Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Private equity turned vulnerable elderly people into human ATMs

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 143 posts

Re: Private equity turned vulnerable elderly people into human ATMs

#131

Post by seanmcdirmid »

lisper wrote: post #17

My parents ended up being forced by circumstances to move into a retirement home about five years ago. Fortunately, the place turned out to be run by people who mostly cared about their clients and so my parents' lives were basically OK, except that the food sucked (which AFAICT is par for the course at retirement homes). But a few months ago the place was acquired by a different company, which is trying to squeeze o…

> Fortunately, the place turned out to be run by people who mostly cared about their clients and so my parents' lives were basically OK, except that the food sucked (which AFAICT is par for the course at retirement homes).

My dad unfortunately never made it to a retirement home (cancer onset when he just turned 70), but in his one week hospice stay, he couldn’t help but complain about the food.

Re: Private equity turned vulnerable elderly people into human ATMs

#132

Post by lotsofpulp »

jareklupinski wrote: post #18
lotsofpulp wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rather have access to a suicide pod.

careful dont let private equity hear you say that

I'm more worried about Catholics and other people that want to enforce their religion on others preventing access to suicide pods.

Re: Private equity turned vulnerable elderly people into human ATMs

#133

Post by bradleyjg »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #125
bradleyjg wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can just ban private equity companies from doing this you know. Ideologues love to identify some small group of bad guys that if we only rein in everything will be great. It’s private equity! It’s health insurance executives! It’s trial lawyers! It’s CNN! The actual truth is far worse. It’s 100 million homeowners, it’s 20 million healthcare workers, it’s an entire generation too online, etc. There’s no magic bul…

it's private equity. We have more private equity funds than McDonalds, looking to do this kind of extraction everywhere, because we have huge wealth inequality and therefor those at the top needing to park more money in more places. Then end goal is modern feudalism, with the top owning everything and extracting more and more from every single transaction/event in a person's life. We can't fix competence when we have…

No it really isn’t. That’s just the latest in a long line of boogeymen. The prior ones being banned somehow didn’t lead to paradise on earth. California is the world champion and banning boogeymen. How’s that going for them?

And it’s not just one party that’s working to make the government incompetent. Both are. One for the reasons you cite, the other because it is beholden to public employees that want more money and less work. Just visit nyc or Chicago to see how that goes.

Re: Private equity turned vulnerable elderly people into human ATMs

#134

Post by Spooky23 »

yowayb wrote: post #79
Spooky23 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s totally doable and encouraged, as it’s by far more cost effective. But you really, really need a support system of willing people who care about you, and are savvy enough to effectively advocate for you when you lose that ability. Independent home care works well when you need help, not constant care. Our family worked with this for 6 years with my bad post stroke and for about a year with my mom and cancer. M…

This is going to sound a bit wild, and only viable under 70 or so, but I've met a lot of 55-70 expats in walkable southeast asian cities. There's obviously varying circumstances so do the research, but you can almost get adopted by your landlord family, where you're getting home cooked meals, rides, doors held open, etc. This part of the world is so family oriented, it just comes naturally to many of them.

Makes sense. If you travel regularly, you can see that in relative terms, the standard of living in the US has declined relative to many places.

Re: Private equity turned vulnerable elderly people into human ATMs

#135

Post by WarmWash »

conception wrote: post #123
WarmWash wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual problem is how do we give people things that are way more expensive than those people will ever be able to cover themselves? The answer is to make someone else pay for it. But man, have you ever gone to dinner with your large tech salary and been advised you have a moral obligation to cover 80% of the table's bill, and then be demonized for scrutinizing what people ordered? Socialism is great when you can…

I think you’re a magnitude or two off in the current state of wealth inequality. It’s more like people are asking you with a 400k/yr salary to pitch in to buy candy bars and you’re upset someone picked out a king size for fifty cents more.

Socialist policies would be decidedly less popular if people knew that most of the money to fund them would come from middle and upper middle class earners.

While those people as individuals have nowhere near "billionaire" money, they as a contingent have the most wealth.

While the "1% have more money than the bottom 50%" is true, they have less than half the money of the 70%-95%. America's cash cow is in the suburbs, not the Hamptons. Kinda forbidden knowledge to know that.

Re: Private equity turned vulnerable elderly people into human ATMs

#136

Post by JumpCrisscross »

youarentrightjr wrote: post #80
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Continuing our discussion from last time I have genuinely no idea who you are or what we were talking about. > can you elaborate on why you think quoting Revlon is sufficient to excuse the practical differences between public and PE companies? Revlon duties concern hostile takeovers [1]. You’re confusing orthogonal concepts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revlon,_Inc._v._MacAndrews_%26... .

> Revlon duties concern hostile takeovers [1]. You’re confusing orthogonal concepts. No sir, it was you who were confused - you brought them up here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46186549 > > There is a legal requirement for directors of public companies to act in the financial interests of all shareholders > No, there isn't. The whole point of Revlon duties is that they trigger "in certain limited circumstan…

> you brought them up here

Within that context, what's confusing you? And where did I argue that "quoting Revlon is sufficient to excuse the practical differences between public and PE companies?"

Revlon duties are a specialised duty that apply in certain circumstances. They don't in others. The other situation is what we were talking about; herego, those special duties don't apply to the other situation, which is part of the general situation. It's an old piece of rhetoric [1].

If you're consistently getting downvoted in a thread, and the other side getting upvoted, try re-reading it instead of presuming sanctity. Especially if you haven't worked in a field, are mixing up terminal and are e.g. citing legal argument about a private company to make arguments about a public one (Ford).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule...

Re: Private equity turned vulnerable elderly people into human ATMs

#137

Post by calvinmorrison »

mmooss wrote: post #87
calvinmorrison wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's right! if only I wasnt posting snarky crap on HN we'd have a Utopia. Paging Upton Sinclair!

We each have power, influence, and responsibility. You're spending yours on cleverness, and wasting others by shifting the focus and undermining their efforts. Cleverness, in the end, doesn't matter. > Upton Sinclair Upton Sinclair didn't waste it.

i certainly don't want to use my cleverness for power or influence, no thank you.

Re: Private equity turned vulnerable elderly people into human ATMs

#138

Post by AbstractH24 »

rawgabbit wrote: post #19
lisper wrote: post #17

My parents ended up being forced by circumstances to move into a retirement home about five years ago. Fortunately, the place turned out to be run by people who mostly cared about their clients and so my parents' lives were basically OK, except that the food sucked (which AFAICT is par for the course at retirement homes). But a few months ago the place was acquired by a different company, which is trying to squeeze o…

Where I live Medicare and Medicaid want people to live (and die) in their own homes. They send out nurses and nurse practitioners to you. That is what I want. After some research I realized the provider that I want which is UTSW in Dallas has a geographical radius that they serve. I am planning to eventually move to be within that radius. https://utswmed.org/medblog/geriatrics-cove-team-makes-house...

>Where I live Medicare and Medicaid want people to live (and die) in their own homes. They send out nurses and nurse practitioners to you.

In NY State at least that's turned into a cashgrab too. One they are having trouble reforming.

Re: Private equity turned vulnerable elderly people into human ATMs

#140

Post by youarentrightjr »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #136
youarentrightjr wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Revlon duties concern hostile takeovers [1]. You’re confusing orthogonal concepts. No sir, it was you who were confused - you brought them up here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46186549 > > There is a legal requirement for directors of public companies to act in the financial interests of all shareholders > No, there isn't. The whole point of Revlon duties is that they trigger "in certain limited circumstan…

> you brought them up here Within that context, what's confusing you? And where did I argue that "quoting Revlon is sufficient to excuse the practical differences between public and PE companies?" Revlon duties are a specialised duty that apply in certain circumstances. They don't in others. The other situation is what we were talking about; herego, those special duties don't apply to the other situation, which is pa…

> If you're consistently getting downvoted in a thread, and the other side getting upvoted, try re-reading it instead of presuming sanctity.

Lol, what a humble take. We all know in this VC owned forum that only truth is upvoted, and lies downvoted, especially on topics like private equity.

> Revlon duties are a specialised duty that apply in certain circumstances. They don't in others. The other situation is what we were talking about

Again you're operating insincerely, because as I told you last time, and this time, Revlon does not relate to what I'm referring to. I even quoted you Dodge v Ford Motor Co as a jump off point for your education, which you refused to acknowledge due to it being "from over 100 years ago".

Anyways I'm curious if you'll share your background, and why you're consistently in these discussions about private equity, rabidly playing defense?

Post reply on HN