Paying for Social Care

Alegrias1 I posted that I found your post ignorant I did not say that you were ignorant.

Surely all the contributions whether via N.I. or income tax will amount to nothing unless there is a drastic overhaul of the whole service, and I would include the N.H,S, in that , where there needs to be more accountability. Social care takes a back seat and according to Johnson the bulk of the money will go to the N.H.S for the time being . I can't see how this is going to improve Social Care.

It won't, westendgirl, but it will help to clear some of the backlog caused by Covid and Brexit, it will cover for some of the spending on Track and Trace and so forth, and crucially it will stop people asking Johnson about his promise to sort out social care once and for all.

Oh, and if we all get shunted onto some sort of insurance scheme to pay the bills it will soften us up for the Americanisation of the NHS that has been looming for some time.

maddyone

Jillybird is not saying she wants to abandon people to their fate, and I’m sure you know that.

So what is she saying? That she wants to be able to look down on people whose lifestyle is different to hers - and sneer?

It is not bad decisions that makes people poor. It is poverty that leads to bad decisions being the only decisions available.

I’ve returned to reply to Alegrias’s comments on my mention of tax on share dividends. Anyone who takes the time to read my post properly will note my complaint that my paying an increase in that tax is not a sufficient contribution. Yes I own shares and yes I know what it’s like to be very hard up - to tell my child that Mummy isn’t very hungry so he can have a decent meal. To walk round the supermarket in fear of what the bill would be. My ex husband left me with debts and paid very little, at times nothing, for my son’s maintenance. I struggled. He didn’t. Later in life I had a very good job and could save for the future. I know well that very many people cannot do that. I came from a working class background and my father’s job opportunities were severely handicapped by his being a registered blind person. Please do not presume that because I now have savings and investments I don’t know what it’s like to be only just able to pay the bills or go hungry so that my child didn’t. I shall never forget and neither, unfortunately, will he. Clearly not such a good actress as I thought.

Arguing over who is feckless and who is exploitative is exactly what the government want us to do. That way we aren't discussing their incompetence and total failure to sort out the care system adequately. Exactly! Oh, and has anyone given any thought to the time, in two years (?) when the money 'given' to the NHS to clear the covid19 backlog is clawed back to be used for Social Care?

Well, I stand by my post.

I know it probably not the same posters that are decrying the feckless that are talking about their share dividends and employees, but in a thread where we are talking about funding social care, and some posters are complaining about the undeserving poor, it would pay to read the room.

So in saying that my sole contribution to this ‘reform’. as I no longer pay NI, is an increase in tax on my share income, and that I don’t feel that is sufficient, isn’t reading the room? I shouldn’t mention owning shares in case someone is upset that I do? Thanks for the apology btw.

I honestly think that there is a lot of reading at cross purposes going on.

As far as I can see, nobody has said that those with no savings should be denied care.

Nobody has said that they are 'superior' because they have share dividends or employees.

Nobody is 'sneering', or 'looking down their noses' at others.

All of those things have been ascribed to people who are simply saying that social care should be free for all who need it, rather than charged to those who have some assets and not to those who don't. It is perfectly possible to think that at the same time as fully supporting the idea that society should be genuinely 'levelled up', socially, geographically and medically.

GrannyGravy13

Alegrias1 I posted that I found your post ignorant I did not say that you were ignorant.

I'm not sure a post can be "ignorant" without the input of a supposedly "ignorant" poster GrannyGravy. So, whether you like it or not, your post tells us you believe Alegrais has no knowledge of what she posted.

It surprises me not one jot that the intrinsically authoritarian word "feckless" is used by the posters who have shown themselves to be on the authoritarian side of the political spectrum, while those who despise such judgemental views have previously shown themselves to be on the liberal side of the political spectrum.

They are not going to agree, however many names you call someone.

An excellent summary Doodledog.

As far as I can see, nobody has said that those with no savings should be denied care.

No, but they've said how indignant they are that they and their sainted relatives worked hard every day and those who didn't get exactly the same treatment, or even better.

Nobody is 'sneering', or 'looking down their noses' at others.

Then we are clearly reading different threads.

Another good post Doodledog

Alegrias1

^As far as I can see, nobody has said that those with no savings should be denied care.^

No, but they've said how indignant they are that they and their sainted relatives worked hard every day and those who didn't get exactly the same treatment, or even better.

Nobody is 'sneering', or 'looking down their noses' at others.

Then we are clearly reading different threads.

Who is looking down their noses or sneering ?

NHS and Social Care should in principle be free for everyone, regardless of their personal circumstances. In reality I doubt very much that Lord Flim Flam of Flummery will rock up at a local Care Home demanding a room, he will pay for private nurses in his stately pile.

Who is looking down their noses or sneering ?

No names, no pack drill. I stopped looking after page 4.

it also seems unfair to me that people who have been careful with their money and had all their spending taxed at the going rate, should be punished for their thriftiness.

Why should the higher earners pay more. My husband has worked so hard all his life never a weekend off for years and has never claimed a benefit in his life. The government take half his earnings, his business rates are horrendous. We have never had any help from the government.

I think that it’s not fair that someone who has worked hard and paid both NI and tax for 50 years, chose to have only 2 children, did without many things to enable to buy a house, should be subsidising feckless (poor) people who have never worked a day in their lives and have several children etc.

I won't call them feckless but there is a segment of society who have not paid into any type of pension fund (perhaps choosing and I mean choosing not to work), frittering their money away on smoking, drinking and gambling.

it is really unfair that people who have worked very hard and done without to be able to pay a mortgage and buy a house should subsidise others who had equal earnings but chose to spend their money on havei f a good time, lots of holidays, smoking and drinking !!! There are also young people who are able to work but unwilling to give up their benefits and get a job!

I don't think people even know they're doing it.

Oh, and if we all get shunted onto some sort of insurance scheme to pay the bills it will soften us up for the Americanisation of the NHS that has been looming for some time.

Change the third word "if" to "when". There really isn't much doubt about that.

We already know from the small print of what's been said that the meagre amount which will be allocated to social care won't cover accommodation and food etc costs. Johnson himself has talked about insurance policies. The cheaper policies might possible have an excess (like car insurance), so houses will probably end up having to be sold anyway.

Dig deeper than squabbles about fairness and this is what this is all about.

PS. I don't know whether this has been noted elsewhere, but the YouGov poll has Labour in the lead for the first time in months, which could be a blip until the next "promise" comes along. Maybe people really do see through what's been announced.

Alegrias I agree with you. I suspect the thinking has become normalised and confirmed by others with the same kind of thinking.

Doodledog, you have again summed up exactly how I feel. Thank you.

I started life in a ‘poor’ household, and my father worked to support us, but we were still poor. Now I have a small teacher pension and my state pension, likewise my husband, except his pension is bigger than mine since he didn’t stop teaching to raise children for ten years as I did. We are comfortable, but absolutely not rich.

I think in slightly different ways we are all saying that care of the elderly, when they become unable to care for themselves, should be provided for all, free of charge. Please correct me if I’m wrong, and you actually support the current system, but I think we all would like good quality social/nursing care for our elderly relatives, free at the point of need. My own mother cannot live at home any longer because she suffers from heart failure, and she is now unable to even get into bed unaided. Having received NHS care all her life she is suddenly tossed to the wolves, and must pay for herself. She doesn’t have very much money, although obviously more than some, but in any case, it will very soon be gone, because despite having a medical condition, heart failure, she cannot access the care she needs unless she pays for it.

Growstuff ?

Germanshepherdsmum

I’ve returned to reply to Alegrias’s comments on my mention of tax on share dividends. Anyone who takes the time to read my post properly will note my complaint that my paying an increase in that tax is not a sufficient contribution. Yes I own shares and yes I know what it’s like to be very hard up - to tell my child that Mummy isn’t very hungry so he can have a decent meal. To walk round the supermarket in fear of what the bill would be. My ex husband left me with debts and paid very little, at times nothing, for my son’s maintenance. I struggled. He didn’t. Later in life I had a very good job and could save for the future. I know well that very many people cannot do that. I came from a working class background and my father’s job opportunities were severely handicapped by his being a registered blind person. Please do not presume that because I now have savings and investments I don’t know what it’s like to be only just able to pay the bills or go hungry so that my child didn’t. I shall never forget and neither, unfortunately, will he. Clearly not such a good actress as I thought.

So you wouldn't have minded that people thought of you as "feckless" when you were a single parent struggling with bills?

I do think there should be free care for people who need it but I hate the thought of how they would decide who "needs" it as I know Continuing Health Care seems to be hard to get even for people who are severely unwell with conditions, dementia in my experience. My example is elderly relative with dementia, bed bound, incontinent, unable to communicate, unable to feed herself. Just a social care need, no need for CHC.

Still I suppose there will be lots of jobs for people who do the assessments.

Accept the losses already incurred and cancel HS2.

Why do you ask that growstuff? I haven’t described anyone as feckless. I was a working, divorced single parent, a solicitor as it happens but not earning the sort of money I did later on as it was necessary for me to work near home for obvious reasons and opportunities were limited. I struggled, and kept that fact to myself. I went without in order to pay the bills and feed and clothe my son, but I have always paid my way. That really was a gratuitously nasty post.

I agree that the use of the word 'feckless' was unfortunate, and I don't assume that anyone without savings is any such thing, but I do very firmly believe that if someone has earned their money and paid tax on it they have a right to spend or save it as they see fit. That tax should, IMO, be a lot higher than today's rates, but that's a separate argument.

Saying that is not sneering, or saying that one way of doing things is 'superior' to another, but as things stand, someone who has chosen to save instead of spend - maybe to give the proceeds to their children, or maybe to a donkey sanctuary - risks having that all taken away, so their choice is nullified, whereas someone who has chosen to spend has had their choices validated.

If people spend all their money on sex and drugs and rock and roll it's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, just as it is if they spend it on bibles and Good Works. They should be able to do either as they are spending their money, just as Mr Miser should be able to hoard all of his money under the mattress if that floats his boat, as what he has earned is his.

Saying that the good-timers and the good-works brigade's choices are valid, but the misers' are not is just not equitable. Making Mr Miser be the only one to pay for care in their collective old age is just rubbing salt in the wound. All of them, as well as those whose circumstances have meant that there was no spare money to save, should get their care paid for out of their taxes. From each according to ability: to each according to need.

What is sneering or judgemental, or 'looking down my nose' about that?

Another exceptional post Doodledog I agree with every word.