Please donate just 75p a day...

chewmylegoff

BobQ wrote: »

Well why not have a free at the point of use system that we pay for in our lives or via an extra tax on death. We could allow people like yourself to opt out. If it turns out you are unable to fund the care you need that will be your problem.

we already have a free at point of use safety net for anyone who can't afford to pay for it themselves. given that only 5% or so of the population ends up in a care home, it doesn't seem necessary to start ramming another "special" tax down everyone's throats when all it would do is exactly mimic the current model that funds care costs through general taxation.

if anyone with assets wants to avoid care home costs i expect they can probably buy a real insurance policy, rather than a pretend one issued by the government (which would then just use all the money on general expenditure rather than actually ringfencing it against care costs anyway). that said i have never tried to buy care fees insurance so i have no idea whether it actually exists.

mrginge

chucknorris wrote: »

I don't need to put up a 'decent' arguement (do you know the meaning of the word decent?) when discussing compulsory euthanasia as it is an abhorrent proposal. However if I accepted your twisted logic, I would say that I am superior to you (which you, not I brought up) because in your twisted world me being so much richer than you, I am in a position to add much more value than you.

Well you're clearly a little firecracker aren't you.
Perhaps you really are Chuck Norris!

Anyway, surely we can improve the lives of many more people if we dish out your enormous wealth. It's not like you actually NEED it.

I only posted it as it seemed to fit with the usual level of debate on this board. Anyone with half a brain would see it as a wind up. But no, you had to bite didn't you. You even kept going after the 'denigrating women' comment. Really you should relax a bit.
I was all ready for proposing sandman and injecting timeclocks into people before someone else pointed out the obvious parallel.
Still, at least we all know how incredibly rich and fantastic you are now.

dori2o

I thought it was called saving for a rainy day? Surely needing to have round the clock care is a 'rainy day'?

Some woman on the phone today was saying she didn't save all her life so that she could pay for care in her old age whilst other frittered their money away and got the care free.

Well I'm sorry but what are you going to do with the money, keep saving? You cannot take it with you when you go.

People go on and on about the benefits claimants having this 'entitled to' mindset, but it's just the same with those who have the ability to save money, or have substantial amounts of wealth. They want to be 'entitled to' various things without using their own money to fund it. Their children somehow feel they are 'entitled to' inheritance.

Once again this is an idea which affects the worse off.

What if you never go into care, would you get back the contributions you have made?

The only problem with the system as it is now is that care costs are not regulated, allowing certain companies, homes, the ability to charge extortionate amounts of money.

There should be a rating system for care homes, and with that rating system should be reglations which determine the maximum charges that can be charged by the home.

Those with the worst ratings should not be allowed to charge the highest rates (therefore if they want to charge more they have to improve, which in the end benefits the care receiver), whilst those with the highest ratings should be allowed to charge that bit more to maintain that quality.

End of the day, if you are fortunate enough to be in position where your home (most likely through the benefit of rising house prices and not through hard work) is worth a considerable amount of money, it should be used as capital towards later life care.

Inheretance is not a right. I would however say that a dignified and caring end to life, where you are comfortable, looked after, have illness dealt with as best as possible is a right.

grizzly1911

dori2o wrote: »

The only problem with the system as it is now is that care costs are not regulated, allowing certain companies, homes, the ability to charge extortionate amounts of money.

There should be a rating system for care homes, and with that rating system should be reglations which determine the maximum charges that can be charged by the home.

Those with the worst ratings should not be allowed to charge the highest rates (therefore if they want to charge more they have to improve, which in the end benefits the care receiver), whilst those with the highest ratings should be allowed to charge that bit more to maintain that quality.

Like a national state run scheme perhaps . Like the council runs homes that were closed down?

They could be managed to strict budgets and cost models on non profit making basis.

grizzly1911

chewmylegoff wrote: »

said i have never tried to buy care fees insurance so i have no idea whether it actually exists.

Now a proposed cap has been placed on liabilities seems like an ideal insurance proposition now though.

Low likelihood of a claim, capped costs, easy money for skilled underwriters I would have thought.

The flaw in all of this is that the cap will still only cover basic social care costs and not "hotel" costs.

Isn't the flip side of this that poorer people will probably die earlier than rich people.

chem1st

WestonDave wrote: »

The welfare state has been in existance for the best part 68 years so very few people alive now would have been of working age much before that came into being (even starting at 14 they'd be 82 now). On that basis if there is a shortfall affecting people in old age now, its because they paid insufficient tax over their working lives to put the public finances in a position to be able to afford free care on top of all the other calls on the public purse. So on that basis I don't fancy a 1.5% hike in income tax (which is what it amounts to) for the rest of my working life to bail out those who've already gained plenty from cheap housing and massive windfall gains on it.

Most of the 'welfare state' has been around much longer.

Look back 80 years, back when the dole was greater than a pension. When one's NI contributions were much much less, and when relative to a share of GDP the dole was much much greater than it is now. Back when a minimum wage was proposed, but not put into place.

They cut the dole from 18s to 15s3d in '31. And as a share of GDP, that sum would be greater than what a full time worker on minimum wage gets today!

grizzly1911

chem1st wrote: »

Most of the 'welfare state' has been around much longer.

Look back 80 years, back when the dole was greater than a pension. When one's NI contributions were much much less, and when relative to a share of GDP the dole was much much greater than it is now. Back when a minimum wage was proposed, but not put into place.

They cut the dole from 18s to 15s3d in '31. And as a share of GDP, that sum would be greater than what a full time worker on minimum wage gets today!

How many workers were there back then relative to non workers I wonder? What was the average age of death?

Generali

People save for a rainy day and going into a care home is one of the rainiest.

I'm not sure what people expect to pay for themselves any more. Groceries and buying a car seems to be about it.

DaddyBear

chucknorris wrote: »

Explain to me why I would need to be compulsory euthanized?

When you can't fend for yourself and can no longer afford to pay someone else to do it.

LydiaJ

dawyldthing wrote: »

I don't get why it costs what they claim. Say they have a place for 10 oaps, so income of 480 x 10 = 4800

Most care homes only seem to have 2 staff (with what I have seen) so base wage for a whole week of 1039 x 2 people = 2079.

Say 800 towards holiday and sickness pay, ni from employers pay and it takes us to 2879.

Another 300 for food bills makes it up to 3179

400 for food to 3579

200 towards electric and gas to 3779

300 for a manager to 4079

leaves 721 for the accomodation, which doesn't seem much I suppose but if the place is rented I should imagine it would be a lot less as it is weekly. Like someone said someone is making a lot of money.

I think the whole system needs a radical overhall, but something needs to be sorted soon as it isn't getting any better

I don't think you can run a care home (as opposed to sheltered housing) with two NMW workers on duty round the clock, and a manager who's only there during the day. Most homes providing 24 hr nursing care have at least one fully qualified nurse on duty all the time to be responsible for medication and emergencies. They also have cooks and cleaners, and maybe an accounts/admin person in addition to the manager (or several if it's a big home). They have overheads for equipment (hoist to get patients in and out of bed etc, all of which have to be maintained) and consumables (all those gloves and disposable aprons add up, not to mention the incontinence pads and colostomy bags etc).

This is not just about merely keeping an eye on some basically functional old people who are a bit shaky on their feet and need help doing up their buttons and shoelaces. Care homes look after people with dementia, or Parkinson's, or other nasties like that, or maybe two or three conditions all at once. These people need nursing care, pretty much the same intensity of care that you get in hospital, but if they haven't got an acute condition then the NHS isn't interested beyond paying for their physio and supplying them with wheelchairs. That kind of care costs about £1000pw, and with dementia you can need it for several years between becoming incapable of looking after yourself and dying. Most people manage to die without needing that kind of care for very long, but nobody has any idea who will need it until they get to that point.

So far, the women in my family have all needed 24hr nursing care for a few years at the ends of their lives. Most have been widowed and have had to go into care homes. My mum has so far been the only one lucky enough to have a husband still alive and healthy and able to provide 24hr care at home. The level of care he provided (with help from visiting carers several times a day and respite carers for a few hours a week) was not something that could be done by any family member with any kind of job, partner, children, life etc.