Social Care overhall

The world can buy private care providers now.

growstuff

There could be advantages, such as better integration. Some social care, such as for people with learning disabilities, was transferred from the NHS to local authorities a few years ago, then was outsourced to private companies. It would, however, mean transferring staff back on to NHS pay and conditions - I wouldn't mind betting there'll be some catch.

Yes I think better integration is a massive plus.

growstuff

Why can't income tax and other progressive taxes be increased?

I think they should be increased, along with all unearned income. After that, I think that means testing should be scrapped, as it serves to keep middle earners ‘in their place’.

The rich will always be ok, and in the whole the poor will be looked after, even if not particularly well. Means testing those in the middle takes away any savings pound for pound, and prevents them from being able to improve the lot of their families, whIch I think is unfair. I know that not everyone can afford to save, but I am talking about money that has been put aside in lieu of foreign holidays, expensive cars and the line. Someone who has spent on those things will currently get free social care, whilst those who did without in the hope of a more comfortable old age will lose the lot.

Why don't we forget about 'how is it going to be paid for?' for the moment and think about 'are we wanting to provide health and social care services to all regardless of their circumstances?'

If we decide that that is what we want then funding it isn't a problem, as the country cannot run out of money.

Then we could concentrate on using taxation for a fairer redistribution of wealth (see the 'rentier' thread) and for controlling inflation.

Doodledog

growstuff

Why can't income tax and other progressive taxes be increased?

I think they should be increased, along with all unearned income. After that, I think that means testing should be scrapped, as it serves to keep middle earners ‘in their place’.

The rich will always be ok, and in the whole the poor will be looked after, even if not particularly well. Means testing those in the middle takes away any savings pound for pound, and prevents them from being able to improve the lot of their families, whIch I think is unfair. I know that not everyone can afford to save, but I am talking about money that has been put aside in lieu of foreign holidays, expensive cars and the line. Someone who has spent on those things will currently get free social care, whilst those who did without in the hope of a more comfortable old age will lose the lot.

No, their children will lose the lot. The alternative is to distribute the cost and get those who will inherit nothing to contribute to other people's inheritance.

This has made me wonder if this is a new problem. Is it that more older people are suffering from dementia and cannot take care of themselves?
When I was a child, very few people ended their days in a care home. Both sets of my grandparents stayed fit and able until they became ill and died in hospital. They were typical of their generation.

As I said, the current system does not allow those of limited means to improve the lot if their families.

Spenders’ children can benefit from their parents’ money in the form of gifts, holidays or whatever. The rich will be ok and those with nothing will be looked after; but there is no option available to Mr and Ms Average who are happy to do without material things in order to make the lives of their children easier than theirs has been. If they need social care their savings will go and/or their homes will be sold, even though they have been taxed already on earnings (and savings interest if there has been any).

This has made me wonder if this is a new problem.

I think it's only a 'new' problem in that what has been foreseen for many years, the babyboom generation getting elderly and in need of care, has finally arrived and nothing has been done to prepare for it, despite all the warnings.

I suspect, ladymuck, that fewer people ended their days in ac care home because a) there were just fewer old people and b) they probably didn't live quite as long as our generation is predicted to.

More money where it's needed would be more beneficial.

ladymuck

This has made me wonder if this is a new problem. Is it that more older people are suffering from dementia and cannot take care of themselves?
When I was a child, very few people ended their days in a care home. Both sets of my grandparents stayed fit and able until they became ill and died in hospital. They were typical of their generation.

Probably because we are all living longer due to advances in medicine.
However, is it quality of life that matters not longevity?

Many families, especially those of the baby boomer generation who went to university and/or moved around for work are no longer living close to their parents.

I also think that women in full time employment up till their late sixties or early seventies means that it is less likely that they will be able to care for elderly parents

The incidence of dementia is actually falling.
www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/international-research-shows-dementia-rates-falling-by-15-per-decade-over-last-30-years/

However, because there are more of us than there were of previous generations, the actual numbers may still be increasing.

Baby boomers are defined as those born between 1944 and 1964. That means that baby boomers are aged between 56 and 76 now. I’m not sure that the baby boomers are the main group in care homes yet, although obviously there will be some. My experience, although limited, is that the majority of people in care homes are in their 80s and 90s, not to mention many over 100. In other words, as the majority of the baby boomers hit their 80s and more, there will be a massive increase in the need for social care.

Apparently DH belongs to The Silent Generation.
A misnomer if ever I heard one.

I think the point about baby boomers is that they are the generation who would be providing care for relatives in their 80s or 90s, but are sometimes scattered all over the country.