the relative financial status and security of middle class families.

Yes, inheritance tax makes a lot more sense than a "dementia tax" (if you pay any attention to UK politics you'll have heard that expression).

Wow, you know elsewhere with universal health care we don't require old people to spend their money..

We do, however, tax inheritance :)

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines. Please stop making accounts to do that with.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Please never link to the Daily Mail. It's a garbage tabloid that basically just makes up stories.

And the US's healthcare is the laughing stock of the first world.

Please do not post nationalistic flamebait to HN.