Elderly care

[XCP]

I think the problems go back a long way further than the last Labour Government.
I can remember having discussions about what we used to call the pensions 'timebomb' way before Blair came to power. The fact of the matter is that successive governments have ignored the problem.

[turbobloke]

XCP said:

I think the problems go back a long way further than the last Labour Government.
I can remember having discussions about what we used to call the pensions 'timebomb' way before Blair came to power. The fact of the matter is that successive governments have ignored the problem.

Sure - then one came along and rather than merely ignoring the problem or doing some inconsequential messing about, decided to make it worse.

[Ian Geary]

As someone has pointed out, democratic cycles tend to result in politicians ignoring time bombs. (I.e. the de commissioning of UK's power stations). They just commission studies, and kick them into the long grass when complete (e.g. Lyons review of local government funding)



I think it is unfair to blame the baby boomers - I don't think they realised how factors would compound on the baby boomer + 2 generation (financial costs and expectations rising, demographics reducing ratio of workers: retired, cultural changes to isolated elderly, working mums etc)

But we all know the problem: it's the solution we need.


Questions for the next study to answer:
- Should the solution try and please everyone? How do we decide who won't be happy?

- Will those who have saved / haven't saved (have been able to save / have not been able to save, depending on political colour) be treated identically? or even vaguely similar?

- Do we spread resources ever thinner, or create a service/ quality threshold we won't go below, and just limit the number of people eligible for it each year?

- What share of resources should go to caring for society's elderly? Whatever it takes to avoid elderly dying in squalor / pain? What will society give up to fund an alternative? Can we even afford it?

- And as well as look at what richer countries do (North Europe) what do poorer countries do? They must be in the same boat?


I can see why in action suddenly looks appealing.




Ian

[martin84]

Ian Geary said:

Lots of things

We need to switch to a more cost effective social care system which not only looks at the singular cost but the overall impact on the economy and society. For instance if the kids leave work to look after the parents, ok it means the state doesn't pay for the parent but the state does pay the price for the kid being out of work for a decade.

For those receiving disability care theres already an alternative although I believe it's still dependent on location. Plenty of large charities have contracts with councils which funnel money to those who need it to employ their own carers - via the charity which handles the paperwork side of employment. This enables them to employ their own carers to come to their home, as and when they want and they can employ anybody. This means people receiving these payments don't have to get up, have a bath or go shopping when the council tells them to. One councils report I read stated 70% of their disability social care money goes through the standard care system (sending carers round) and the other 30% goes through the charities directly. That 30% is far more efficient per-claimant than the all-in costs of the traditional system.

I don't see why a similar model cannot be rolled out for most forms of care. The care system wouldn't want it because it'd put thousands out of work, if you receive these payments you don't have to employ a NVQ qualified carer, it can be Fred from down the road. All in it is cheaper per person than sending carers round but of course if it was universal we'd have to do an indepth cost analysis for that scenario. For those needing 24 hour care we'd need to meet that the traditional way, but the Government doesn't let them kill themselves if they want to so it's only right the Government funds the cost of keeping them alive.

The argument shouldn't be about keeping your house or not, but how do we do what we do now with less money and I believe this could be an option.

You're right in that Government has a tendancy to kick trash cans further down the road for the next guy to deal with. This is especially true in America. Term limits mean do what you want in 8 years, the 9th is somebody elses problem. Social care is something Government's from Heath to Brown have ducked despite numerous warnings. The fact most pensioners vote has ringfenced them into a protected group with cross party agreement but somebody has to sort out the system eventually.

Unfortunately it looks like the time is now and the men are David Cameron and George Osborne. God help us.

Edited by martin84 on Sunday 8th July 01:29

[turbobloke]

martin84 said:

Unfortunately it looks like the time is now and the men are David Cameron and George Osborne. God help us.

Fair point, the dynanic duo need new capes. However in the interest of balance it should be added that the men aren't Brown and Balls or Miliband and Balls. Thank God, who will need to help us a bit less for that.

[CBR JGWRR]

The solution is putting the elderly in prison, and prisoners into care homes.

While inside, the elderly will have access to all the modern extras, like gyms, libaries, and so on, while the prisoners live in cold, depressing 1 bed apartments, which are beige, and not nice.

They will also have easy access to being visted, one of the worlds best medical care systems, and trained security guards to ensure their safety and peace of mind, unlike the prisoners, who have to worry about losing everything to pay for "care".

They will also have free (at point of use) heating, water, electricity, telephones and computers, unlike the prisoners, who will have to pay for this.

[JagLover]

martin84 said:

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.

Not at all, due to the fact, as I have already pointed out that many will never go to a nursing home because they will have died suddenly, or after a short time in hospital, and those who do end up in one will typically only be there a short duration.

There is perhaps a case for some sort of state backed insurance scheme (which should involve little new cost for the taxpayer). There is not a case for imposing a whole new financial burden on the state on the grounds that the elderly have "paid taxes all their lives" so should now be entitled to anything they want.

[Riley Blue]

State backed insurance scheme?

Isn't that what National Insurance is - or is supposed to be?

[cymtriks]

Riley Blue said:

State backed insurance scheme?

Isn't that what National Insurance is - or is supposed to be?

It used to be but it changed a long time ago.

Now it is just another income tax.

True income tax = income tax + NI + employers NI (which gets paid out of the wages bill)

We are all paying far more than we are led to believe.

[chris watton]

cymtriks said:

Riley Blue said:

State backed insurance scheme?

Isn't that what National Insurance is - or is supposed to be?

It used to be but it changed a long time ago.

Now it is just another income tax.

True income tax = income tax + NI + employers NI (which gets paid out of the wages bill)

We are all paying far more than we are led to believe.

And yet it's still nowhere near enough, as the government is still borrowing more to pay for outgoings..

[turbobloke]

chris watton said:

cymtriks said:

Riley Blue said:

State backed insurance scheme?

Isn't that what National Insurance is - or is supposed to be?

It used to be but it changed a long time ago.

Now it is just another income tax.

True income tax = income tax + NI + employers NI (which gets paid out of the wages bill)

We are all paying far more than we are led to believe.

And yet it's still nowhere near enough, as the government is still borrowing more to pay for outgoings.

Borrowing more, that'll be for them there public spending cuts

[Mojocvh]

cymtriks said:

Riley Blue said:

State backed insurance scheme?

Isn't that what National Insurance is - or is supposed to be?

It used to be but it changed a long time ago.

Now it is just another income tax.

True income tax = income tax + NI + employers NI (which gets paid out of the wages bill)

We are all paying far more than we are led to believe.

I used to pay 150->200 [on a good week]. I apologise for having come across as sounding resentful these past 2 years or so when the insurance policy refused to pay up when I needed it most..........

[otherman]

XCP said:

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?

They haven't though. There is a big balance of payments defecit because the tax take isn't enough to pay for current services. This could only be funded by an increase in future tax take.

[turbobloke]

otherman said:

XCP said:

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?

They haven't though. There is a big balance of payments defecit because the tax take isn't enough to pay for current services. This could only be funded by an increase in future tax take.

It's not just current services. Don't forget the 9p of each £1 in tax which is needed to pay interest on the national debt.

[mph1977]

Hoofy said:

JagLover said:

One stat I have said says that only 4% of the over 65s are in care homes.

By the time you end up in one you haven't got long left in other words and many will die before ever going into one, so it is not something I particularly worry about.

Well, certainly my aunts and uncles are in their 70s and still well-able to look after themselves. My dad (in his 70s and currently going through a course of chemo) still mows his lawn and we caught him up a tree cutting down branches!! I also know one climber in his late 70s who still climbs as hard as he can.

So I don't know at what age you end up in a care home but unless you have terminal cancer, you could be there for a while.

I figure when I hit my mid-70s, I'll attempt to summit Everest with whatever I have available. If I freeze to death up there, so be it. Great view to die with.

'elderly' is now considered to be over 80 in many parts of 'health' it's really only social care and mental health that have stuck rigidly to 65 ... ( that said stroke medicine as a speciality in it's self has changed that rather than stroke being something that geriatricans did )

[Deva Link]

Fittster said:

Yay, another huge burden for the tax payer!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18750654

You didn't actually read the article, did you?

This'll never happen in reality.