Social Care overhall

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The world can buy private care providers now.

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.

This morning it is being reported that there are plans to look at the possibility of the NHS taking over social care.

Blimey that will make a massive institution.!

Social care would be taken away from LA and the budget incorporated into the NHS.

It makes it better for the elderly, vulnerable children and disabled to access care, which would be a good thing.

But I am left with a bit of unease and a lot of questions.

My biggest worry is that social care as well as health care will now be open to the world to buy.

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

Trisher, I didn’t say that 40 year olds are better off. I am also aware of the problems faced by twenty and thirty-somethings, as I have two of my own. You are being very selective the things you pick on in my posts.

Again, my point about people paying in their 40s towards social care is to reduce the monthly spend, not to add to the overall cost.

I said at the start that older people might not be able to contribute enough to be included in the scheme - I am not expecting to be carried by the younger generation, although I do hope that the fact that many older people have paid decades’ worth of NI will not be forgotten when the details are decided.

Good post GillT
I also wouldn’t mind paying more tax if this scheme could be introduced.

I agree with Whitewave and she is right, this type of scheme works well in other countries, I think Germany is one such country.
I understand the points you’ve raised Maisie, and they are valid points, but I hope as the details are thrashed out, those points will be addressed.

All of us

GillT57

This is a difficult nettle for any political party to grasp for it is fundamentally raising taxes, something which the Tories have promised they won't do and Labour get criticised for if they suggest it, therefore it really needs to be something discussed in a non-political group, with some level headed grown ups who are prepared to face up to it. A lot of expensive decisions are not made because they may not be popular with a section of the electorate important to the incumbent party, and thus these difficult items are 'kicked into the long grass'. Most sensible people acknoweldge that social care needs a serious sort out; too many elderly people are in hospital beds when what they need is care, convalesence, looking after, not expensive hospital nurses. I would like to see this proposed in HoC, not used as a stick to beat any party with, but as a means of dealing with a very important and expensive part of health. It should never have been separated out, but that ship has sailed, and I for one, would be happy to pay some sort of tax and be assured that my children would not have the worry and/or expense of care for me.

Yes, a good post GillT57.

We really need a cross party cabinet committee to sort out the best way forward as it is something that is going to affect all of opus for generations. It is possible to do this and this could avoid too much political wrangling which could cause delays.

Razzy yes, more community nursing and social care is needed too.

I’d like to see far more community nursing. Obviously this would need to be paid for out of taxes, but in the long run would probably save people deteriorating quite so quickly and going into nursing homes. I agree care homes should be local authority run.
As to who should pay, well the whole NHS is a can of worms. It needs money spent to modernise properly. Interesting that visits to urgent care centres/ A&E dropped when Covid appeared. I think we should perhaps offer a basic level of care with the NHS and insurance based products on top, like private medical packages some workers get now. At least until the NHS gets back on its feet.

Exactly trisher

I’m 58 and my DH is 68 (soon to be 69) and we are still paying a mortgage . We have had to extend this twice now and our house is effectively owned by our business overdraft anyway .