Discussion
dandarez said:
'Experts' in care told us our daughter had no life in front of her.
She's 30 now with a beautiful two and a half year old daughter of her own.
There's a good reason for that.She's 30 now with a beautiful two and a half year old daughter of her own.
Tell someone a problem is small, patient gets worse, family blame doctors because they were assured the problem was small.
Tell someone a broblem is big, patient gets better, family praise doctors (or at least just shrug and say "they were wrong, thank god" )because the problem was big.
The chances are that your daughter was very ill and that the experts were erring on the side of bad news, see above, on top of that.
cymtriks said:
dandarez said:
'Experts' in care told us our daughter had no life in front of her.
She's 30 now with a beautiful two and a half year old daughter of her own.
There's a good reason for that.She's 30 now with a beautiful two and a half year old daughter of her own.
Tell someone a problem is small, patient gets worse, family blame doctors because they were assured the problem was small.
Tell someone a broblem is big, patient gets better, family praise doctors (or at least just shrug and say "they were wrong, thank god" )because the problem was big.
The chances are that your daughter was very ill and that the experts were erring on the side of bad news, see above, on top of that.
The recovery of small children can be quite remarkable. Thankfully, for all concerned every one fully recovered including three who developed meningitis at home. There is a psychology in dealing with the danger of death in hospitals and generally, in my experience the medical staff are excellent with seriously ill patients.
I owe my life several times over to the NHS and the outstanding care I have received over many years, after a lifetime of excess. As several surgeons have confirmed I am alive despite my best efforts. I have lost and kept off 10 stone which must have helped a bit.
Elderly care has been an issue that will only get worse for a long time.
One of the main problems is that as well as an aging population we have a retirement age that hasn't kept up and the old culture of saving for your old age is not only unfashionable but actually under relentless attack from the government. The last two points may not be unrelated, no one is going to save up if everything reduces to if you have money you pay, if not someone else does.
The solutions all run up against the big problem with democracy, once people come to expect the state to provide they will always vote for more, this will become impossible without state debts or by cutting back on other things, this in turn leads to crisis. The government are now trying to get people to vote for less while paying more in to stave off consequences but the electorate just don't want to hear the awful truth. Simply put, it's a lot easier to get elected if you promise sunshine.
The solution is to stop means testing. This causes nearly all the problems with our benefit system including elderly care. It creates the benefit trap, discourages any individual effort and encourages a spend now and get some else to pay later attitude. It doesn't even control costs as it is hugely bureaucratic, keeps people in the system and there are plenty of other ways to keep a limit on payouts.
Specifically for elderly care if you contribute nothing in taxes, save nothing or are unwilling to sell the family home then you get basic care.
If you contribute in taxes, put something away for your old age or sell up for a comfortable end then you get a nice single room with a seaside view.
Until we make it clear that the state will not give you, at no cost to yourself, what others have saved up for for a lifetime, the problem will just keep growing.
At the moment no one with any sense would have any assets at all by the time they get old.
One of the main problems is that as well as an aging population we have a retirement age that hasn't kept up and the old culture of saving for your old age is not only unfashionable but actually under relentless attack from the government. The last two points may not be unrelated, no one is going to save up if everything reduces to if you have money you pay, if not someone else does.
The solutions all run up against the big problem with democracy, once people come to expect the state to provide they will always vote for more, this will become impossible without state debts or by cutting back on other things, this in turn leads to crisis. The government are now trying to get people to vote for less while paying more in to stave off consequences but the electorate just don't want to hear the awful truth. Simply put, it's a lot easier to get elected if you promise sunshine.
The solution is to stop means testing. This causes nearly all the problems with our benefit system including elderly care. It creates the benefit trap, discourages any individual effort and encourages a spend now and get some else to pay later attitude. It doesn't even control costs as it is hugely bureaucratic, keeps people in the system and there are plenty of other ways to keep a limit on payouts.
Specifically for elderly care if you contribute nothing in taxes, save nothing or are unwilling to sell the family home then you get basic care.
If you contribute in taxes, put something away for your old age or sell up for a comfortable end then you get a nice single room with a seaside view.
Until we make it clear that the state will not give you, at no cost to yourself, what others have saved up for for a lifetime, the problem will just keep growing.
At the moment no one with any sense would have any assets at all by the time they get old.
OT bit here, but the legionnaires outbreak in Edinburgh has claimed 3 lives to date. It has fallen off the news sheets, but, unsurprisingly 
all the deceased had "underlying" health problems so we are told.
Strange that NHS Scotland were at one point warning that people who drink and smoke were at greater risk due to their bodies reduced ability to cope, great how things get twisted around to suit whatever political agenda the medics want to push today.
OT out.
all the deceased had "underlying" health problems so we are told. Strange that NHS Scotland were at one point warning that people who drink and smoke were at greater risk due to their bodies reduced ability to cope, great how things get twisted around to suit whatever political agenda the medics want to push today.
OT out.
cymtriks said:
Elderly care has been an issue that will only get worse for a long time.
One of the main problems is that as well as an aging population we have a retirement age that hasn't kept up and the old culture of saving for your old age is not only unfashionable but actually under relentless attack from the government. The last two points may not be unrelated, no one is going to save up if everything reduces to if you have money you pay, if not someone else does.
The solutions all run up against the big problem with democracy, once people come to expect the state to provide they will always vote for more, this will become impossible without state debts or by cutting back on other things, this in turn leads to crisis. The government are now trying to get people to vote for less while paying more in to stave off consequences but the electorate just don't want to hear the awful truth. Simply put, it's a lot easier to get elected if you promise sunshine.
The solution is to stop means testing. This causes nearly all the problems with our benefit system including elderly care. It creates the benefit trap, discourages any individual effort and encourages a spend now and get some else to pay later attitude. It doesn't even control costs as it is hugely bureaucratic, keeps people in the system and there are plenty of other ways to keep a limit on payouts.
Specifically for elderly care if you contribute nothing in taxes, save nothing or are unwilling to sell the family home then you get basic care.
If you contribute in taxes, put something away for your old age or sell up for a comfortable end then you get a nice single room with a seaside view.
Until we make it clear that the state will not give you, at no cost to yourself, what others have saved up for for a lifetime, the problem will just keep growing.
At the moment no one with any sense would have any assets at all by the time they get old.
On the button again. The problem I see is the huge sense of the state owing you a comfortable lifestyle and there being no need to bother with rubbish like actually getting qualified, or working for a living, that has undermined our society. One of the main problems is that as well as an aging population we have a retirement age that hasn't kept up and the old culture of saving for your old age is not only unfashionable but actually under relentless attack from the government. The last two points may not be unrelated, no one is going to save up if everything reduces to if you have money you pay, if not someone else does.
The solutions all run up against the big problem with democracy, once people come to expect the state to provide they will always vote for more, this will become impossible without state debts or by cutting back on other things, this in turn leads to crisis. The government are now trying to get people to vote for less while paying more in to stave off consequences but the electorate just don't want to hear the awful truth. Simply put, it's a lot easier to get elected if you promise sunshine.
The solution is to stop means testing. This causes nearly all the problems with our benefit system including elderly care. It creates the benefit trap, discourages any individual effort and encourages a spend now and get some else to pay later attitude. It doesn't even control costs as it is hugely bureaucratic, keeps people in the system and there are plenty of other ways to keep a limit on payouts.
Specifically for elderly care if you contribute nothing in taxes, save nothing or are unwilling to sell the family home then you get basic care.
If you contribute in taxes, put something away for your old age or sell up for a comfortable end then you get a nice single room with a seaside view.
Until we make it clear that the state will not give you, at no cost to yourself, what others have saved up for for a lifetime, the problem will just keep growing.
At the moment no one with any sense would have any assets at all by the time they get old.
The fury of the social security scroungers is clearly a concern for politicians who need their votes. Hence the steadfast refusal of all political parties to actually face this problem.
There is no easy answer.
The intended safety net, introduced by the Attlee government, in 1945, in an effort to remove poverty from the UK, has been abused by the benefits scroungers and benefits lifestyle choosers, year upon year and decade after decade. We have now reached the point where the benefits system provides a really warm and comfortable, permanent, stress free, hammock, with a nice roof, a 46 inch tele, a motability free people carrier, six children and free holidays, for the benefits abusers.
They are not going to give that up easily! Any government attempting to deal with this would face widespread civil disturbance and rioting. Not the politicians preferred option, they will let it go on until the UK goes bust and the IMF steps in. Assuming the IMF have not gone bust first, given the madness of the Eurozone currently.
There are no easy fixes. Politicians will not face difficult problems. Therefore this mess will roll on.
The biggest responsibility for care of the elderly should lie with their families, I don't know when exactly we decided families could ignore their elderly relatives, abdicate responsibility, expect the state to step in, and expect a big inheritance too.
Other countries have bigger, cross-generational, family units living in a single house, so should we.
Other countries have bigger, cross-generational, family units living in a single house, so should we.
Mr GrimNasty said:
The biggest responsibility for care of the elderly should lie with their families, I don't know when exactly we decided families could ignore their elderly relatives, abdicate responsibility, expect the state to step in.
Yeah, and for years and years they have paid through the nose for nothing when they need it the most, bet you feel proud of your views don't you.Mr GrimNasty said:
The biggest responsibility for care of the elderly should lie with their families, I don't know when exactly we decided families could ignore their elderly relatives, abdicate responsibility, expect the state to step in, and expect a big inheritance too.
Other countries have bigger, cross-generational, family units living in a single house, so should we.
I agree with you. I have looked after my parents who are both now long gone. But we have a society now where the bank of mum and dad has become a way if life, for large numbers if young adults in the UK. Who will not face this challenge. They cannot manage their own lives, let alone any one elses.Other countries have bigger, cross-generational, family units living in a single house, so should we.
Probably the worst feature of the benefits society is that it encourages fecklessness and totally destructive lifestyles. Lifestyle choices like drug addiction, drunkenness, alcoholism, and procreating vast number of offspring are rewarded with the removal of any need to earn and work and a freeloading lifestyle for very large numbers of individuals within the UK.
There is no easy answer to this. We have a society where if you look after yourself, require nothing from the state and earn a living, we will tax you heavily and force you to sell your house to pay for your own care, on your retirement.
Whereas if you never work, cheat the benefits system, have no pension, never earn a penny and never do a days work, the government will happily provide a free home for your retirement and you need never worry. Cradle to the grave freeloading is what the benefit society has produced.
Responsibility and effort are supposed to bring rewards. Instead this brings, stress, taxes, consequences and difficulties. Freeloading and fiddling benefits is rewarded with a completely care free lifestyle at the taxpayers expense.
I find it remarkable that no politician will face this problem. Except, of course. no politician will actually admit, face or deal with any difficult problems.
There will be a day of reckoning, Since no politician will face this reality, the UK will continue in decline and go bust. Then the benefits will stop. But the politicians will not not nip this in the bud.
Look at the mess in the Eurozone, That is the art of modern politics for you. Get elected make a fortune, swan off to a safe haven. Following Mr Blair's example, of course. A real pioneer our Tony Blair. In self promotion, self aggrandisment and self satisfaction: and taking the biggest slice of the cake. Another good example to avoid at all costs.
Steffan said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
The biggest responsibility for care of the elderly should lie with their families, I don't know when exactly we decided families could ignore their elderly relatives, abdicate responsibility, expect the state to step in, and expect a big inheritance too.
Other countries have bigger, cross-generational, family units living in a single house, so should we.
I agree with you. I have looked after my parents who are both now long gone. But we have a society now where the bank of mum and dad has become a way if life, for large numbers if young adults in the UK. Who will not face this challenge. They cannot manage their own lives, let alone any one elses.Other countries have bigger, cross-generational, family units living in a single house, so should we.
Probably the worst feature of the benefits society is that it encourages fecklessness and totally destructive lifestyles. Lifestyle choices like drug addiction, drunkenness, alcoholism, and procreating vast number of offspring are rewarded with the removal of any need to earn and work and a freeloading lifestyle for very large numbers of individuals within the UK.
There is no easy answer to this. We have a society where if you look after yourself, require nothing from the state and earn a living, we will tax you heavily and force you to sell your house to pay for your own care, on your retirement.
Whereas if you never work, cheat the benefits system, have no pension, never earn a penny and never do a days work, the government will happily provide a free home for your retirement and you need never worry. Cradle to the grave freeloading is what the benefit society has produced.
Responsibility and effort are supposed to bring rewards. Instead this brings, stress, taxes, consequences and difficulties. Freeloading and fiddling benefits is rewarded with a completely care free lifestyle at the taxpayers expense.
I find it remarkable that no politician will face this problem. Except, of course. no politician will actually admit, face or deal with any difficult problems.
There will be a day of reckoning, Since no politician will face this reality, the UK will continue in decline and go bust. Then the benefits will stop. But the politicians will not not nip this in the bud.
Look at the mess in the Eurozone, That is the art of modern politics for you. Get elected make a fortune, swan off to a safe haven. Following Mr Blair's example, of course. A real pioneer our Tony Blair. In self promotion, self aggrandisment and self satisfaction: and taking the biggest slice of the cake. Another good example to avoid at all costs.
Whereas my point was that if people have contributed all their lives then they should benefit when they need it.
What is so difficult to understand??
Mr GrimNasty said:
The biggest responsibility for care of the elderly should lie with their families, I don't know when exactly we decided families could ignore their elderly relatives, abdicate responsibility, expect the state to step in, and expect a big inheritance too.
Other countries have bigger, cross-generational, family units living in a single house, so should we.
Err... No.Other countries have bigger, cross-generational, family units living in a single house, so should we.
Families have voted for a benefit system since 1945. During that time politicians have repeatedly stated that the state will care for the elderly funded by taxation. So families have every right to make use of the system that have repeatedly been promised and have repeatedly been charged for.
Also the state has actively encouraged women into work which removes the traditional responsible adult from the family home. Who will check that Granny hasn't left the gas cooker on if Mum is at work? We can't have it all ways.
Regarding inheritance why on Earth should we be charged twice for what we've repeatedly been promised and would have provided ourselves before before homes became so expensive that they demanded a double income.
Other countries being better is a red herring. Either they weren't charged for something they weren't ever going to get without paying for again or they are countries that still have a culture of one or more adults being permanently at home to provide care. Also be careful of what you hear, just because someone claims that something doesn't happen back home doesn't make it true, it could just be taboo to admit otherwise.
JagLover said:
Well the elderly vote (who are more likely to vote than the young) have to be bought off somehow.
'Bought off'? Do you not think providing for the elderly after they've paid in for decades to be a basic obligation for the state? You're right in terms of voting because the story about removing housing benefit for the under 25's hasn't stayed in the news for long because under 25's don't vote. Pensioners do vote and most of them vote Conservative, we saw the fury over the 'granny tax' and the Tories can't afford to lose the over 65 vote, not now.JagLover said:
Not entirely sure why it is right for the taxpayer to meet costs that would otherwise come out of the next generation's inheritance.
Stop talking about 'the taxpayer' as a mythical creature. These elderly people have most likely paid tax for decades, their children also. They are taxpayers.This issue is a big problem in the UK and I don't feel people should be forced to sell their homes they worked for decades to pay for when they reach a certain age, indeed we've seen stories about how families hide any assets they've got in order to make sure their kids get the house instead of having to sell it to pay for care, which is perfectly understandable. I wouldn't like to be an 18 year old leaving college now, the youngsters of today have a very hard road ahead of them in comparison to the baby boomers who ate up all the lovely expensive (now unaffordable) parts of life and with the first time buyer (without parental help) being almost middle aged, their parents are going to make sure they can leave them a house. I remember David Cameron's election campaign when he often spoke of an idea about families paying £8,000 and the state meeting the rest, we never heard much about it after he took office though.
This is a bitter row in Parliament though and to my understanding cross party talks have essentially broken down on many parts of this. The last meeting on it was months ago and nobody is budging much. Lansley has essentially 'unveiled' what Cameron was talking about two years ago, but until we get concrete details it means very little.
martin84 said:
Stop talking about 'the taxpayer' as a mythical creature. These elderly people have most likely paid tax for decades, their children also. They are taxpayers.
It might be amusing to work out just how much tax they will have needed to pay to fund a state pension for, say, 25 years in retirement, NHS care for a considerable period of that time in retirement and then (for the people in question) a stay in a care home.The reality is that the government has been operating a giant Ponzi scheme and those who joined the scheme late want their money and the illusion is starting to be revealed.
There is not a limitless pot of money to give the baby boomers all that they desire from the state in their retirement and there never could be, as the post war welfare state was set up on the basis of their being many workers for each retired person.
I have still yet to hear why it is fair for a taxpayer on average earnings to be asked to pay more in taxation in order that a house can be passed on to the next generation rather than sold to provide the care the individual needs.
JagLover said:
I have still yet to hear why it is fair for a taxpayer on average earnings to be asked to pay more in taxation in order that a house can be passed on to the next generation rather than sold to provide the care the individual needs.
How about you tell me why it isn't fair? martin84 said:
How about you tell me why it isn't fair?
Well for a start the fact you have paid taxes does not give you an entitlement to a limitless pot of money when you retire.You are entitled to the state pension which you have been promised and free health care, which you have paid into, if you want to stay in a care home pay for it yourself and if your family don't want their inheritance eaten up by care home fees then they can look after you themselves, that is fairness.
JagLover said:
martin84 said:
How about you tell me why it isn't fair?
Well for a start the fact you have paid taxes does not give you an entitlement to a limitless pot of money when you retire.You are entitled to the state pension which you have been promised and free health care, which you have paid into, if you want to stay in a care home pay for it yourself and if your family don't want their inheritance eaten up by care home fees then they can look after you themselves, that is fairness.
] who through innate cunning get even more from the state. Why don't you concentrate on THAT Mr SE of England [or thereabouts]? Oh no too difficult lets f
k the tax paying elderly over again 'cos it looks good on soundbites as were doing something. Anything to divert attention. otherman said:
Sure. Someone works their life and builds up a handy wedge. When they're old they need care and think, no I don't want to pay for that. I want to keep hold of my money and let everyone else pay for me.
Even though they have funded free care for others whilst they were working? JagLover said:
I have still yet to hear why it is fair for a taxpayer on average earnings to be asked to pay more in taxation in order that a house can be passed on to the next generation rather than sold to provide the care the individual needs.
It's fair because that average earning taxpayer will benefit later on from the very same system, be it from being able to inherit their parents home or indeed to receive that care themselves later.JagLover said:
Well for a start the fact you have paid taxes does not give you an entitlement to a limitless pot of money when you retire.
Nobody is saying there is, so stop being melodramatic in an attempt to discredit the argument to a worthless shouting match resulting in right wing PH banshee's screaming 'there's no money!!!!!!!!!!!'JagLover said:
You are entitled to the state pension which you have been promised and free health care, which you have paid into, if you want to stay in a care home pay for it yourself and if your family don't want their inheritance eaten up by care home fees then they can look after you themselves, that is fairness.
a) Who would want to stay in a care home? 
b) You're misreading the situation into believing it is the children who don't want to look after their parents, in most cases it is the parents not wanting to be a burden to their children. No parent should ever be a burden to their offspring, my mother would stab me with a kitchen knife if I held back any part of my life to look after her because she believes I shouldn't have to. It's not my fault she's disabled. The children should not be expected to give up parts of their life due to things they didn't choose. They didn't ask to be born or to have crocked old parents. You want to live in a world where the moment somebody is born we're essentially handing them a lifetime pile of debt and responsibility. Children are bred purely to look after the parents in Africa, we should manage better.
c) What about people who are estranged from their families? For instance if my father were to receive a call saying his father had nowhere to live and no money he'd quite happily leave him to die at the roadside. You may have a perfect family where everybody gets along but it's not like that for everyone.
d) What about people who have no children? I for instance don't intend to have any. What about those people who get to an age where they need care and simply don't have anybody, what do you propose to do about them?
e) We're now in an age where the first time buyer (without parental help) is middle aged, housing costs a fortune, it's nearly impossible for anybody on below a middle class wage to save because the Government would rather they pay endless amounts of tax out of their ever decreasing spending power. The days of young people getting work easily are gone, the life the baby boomers could look forward to was far better than people leaving school today so if their parents want to make sure they at least inherit a place to live I don't see whats so awful about that. Tell me, why is that so terrible? A parents responsibility is to their children, not to keep the State's budget in order for them.
f) This whole idea about three generations living happily in one home is not workable here. The UK has the smallest homes in the developed world on average, our economic system demands both parents to go to work full time. For years we've encouraged women into work, so the 'household mother' no longer exists. Nobody at home to look after people. One day you approve of that because it stops them claiming welfare, today you don't like it because they should be at home to wash their parents' arse. At this point in their lives they have children of their own to look after, there is no space for crocked mummy and daddy and no time for them either. Much of the care costs isn't just giving them a place to live, but actual carers as well. How can you be the carer if you have to work full time?
g) Would you be comfortable turning up at your son/daughters house when you're old and crippled and saying 'sorry son you need to write off the next decade of your life because you have to look after me'? The system you're proposing would hold each generation back until there's no point in doing anything. There's no point in having a house to inherit if you have to give up your job and life for 10 years in order to get it, by the time you get it the only way you can afford to live in it is via housing benefit, council tax benefit and tax credits because your parents took you out of the workplace for a decade. How does that help reduce the state's outgoing? You really haven't thought this through.
I think we can at least all agree the current system doesn't work. Most of the criticism is how it discourages 'doing the right thing' because anybody with any money has to lose it all (and their homes) before the state helps, but somebody with nothing gets it all from day one. At least the Government are proposing to flip that round a bit so as somebody who has worked hard, bought a house etc doesn't have to lose it all and leave their kids with nothing just to look after them when they're old. The current system (and indeed what you're proposing) tells people that there's no point in bothering. There's no point in going to work, buying your own home because you'll lose it all in the end anyway. There's no point trying to give your kids something when you die because it'll be taken from you before that. You might as well just claim benefits from day one and leave it at that.
People sit on here and say nonsense like 'when did we stop encouraging responsibility' as though it's a new thing. Since 1945 the public has been promised and charged for a welfare system designed to look after those who need help. The uber right wing 'utopia' of Government paying for nothing, spending nothing, taxing nothing and everybody doing everything themselves as a big happy family does not exist and to be honest it never existed - not even in Thatcher's time I'm afraid. You can't even blame Gordon Brown for that.
Edited by martin84 on Saturday 7th July 19:37
martin84 said:
People sit on here and say nonsense like 'when did we stop encouraging responsibility' as though it's a new thing.
Except that it's not nonsense, although how new it is could be more open to debate.The State, at least for the 13 years of Labour, didn't encourage individual responsibility. That would have gone against its collectivist doctrine - the encouragement was towards dependency, the State knew best and would take care of its citizens. Except for the tiny problems of the State not knowing best and not having the money to service its ideology without nearly bankrupting the country in the process of failing.
In terms of elderly care, I agree with most of the content in the lettered bullet points in your post, but don't see any mutual exclusivity with the concept of personal responsibility. Another recent post mentioned the NHS, we can't be expected to operate on ourselves. Doing everything isn't the idea any more than doing nothing, it's all about doing everything you can and that includes before the fact not at the moment of realisation and need.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff