Extend the uncertainty?

Malthusian

There are no reserves, the nation is billions in debt. Moving a few million of borrowed money into an account and calling it a "rainy day fund" doesn't alter that. It's fantasy accounting. Try telling the Debt Free Wannabe board that you've saved up a rainy day fund by withdrawing £1,000 on your credit card and putting it in a savings account.

The pips are always squeaking in the care sector and the NHS - both are designed to exist in permanent crisis. I mean the nation can pay more tax if politicians decide it. We can see the nation has already been softened up for it by the number of people who say "I'd be happy to pay more tax to solve the care crisis" even though paying more tax would, by design, do absolutely nothing to solve the care crisis.

(If you spend more on a system that is commanded to provide a universal high quality service for free, costs and demand rise until equilibrium crisis is restored. See the NHS.)

It's like saying "I'd be happy to pay more tax to own a unicorn" and electing a politician on that mandate. You're not going to get a unicorn but your tax bill is going to go up. Too bad.

Sailtheworld

lisyloo wrote: »

Good luck with that.
People are looking after themselves less well e.g. higher levels of obesity than previous generations despite being better educated.
The current generation who are in nursing homes, lived through the war and lived much healthier lives and ate less processed food.
Younger generations are currently less healthier, more obesity and higher levels of diabetes etc.

With a 'free' system there's no risk associated with not looking after yourself. Treat people like grown-ups and expect them to pay more towards health care costs. They seem reasonably happy to pay for today's poor choices in future misery so why would they baulk at paying money too.

If you consume more you pay more. If you're a higher risk your insurance costs are higher. Widely accepted principles in the real world that exists outside of the NHS.

lisyloo

Sailtheworld wrote: »

The usual solution is already being implemented and that's rationing by waiting list.

If you mean rationing nursing home places that could be a false economy e.g. nursing home £1000, basic hospital bed £3000 per week.

Malthusian

lisyloo wrote: »

If you mean rationing nursing home places that could be a false economy e.g. nursing home £1000, basic hospital bed £3000 per week.

Absolutely. Organised, transparent rationing would be one way of ending the crisis by choosing "free" and "high quality" as your two out of the three, dropping "universal". However grandads and grannies on the waiting list would have to be cared for for free by their next of kin, not the NHS, and you'd probably have to rewrite English common law to create a statutory duty upon them. And elder abuse would skyrocket.

Hence my opinion that dropping "high quality" and building wards is much more dignified, compassionate and desirable.

When the state commands that something must be free, high quality and universal, all of those things break simultaneously (while those on the front line have to pretend they aren't). The collapse of "free" manifests through relatives being pressured to top up regardless of whether they can afford it. The collapse of "high quality" manifests through abuse, neglect, and all sorts of other grisliness in the poorer state-run care homes. The collapse of "universal" manifests through bed-blocking.

But we're pretending none of that is happening and the only problem is Tory cuts or that we aren't paying enough tax.

Sailtheworld

lisyloo wrote: »

If you mean rationing nursing home places that could be a false economy e.g. nursing home £1000, basic hospital bed £3000 per week.

In theory, faced with those figures, you might argue it would make sense to create more nursing home places and save £2000 per week per person. However, if 100% of beds in hospitals and nursing homes are full, it's academic really because you can't shift people between the two to save money. It's probably cheaper to let people die on waiting lists than build extra capacity in one or the other.

How do we know it's probably cheaper? Because you've got to be a special sort of hard-nosed government (or just incompetent which can't be discounted) to let people die on waiting lists if building more capacity to allow people to be treated with dignity is cheaper. I say 'government' but I probably mean the taxpayer.

Ask anyone if they'd like to see more spending in the provision of elderly care and most would likely say yes. What they mean is they'd like to see more of other people's money being spent.

BobQ

lisyloo wrote: »

.

Perhaps we need some form of national long term care insurance? e.g. additional national insurance as well as private products.
Currently there isn’t any private insurance you can buy in advance.

I have previously posted my solution. A tax on the estates of everyone over 50 who dies, paid into a social insurance fund that funds care for anyone who needs it. There should be a threshold dof say £20K of assets, but otherwise everyone pays a tax when they die in addition to inheritance tax. Everyone pays when they die, those who need care are supported to a good standard.

AG47

If somebody goes to a salon to be waxed, which is better

1. Rip it off fast, yes it hurts but it's over quick or

2. Pull it off very slowly extending the pain.

With Brexit, option number 2 is happening

Arklight

We could just be honest and say that we can't fund things like Education, the NHS, and care for the elderly and provide billions of pounds of tax breaks to the rich - and billions more in corporate welfare to companies that pay salaries so low that the taxpayer, again, has to top them up with working poor benefits. This to enable a system which leaves 80% of the country worse off than they need to be. 15% about the same, and 5% with more money than they could ever spend even if they decided to invest in charitable pursuits (which by and large, they don't).

That would involve the (predominantly) English voter base having a mature reasoned discussion into the role of money, taxation, and the what is expected of the state. Instead of a, "Yeah loadsamoney I'm gonna get rich screw everyone else innit," attitude that has prevailed since Thatcherism.

I'm not holding my breath. In a minute we will have another idiot in charge of No 10 who will tell people what they want to hear, add a few hundred billion onto the bank accounts of their mega rich Eton mates, and then disappear to the Bahamas with an insincere apology.

Frankly I am beginning to think that England is just long overdue to get what it deserves, and Brexit is that in Technicolor. Inflicted on England, by England.

I don't really see a long term future here for myself or my family any more. And I am very sad to say that.

lisyloo

AG47 wrote: »

If somebody goes to a salon to be waxed, which is better

1. Rip it off fast, yes it hurts but it's over quick or

2. Pull it off very slowly extending the pain.

With Brexit, option number 2 is happening

You forgot the remain option.
Keep the status quo, let the hair remain.

LHW99

lisyloo wrote: »

You forgot the remain option.
Keep the status quo, let the hair remain.

But that's not a status quo, because the hairiness will then continue to increase ad infinitum