Blunkett - Sell house to pay for your elderly care

[truman]

Yes they did, but how many of them were the ones actually responsible for what happened?

 

 

I have no idea but as thousands and thousands lost their jobs I would assume that some of those responsible went down the road... all we seem to read on here is that bankers all did OK out of the mess..it's patently not true..

[mjw47]

I have no idea but as thousands and thousands lost their jobs I would assume that some of those responsible went down the road... all we seem to read on here is that bankers all did OK out of the mess..it's patently not true..

 

Well if you take Mervyn King as an example I'm not too convinced as to whether people suffered proportionately.

 

It was admitted that the Bank of England that he was in charge of at the time was blissfully unaware of the impending crash a couple of months before it occurred.

 

In July 2013 a month after he stepped down as governor of the bank he accepted a lucrative six figure offer from a New York university to lecture on the financial crisis and it's aftermath.

 

He was also about to be given the title Baron King of Lothbury.

 

Bob Diamond who had to resign following the LIBOR scandal raised $325 million from a listing on the London Stock Exchange to fund his own bank, Atlas Mara which trades mainly in Africa.

 

The rank and file may suffer but those at the top prosper.

[Tommo68]

Why would anyone expect either the state or private enterprise to care about the elderly except to exploit them as much as possible and take from them as much of and as many of their assets as possible?

.

.

[Anna B]

Why would anyone expect either the state or private enterprise to care about the elderly except to exploit them as much as possible and take from them as much of and as many of their assets as possible?

.

.

 

One of the signs of a civilised society is how it looks after its old, weak, and vulnerable. It was something Britain was proud to be very good at in the past.

 

Now, of course, you are right. Money is the only thing that matters, and exploitation is rife, selfishness and 'greed is good' the mantra. All signs of just how far and how fast this once great country is falling.

 

Cameron can talk all he likes about his wonderful plans for the future, but this is the true measure of his 'success.' I no longer recognise the country I was born in and weep at what it is becoming.

 

And that's before he puts into action all the cuts he has in mind for after the election, but is too cowardly to tell us about because he knows they will be so unpopular they will lose him the election.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Even if that's true, and I'm not expressing a view on it here, someone has to fund the person's housing.

Should it be:

a. the person (if able to fund it); or

b. taxpayers?

 

[A: the person (if able to fund it)]

[Anna B]

Even if that's true, and I'm not expressing a view on it here, someone has to fund the person's housing.

Should it be:

a. the person (if able to fund it); or

b. taxpayers?

 

[A: the person (if able to fund it)]

 

I might agree Jeffrey that the person ought to fund it themselves if it wasn't such a rip off. These homes are exploiting old people, who have little choice, for profit. At the very least they should be run by the council on a non-profit making basis, and charge reasonable fees. A home carer is paid a mere £60 a week for 24 /7 care.

 

There is absolutely no way that it is worth (average) £550 per week, per person. This is more than most of them will have ever earned in their lives, and when their money is gone (which it will be in a surprisingly short time,) they will then be a burden on their family who will be expected to stump up the best part of £500 a month to top up the fees.

 

This for a residential single room in a building where the majority of the staff will be minimum wage, the food minimal, and the care unexceptional.

I've seen these places from the inside.

 

If the person requires nursing care, then it is an extention of hospital care and should be funded by the NHS. They have paid their dues for years into the system which they may well have asked little of until now, only to find themselves at the mercy of greedy profiteering which insists they pay again..

Edited April 15, 2015 by Anna B

[Tommo68]

One of the signs of a civilised society is how it looks after its old, weak, and vulnerable. It was something Britain was proud to be very good at in the past.

 

Now, of course, you are right. Money is the only thing that matters, and exploitation is rife, selfishness and 'greed is good' the mantra. All signs of just how far and how fast this once great country is falling.

 

Cameron can talk all he likes about his wonderful plans for the future, but this is the true measure of his 'success.' I no longer recognise the country I was born in and weep at what it is becoming.

 

And that's before he puts into action all the cuts he has in mind for after the election, but is too cowardly to tell us about because he knows they will be so unpopular they will lose him the election.

 

Not getting into that in this thread there will be threads about the politics and policies of prospective candidates soon enough.

.

.

[Anna B]

I might agree Jeffrey that the person ought to fund it themselves if it wasn't such a rip off. These homes are exploiting old people, who have little choice, for profit. At the very least they should be run by the council on a non-profit making basis, and charge reasonable fees. A home carer is paid a mere £60 a week for 24 /7 care.

 

There is absolutely no way that it is worth (average) £550 per week, per person. This is more than most of them will have ever earned in their lives, and when their money is gone (which it will be in a surprisingly short time,) they will then be a burden on their family who will be expected to stump up the best part of £500 a month to top up the fees.

 

This for a residential single room in a building where the majority of the staff will be minimum wage, the food minimal, and the care unexceptional.

I've seen these places from the inside.

 

If the person requires nursing care, then it is an extention of hospital care and should be funded by the NHS. They have paid their dues for years into the system which they may well have asked little of until now, only to find themselves at the mercy of greedy profiteering which insists they pay again..

 

OK, don't get into the politics Tommo68. But what do you think to these comments? Do you think it's justified?

[davebrmm]

I see one or two people who don't like a taste of their own medicine

 

who cares what saint Blunkett says we all remember what he did when he was home secretary tell him to go back to his cottage on the Chatsworth estate rent free ?.no doubt.