ies are far more likely to reach persons already able to purchase long-term care insurance, rather than those who cannot afford it. (Feder, Komisar, and Niefeld) Analysis by the Congressional Budget Office seems to back this belief. However, proponents of tax subsidies for private insurance argue that the need for public investment would be even greater in the absence of support for private insurance. In practice, advocacy of subsidies for private insurance is more likely to obscure the need to strengthen direct public support. The result would be to target resources to the economically advantaged while leaving the disadvantaged at risk.A last option is expanded social insurance. This is seen as an alternative to public support for private insurance. Medicare could be expanded to include long-term care, entitling all, regardless of income to some insurance protection should they become impaired. This may sound good, but is not feasible. Despite the nations prosperity and underlying wealth, our willingness to redistribute resources to reflect the aging of the population seems to be highly unlikely.In conclusion, better support for the economically disadvantaged has to be a priority in future policy. Private long-term care insurance must be available to all, whether tax subsidized or federally backed; long-term care coverage must be equitably distributed. We now expect people to impoverish themselves completely before providing them assistance with long-term care, and that system seems excessively harsh. ...
