Quote:
Originally Posted by SquarePegGuy
I am very well off, and I'm grateful for that. If there's a limit to how much a state, county or town can provide to the masses, I'd rather the benefits go to the lowest (or no) income carers.
|
Thanks for recognizing some folks don’t have income. In the US people are expected to have income. But if you don’t work, get disability or social security, you’re screwed. And qualifying for those are tough. One may get income from life insurance for example but it may not be monthly. It could be a lump sum.
If one is unemployed for too long you get stigmatized and employers weed you out. You need a job to get a job, a Catch 22.
You can get in home care but only if on Medicaid. Each state is different. Income limits are insane, you couldn’t even live off it. You have to be practically on your last dime to qualify then the application process is slow and complex. They demand so much proof and documentation one may not have. Digital divide is still here, especially now that they didn’t renew funding for the internet program for the poor. And many government benefits require online applications and their websites aren’t user friendly.
One can get a private caregiver but they are costly. (Child care costs have also become unmanageable.) There’s non medical help such as grocery shopping or housework, caregivers for someone with dementia which is a whole other ballgame, etc. But it costs an arm and leg.
As I get older I don’t know what I’ll do. I’m able bodied and healthy but that could change. I live alone and have no one left. A neighbor who said she’d check on me never does. So the US lacks enough resources for people in need, just like over there. Another thing our countries have in common other than language, though it’s nothing to feel proud of.
Had to rant……
———
Sent from my iPhone