In a note this week, analysts looked at the top five publicly traded AI hyperscalers: Meta, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon and Oracle.

BofA pointed out that while the companies can fund their near-term capital expenditures with cash, they are tapping debt markets for balance-sheet flexibility and better cost of capital. Last month alone, Meta, Alphabet, and Amazon raised tens of billions of dollars in the bond market.

Operating cash flow for the big five hyperscalers is expected to hit $577 billion this year from $378 billion in 2023, while debt should climb from $356 billion to $433 billion.

That means their overall debt burden is actually getting lighter as the debt-to-cash ratio should dip from 0.94 to 0.75.

“Given the hyperscalers’ historically conservative capital allocation and balance sheet policies, elevated debt issuance is possible, as evident by the recent bond deals from Meta, Alphabet and Amazon,” BofA said.

And plenty of additional cash is on the way. By 2029, operating cash flow is seen jumping 95% to $1.1 trillion, while capex is forecast to grow at a much slower pace of 58% to $632 billion.

But then there’s Oracle. Unlike the other AI hyperscalers, it will have negative free cash flow until 2029, meaning its capex will exceed cash from operations, according to BofA. As a result, it doesn’t have much capacity to take on more debt.

Indeed, fears about Oracle’s debt binge have rattled the overall AI stock trade as the company isn’t a cash machine like its AI peers.

Recent earnings guidance was also weak, and the company raised its forecast for fiscal 2026 capex by another $15 billion. In addition, surging lease obligations have spooked Wall Street.

A Financial Times report on Wednesday that said alternative investments firm Blue Owl didn’t team up with Oracle on a data center after all piled on more concerns. Shares fell on the news, though the company’s development partner, Related Digital, said Blue Owl was outbid on the project and didn’t back out of it.

But even though debt may not pose a limit on hyperscalers’ ambitions, they still face physical limits, namely in building enough infrastructure fast enough to meet demand.

Data-center researcher Jonathan Koomey told Fortune’s Eva Roytburg that capital can be deployed instantly, but the equipment that capital must buy cannot. Tmelines for turbines, transformers, specialized cooling systems, and high-voltage gear have stretched into years, he explained.

“This happens every time there’s a massive shift in investment,” Koomey added. “Eventually manufacturers catch up, but not right away. Reality intervenes.”

I’ve spent nearly five decades working across financial services, health care, and public  policy. I’ve served on presidential commissions, sat in closed-door briefings with lawmakers, and helped lead organizations working to meet the evolving needs of aging Americans. This crisis didn’t emerge overnight – we’ve seen it building for decades.  

For more than 30 years, commissions under Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton,  George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all reached the same conclusion: our entitlement  programs were never built to handle a rapidly aging population. There were moments when  real reform seemed possible—when ideas were on the table and momentum was building. But again and again, the opportunities slipped by with inaction. 

Now we’re living with the consequences. By 2036, the population aged 85+ will more than  double. We’ll need nearly one million new assisted living units to meet demand, but we’re on pace to build only 40% of that.  

Most Americans still don’t understand how long-term care works, what it costs, or how to  prepare for it. And the reality is stark: home care now averages $77,792 per year, assisted living $70,800, and a private nursing home room more than $127,000—and those numbers are rising.  

Nearly 70% of Americans turning 65 will need some form of care, but more than 95% of baby boomers lack private insurance to pay for it. Most will rely on unpaid family caregivers or Medicaid, which only steps in after someone has spent down nearly everything they have.  

We are not prepared. Not families. Not the system. Not the economy. Not the country.  

Let me be blunt: the chance to enact sweeping reforms in time to help the baby boomers has passed.  

Structural reforms to Medicare or Medicaid are unlikely in today’s political climate, and  new federal rules are making it even harder to qualify for the latter. Both programs face  long-term sustainability challenges, but broad reform remains politically difficult—even as  insolvency looms. That’s not defeatism. It’s realism. 

So where does that leave us? 

Focus on the possible

We must focus on what’s still possible. And that begins with rethinking how care is delivered, how we define quality, and how we help people afford it.  

First, we need better planning tools. Today, most families make care decisions in a crisis—confused, overwhelmed, and without clear guidance. We must bring the same clarity to  aging that we do to financial planning: nurse-led evaluations, accessible education, and  unbiased support; not just product sales.  

Second, we need to raise the bar on quality. Too often, care is chosen based on  convenience or cost, not standards. Especially in home and community-based settings,  we must define what good, person-centered care looks like and build networks around  those expectations. This doesn’t require sweeping legislation—just transparency, data, and accountability. 

Third, we must confront affordability. The system punishes the middle class: too poor to  self-fund care, too rich to qualify for Medicaid. We need smarter contracting, vetted  provider networks, and eventually, portable, flexible insurance products that fill the gap.  Memory care, for instance, costs up to 30% more than traditional assisted living. Medicare fully covers just 20 days. Most people are left to cobble together care with out-of-pocket spending and fragile safety nets.  

Fourth, we must shore up the workforce delivering care. Care workers are leaving the  industry faster than we can replace them, driven by low pay, high demands, and little  support. Families are filling the gap, providing approximately $600 billion in unpaid care  each year while balancing jobs and other responsibilities. Nearly 60% of employees have  already provided care to a loved one, and most expect to in the future. Strengthening this  workforce—paid and unpaid—must be part of any serious path forward. 

We should also support bipartisan proposals like the WISH Act, which would create a national backstop for catastrophic long-term care events and their associated costs. At the state level, Washington’s WA Cares program offers a modest but meaningful  foundation. These models, paired with thoughtful private insurance solutions, point to a more realistic path forward.  

Moving beyond identifying the problem

We know what the problem is and who it’s hurting.  

What we need now is courage. Courage to act, to innovate, and to demand more from the system. Because the longer we wait, the more people fall through the cracks.  

The current system cannot stretch to catch everyone. It was never built to. And looking  away because the problem is complex, or politically inconvenient, is no longer acceptable. 

The baby boomers are aging into the final chapter of their lives. We owe it to them, and to  every generation that follows, to stop deferring action and start delivering solutions that meet the scale of the crisis.