Have your say on the Big Care Debate

scotsbob

MSE_Wendy wrote: »

The Department of Health has asked us to post this paragraph

That is outrageous. Someone should have had the balls to tell them no.

Forums should be free from any government interference.

The government has it's own websites, they have their own Youtube channels.

I'll bet if the majority of posts on this topic had supported government opinion they wouldn't be instructing (sorry, asking) you to place the party line here.

margaretclare

"The average cost of care a 65-year-old can expect in their retirement is around £30,000."

What is this cost for?

Does this cost include NHS treatment - surgery, hospital stays, regular medication, those kind of things? For example the very expensive surgery, critical care, hospital stays, expensive antibiotics, daily District Nurse visits that my DH had in recent months? Or his insulin and other diabetic paraphernalia? These are the kind of costs we may incur, but is this the kind of thing being talked about here, or is it what might euphemistically be termed 'care'?

Also, we are not 'average'. We are all individuals with our own needs, wishes, ambitions and requirements.

"However, the costs are particularly high if you need to move into a residential care home. For example, someone with Alzheimer’s could have to pay over £200,000. The debate we need to have is about what it is fair for everyone to pay, against the need to protect some people against having to pay a huge cost."

Alzheimer's is an illness and, if it was legitimate for my DH to incur the kind of costs I described above, it should be legitimate for Alzheimer's to be treated the same as any other illness/infection/surgical requirement. It is a mental illness. People with e.g. schizophrenia or other mental illness do not have to pay over £200,000!

"What is fair for everyone to pay...." so, back to the proviso that 'everyone' must pay (for care) whether they require that care or not.

[Deleted User]

MSE_Wendy wrote: »

Hi all

what it is fair for everyone to pay, ."

:rotfl::rotfl: everyone indeed!!!

and pigs might fly.

I am not paying into any public insurance scheme. End of.

We will go the Margaret route and be fully independent, paying our own way

EdInvestor

margaretclare wrote: »

Alzheimer's is an illness and, if it was legitimate for my DH to incur the kind of costs I described above, it should be legitimate for Alzheimer's to be treated the same as any other illness/infection/surgical requirement. It is a mental illness. People with e.g. schizophrenia or other mental illness do not have to pay over £200,000!

This of course is the nub of the problem, as the vast majority of people in care homes suffer freom some version of dementia.

Until the Department of Health/NHS accept this is a mental illness and start treating it as such, the whole care system will remain discriminatory and unfair.

margaretclare

The debate we need to have is about what it is fair for everyone to pay, against the need to protect some people against having to pay a huge cost.

'Everyone' and 'some' are the operative words. Everyone must pay more, for some.

I suppose a similar analogy could be made with the NHS. 'Some' of us have made more use of it than others. DH and I have had a lot of surgery over the past decade, most of that - we believed - funded by our past contributions over our working lifetimes. It's possible that some people might resent that, those who remain hale and hearty for most of their lives and haven't needed joint replacements and the like.

It could be argued that Alzheimers, for example, is not an 'illness' but a degenerative brain disease occurring only in older people, and the more older people there are as a proportion of the total population, the more of this disease will be seen. However, as against that, there are other 'degenerative' diseases which do not get the unfair treatment that Alzheimer's sufferers get. MS, MND spring to mind. And what about the joint replacements which are needed because of joint wear-and-tear?

Is it just because Alzheimer's is incurable? So are MS and MND. I agree, there is a need for a debate. But I still don't think I want to 'sign up to' the kind of scenario posited by that Govt. communication.

EdInvestor

margaretclare wrote: »

Is it just because Alzheimer's is incurable? .

I think not.The Govt wants to sweep it under the carpet because there is a lot of it about and it costs a lot to look after the victims.

It got away with this approach for a long time because many people were ashamed that their relative was demented/mad/crazy etc and the victim was looked after (hidden away?) at home.. There was a stigma, as there was with many mental illnesses years ago.

Society has learned to cope a lot better with mentally disabled people living in the community.It is time that the Alzheimer's stigma is also cast into the dustbin where it belongs and the disease is treated like any other illness..

Gavin83

ceridwen wrote: »

I will never ever consider going into a nursing home - NO MATTER WHAT - so what would be the point of paying in case I did??? I wont - end of....It might mean I had struggled on to the extent that I fell downstairs and broke a leg or even my back or something - but that is MY choice...at least I would have stayed in my own home throughout.

With all due respect depending on your circumstances you may not get a choice in the matter. Most people who are in nursing homes aren't there out of choice, they are there because it's not safe for them to be at home and their relatives have decided it's the best place for them. It's really not fair or feasible to expect your children to look after you to that extent in old age.

In an ideal World the elderly wouldn't have to pay anything towards there care but we live in the real World and the money would have to come from somewhere. Where do you suggest we get this money from?

And for all those who state that it's not fair that those who have saved for their retirement have to use their money, surely this is what them savings are for? What else are you going to use it for once you've entered a care home? It's not like you'll be going on many cruises from then on.

[Deleted User]

Gavin83 wrote: »

Where do you suggest we get this money from?

And for all those who state that it's not fair that those who have saved for their retirement have to use their money, surely this is what them savings are for? What else are you going to use it for once you've entered a care home? It's not like you'll be going on many cruises from then on.

Doh, thanks button instead of quoted again.

Where from? We will pay for us from our savings but no way on earth are we going to contribute into a national pot to pay for all the people who spent instead of saved. There is a lot not being said by the government ie who IS going to pay for the workshy, serial, scroungers who have never done a days work in their lives or the inadequate mothers who have 14 children on the state

scotsbob

Gavin83 wrote: »

SNIP
It's really not fair or feasible to expect your children to look after you to that extent in old age.

SNIP
In an ideal World the elderly wouldn't have to pay anything towards there care but we live in the real World and the money would have to come from somewhere. Where do you suggest we get this money from?

.

For the first three or four years of my life I couldn't feed/toilet/dress myself without help form my parents. I think it very fair that I should do the same for them in the last few years of their lives.

As to where the money comes from. I pay it for myself and my family from my earnings and savings.

What I object to, is that as a taxpayer I have to pay for all those who don't want to work and now the proposal is that because they haven't saved I have to fund their retirement as well. Now that is what I call not fair.

margaretclare

MSE Wendy, as the Dept of Health asked you to post that paragraph from them, may we assume they are going to read and take on board all our responses?

It seems that most of us are willing to pay for our own needs in the future and that is what we've been saving for - the proverbial 'rainy day'. I certainly am. I am not still saving, and watching my investments, with the idea that it will be an inheritance for someone else. If it doesn't all get used in my and DH's lifetime and there is some left over, fine. But primarily it is for us, and we don't know what lies ahead.

Like others, I would object most strongly to having to pay into a central 'pot' to fund the lifestyles of those who haven't contributed in any way, shape or form.