Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Please donate just 75p a day...
Comments
-
Most people do not go into care homes. Those that do only a small minority stay there for any length of time.
For those that do end up needing long term care it is arguable whether this is really becomes health/nursing care and the costs can escalate. Interestingly the media only seems to concentrate on these cases rather than providing full statistics.
I wouldn't trust any extra funding being ring fenced.
An lucrative private insurance market being created.
Leaving it to choice will see few take it up."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Well I put forward the proposition as a point of debate, yet your response to that is to come out with some pathetic 'I'm better than you' comment.
Not only that, but your indignation at such an ageist and offensive suggestion leads you to denigrate all women by suggesting that none are fit to take your place.
clearly though, i am the one who is a fool.
What an idiot, what are you talking about, denigrating women?
Your proposal was idiotic, although I do admit it fits your probable intelligence.Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one birdThe only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistakeChuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop0 -
What I don't understand is the argument that it's unfair to make people use their savings to pay for their care at the end of their life. What are the savings for then?
Its not unfair. Its just a question of whether there is a better alternative.
Personally I hope to leave my assets to deserving people of my choice. If I end up in a care home and it all gets consumed by the WonderlandCare UK plc. because I am too decrepit to end my life, so be it.
But if I had the option to pay a regular sum or a lump sum to ensure I could leave most of estate as I would choose then I would take it.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Its not unfair. Its just a question of whether there is a better alternative.
Personally I hope to leave my assets to deserving people of my choice. If I end up in a care home and it all gets consumed by the WonderlandCare UK plc. because I am too decrepit to end my life, so be it.
But if I had the option to pay a regular sum or a lump sum to ensure I could leave most of estate as I would choose then I would take it.
I find this quite interesting. It's something I see quite a lot.
People caring for us in our old age, wiping our rears, taking a hanky to that dribble rolling down our chin, changing our nappies etc are not seen as deserving, rather the devil.
Others, who won't do this for us, those being our immediate family, are seen as the ones who are deserving.
Why is this? In other countries this would be seen as absolutely shocking.0 -
would_be_FTB wrote: »Looks like you have been combining taking drugs and watching sci-fi films to me.
My thoughts exactly, what was that film called 'Logans Run'? Entertaining to watch, but daft escapism at the end of the day.Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one birdThe only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistakeChuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »I find this quite interesting. It's something I see quite a lot.
People caring for us in our old age, wiping our rears, taking a hanky to that dribble rolling down our chin, changing our nappies etc are not seen as deserving, rather the devil.
Others, who won't do this for us, those being our immediate family, are seen as the ones who are deserving.
Why is this? In other countries this would be seen as absolutely shocking.
I don't think the people employed to do it are thought of undeserving it is the business and private sector profits that will be built up the back of it that will at some point end up being bailed out by the taxpayer. Either because of business failure or because the "insurance" has escape clauses more numerous than a colander."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »I don't think the people employed to do it are thought of undeserving it is the business and private sector profits that will be built up the back of it that will at some point end up being bailed out by the taxpayer. Either because of business failure or because the "insurance" has escape clauses more numerous than a colander.
Yer, understand that.
But this would be a National Care Service, much like the NHS. And the public sector workers in the NHS get much the same treatment when it comes to deserving or underserving.
Woe betide they have a half decent pension or pay rise for instance.0 -
chucknorris wrote: »Explain to me why I would need to be compulsory euthanized?
In order to prevent the spread of American spelling in this country. It's necessary I'm afraid, still you've had a good innings.0 -
No thanks. Save for retirement. Those who don't get a shorter life expectancy due to poor previous investment choices. It would be 5 minutes before that boomer lot would argue it should be 20 quid a day and a room in the Hilton. Knackers yard would be too good for themGraham_Devon wrote: »So that we can have a fully funded NCS (National Care Service). This service would start running around 2018-20 and provide fairness to all.
None of this using your own wealth to pay for your care, not from anyone.
75p a day is based on a worker earning £25,000 a year, so £273 a year extra from a paypacket. It's suggested this money is taken from income tax, under a new title. It's not to be taken from any other taxes. It's to start in 2018-20 in order to allow people to plan, and she believes this is affordable to all.
That was the idea from one influencial women just approaching retirement to deal with the fairness issues when it comes to families selling their homes to pay for their care, caps, house prices across the country etc. She did state not enough has been paid in and we can't keep tinkering around the edges.
So, as this is to come from workers only, do you agree with such a system? Would it provide fairness? if so, fairness to whom?
It's costed out at around £10bn.0 -
would_be_FTB wrote: »Looks like you have been combining taking drugs and watching sci-fi films to me.
It's already being done, NICE have a not so nice formula.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 346.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 251.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 451.1K Spending & Discounts
- 238.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 613.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 174.5K Life & Family
- 251.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards