What's age got to do with it?

Tim Worstall: What a Welfare System We Have

TW responds to this story about Esme Collins, a 103 year-old resident of a nursing home, who faces eviction because she cannot afford the £500 a week (!) bill.

It's not unreasonable to expect people to save for forseeable events: that you will live to the average age of the previous age cohort...Living to 103 is clearly unforseeable, a suitable case for that social insurance. However, these days, living to 70 or 75 is not unforseeable: in fact, it's highly likely, more likely than not in fact. So those in those age groups are not suitable candidates fo the system of social insurance.
Worstall speaks from his comfortable position as a metal dealer working three hours a week in the Algarve. Good luck to him. I speak from my comfortable position of working zero hours a week from a slightly colder part of the world. But for many people out there work means long hours on piss-poor wages (the sort of workers who look after 103 year-old Esme, for instance) and the idea that they are in a position during their working lives to save for their old age and should only receive welfare support after reaching 70 or 75 is, frankly, unrealistic.