Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
observer

Who Cares?

Recommended Posts

The Government has finally stated the obvious - that elderly care for an increasing elderly population will cost an arm and a leg, and the current non-system penalises the thrifty and rewards the feckless - and in order to pay for it, some options seem to be appearing:- 1) Let the tax-payer pay for it? :? 2) Introduce a compulsory NI contributions scheme? :? OR (not being asked by Government) 3) a free pass to the Dignitass Clinic in Switzerland?! :shock: Which one do YOU want? :?:wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be much more interesting to hear why Observer chooses to class people without sufficient funds to pay for long term health care as freckless.

 

My mother in law recently died after spending two years in residential care suffering from Altzimers. She had nothing in terms of property and little in the way of savings but that neither made her an idiot or irresponsible it?s just the way her life worked out.

 

To suggest that her health care was some kind of ?reward? is uncalled for and shows a complete disrespect for all those less fortunate than yourself.

 

You should retract these words and be bloody well ashamed of yourself!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the big problem Bill is that the ones who have their own houses and have some savings end up being fleeced to pay for care that; had they p****ed it all up the wall (as some in fact do) they would get for nowt.

 

There is no difference in the care your mum got for free to that which may cost other people in the same situation an arm and a leg.

 

I think it is wrong to take away money and property from those who have it to pay for care when others get the same care for free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baz

 

I think opinions are bound to be split on this due to the changes in lifestyle and standards of living that have occurred over the generations.

 

The vast majority of people in need of residential care today are one or even two generations removed from yourself and came from a time where low pay and poor housing was the norm. Both my wife and myself came from what can only be classed as poor working class families where the bread-earners were a milkman and a labourer and their wives where simply housewives. Neither family could ever be accused off pi**ing their income up the wall as just paying the rent and making ends meet took care of that.

 

So having worked all their lives and paid their taxes and national insurance, the sole remaining person at the age of 88 years needs residential care then some jumped up plonker with half a brain suggests people like this are just feckless. If Mr Plonker ever fancies a trip to Switzerland, I?d be more than happy to chip in for the fare.

 

And just a final point Baz, it?s not quite free or is it a reward as Mr Plonker suggests. The council takes all the pension payments, state and private, to pay towards the cost of care, leaving relatives to pay all the ancillary costs.

 

Bill :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pity you had to descend to name calling Bill; but I'll avoid descending to the same level by ignoring such! The facts are, that most folk, when young, don't even consider planning for their old age, even if they could afford to - there is an acceptance that "the State" will provide, which is fine if one accepts the "taxation" option. BUT, that would have to apply to everyone, in order to be fair. What isn't fair, is that those who have planned and saved, should be penalised in having to fund their own care - hence the current debate being initiated by the Government. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,

 

I understand what you are saying. I too was brought up in a council house in Bewsey; with all the inherrant issues that brings!!

 

My mum was a dinner lady at Bewsey High School and my dad drove trucks for Crosfields (Later became the chauffeur) but they bought their house and saved for old age. Sadly my dad only lasted till he was 68, but mum is still going and despite a stroke, owns her own house and has a few quid in the bank.

 

The term "free at the point of use" is a phrase often used by the politicians and so "free" was the word I used. I know too well that it isn't free as such; but paid for by the current lot of workers in their NI etc. However, what I am totally against is the fact that if it is free, it should be free for all; not just those who haven't (or couldn't ) save for their retirement Why should a group of people get free care and yet one has to sell everything they have worked for to pay (and lets be honest, they don't just pay for their own care, they pay towards all the others too)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when my mother in law fell and broke her hip she spent three months in hospital.when she was due to be released my father in law was asked to come in and discuss it, this was on the wednesday. he was told that she had to be out of the hospital by friday that week.

not a problem all he had to do was arrange to get her home. because of their age he was told that she HAD to go into a nursing home. so now it was two days to try and find a place for her.they also informed him that if he did not find a place for her they would, even if it meant her having to go several miles away from the area to do so.

in a way he was lucky that he managed to find a vacancy close by albeit at a cost.as it was she only stayed there three days as she passed away on the sunday evening after it being discovered that she had an infection in her mouth and had not been eating.

 

the only other ones were my wifes aunt and uncle who had to go into a care home. the cost at the time was around ?650 per week for the pair of them. their home was sold and all their savings went into it as well as their pension.. by the time they had both passed away there was about ?5000 left of the estate, just about enough for the funerals. he had worked for the same firm for over forty years and had nowt to show for it except for a gold watch.

 

my mother was worried about this sort of thing happening to her so as a precaution she has had her house signed over to me and the rest of the family just in case.

 

saw a bit somewhere recently that the government was on about making some sort of plan that everybody at retirement contributes ?20,000 to a fund for their possible future care :x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saw a bit somewhere recently that the government was on about making some sort of plan that everybody at retirement contributes ?20,000 to a fund for their possible future care :x

 

except those who can't (or won't ) pay into this sort of plan will still get it for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obs, your socialist principles seem to have gone walkabout on this one. What happened to "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs"? Personally I agree that it is immoral to expect someone who has worked all his life, paid his NICs and saved for his old age to then have to pay extra to subsidise those who haven't done anything to contribute. However that is the situation we find ourselves in due to the feckless behaviour of succeeding governments. I don't expect the governments answer to the problem to be any different to the usual legalised theft they usually resort to. :shock::shock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all Asp: the principle of "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs" applies to ALL: unfortunately we have developed a two tier system which applies a means test, and adds "unless you've been thrifty and saved". :shock: Whatever option is arrived at, will require us all to pay something towards our future care, be it an NI form of insurance or taxation, and quite rightly both systems should be proportional to means. :? Now in a "civilized" society, some will argue, that "care of our elderly" is a measure of that "civilisation"; but with a lower demographic of workers to supply the funding, the financial strain is likely to be enormous. :shock: That's why, in the broad context of human history, the third option may not appear so flippant; "uncivilized" societies like the American Indians for example, would expect their elderly, once they became a burden, to go for a long walk and meet a Grizzly Bear - a pragmatic culture of survival of the tribe. :shock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Care of our elderly should be a measure on our society :!::!:

 

My Father inlaw happened to retire just after black wednesday, he had payed into a scheme all his life. because of the state of stocks and shares at the time of his retirement he lost thousands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all care for all old er people should be free

Pay for by raiding the pension funds of politicians, senior civil servants, company directors and all who have more than one directorate and all bankers and other financilal crooks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all people are to be expected to pay for their own care needs when elderly then there's going to have to be an extremely dramatic increase in the minimum wage to make it a realistic proposal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all (well those in work) have to pay compulsory NI towards our state pension, so a system already exists. :? Problem is; NI has a glass ceiling, an upper limit on contributions, thus the politicians, bankers and assorted spivs, don't contibute as much as they could/should - same with income tax; 40% (with the promise of 50%) is pathetic - sure Fred the Shred etc could afford it. :twisted:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NI is a giant Ponzi scheme, run by our government, of the same type that Bernie Madeoff was running in the US. He ended up with a 150 year prison sentence. :wink::wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's actually a cure for this problem?! :shock: Instead of Govenment trying to prolong life with smoking, drinking and junk food bans; allow folk to eat, drink and smoke themselves into an early grave; thus getting the excess tax from them, with less to pay out in future care - think about it! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that would mean politicians not interfering in our lives, and they are congenitally incapable of keeping their noses out of our business. :wink::wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...