Extortion of the elderly

[spilldig]

20 hours ago, peak4 said:

Personally, I'd suggest that it's where the owners priorities lie.

It's the government giving him the money. Well our money actually.

[spilldig]

14 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

 

Not all of those people have. Plenty haven't paid in anything near.    There's been plenty of stay-at-home housewives living off  income from their partner. Plenty of people choosing to work part-time or casual jobs. Plenty of serial jobless bouncing from one dole queue to another. Plenty of those choosing to give up work to raise their kids. Plenty of those unfortunate people who have had no choice through some debilitating condition not to work.    So no you can't blanket say they've all paid in.  

 

What are the ratios? What's the incoming vs outgoings. Because let's not also forget that for all those paying into the system all their lives they're also taking big chunks out of it all their lives.  Let's talk about the 10, 15 years of mandatory education to every single child gets -  how much is that.  Let's talk about a lifetime's worth of NHS treatment, GP attendances, medication, surgery or god forbid critical conditions like cancer treatment or heart treatment.  People haven't got any inkling of the thousands of pounds, even the most routine surgery or treatment can cost. Specialist stuff can be into the tens or hundreds of thousands. How does that compare to a lifetime's worth of taxes people pay in. What about the state pension that most people get paid out for years after they retire? That's all coming out of the pot...

 

That's before we even talk about other government infrastructure, local services, legal, policing, fire, national projects, which all again comes out of that "paying in" we all do throughout lives. 

 

People talk about it as if it's some great big personal savings account. It isn't.  Even if it was, just how much do people seriously think will be left by the time someone reaches elder years.  how much would that cover the true costs of care?  

 

Everything in this world has a price and that includes dying and getting old.

What about those who did work all their lives.

[ECCOnoob]

47 minutes ago, spilldig said:

What about those who did work all their lives.

See my second, third and fourth paragraphs.

[pfifes]

50 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

See my second, third and fourth paragraphs.

The comment about ‘stay at home housewives living off the income of their partners’ is another sexist comment.  Married women of that generation were expected to be housewives!  Stay and home and look after the children and cook and clean.  I suppose that means this wasn’t work, is worthless and they don’t deserve care in old age if needed.

[Annie Bynnol]

12 minutes ago, pfifes said:

The comment about ‘stay at home housewives living off the income of their partners’ is another sexist comment.  Married women of that generation were expected to be housewives!  Stay and home and look after the children and cook and clean.  I suppose that means this wasn’t work, is worthless and they don’t deserve care in old age if needed.

      Women were too often unable to contribute because of decisions made by Government, employers, unions and partners.

      E,g. sacked for getting married.

      Sacked and replaced by servicemen.

      Patterns of work not requiring NI contributions or only class three contributions.

      Unequal pay.

      Unequal opportunities.

      Pressure from partners etc.

For women now retiring, time taken to bring up young children is included for NI purposes.

 

      However at that time and still current is that residential/care/nursing homes are not provided by the 'Welfare State' the exception being poverty(Council) and multiple medical needs not met by a GP.  Successive Governments have totally failed to answer the question of "Who Pays?" for the ever increasing demand, the burden on the taxpayer/council taxpayer, the limits set by Government on protection of savings, council spending, hiring a workforce, etc all of which  reduce the provision of places. It is a mess.

       

 

[Anna B]

2 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

      Women were too often unable to contribute because of decisions made by Government, employers, unions and partners.

      E,g. sacked for getting married.

      Sacked and replaced by servicemen.

      Patterns of work not requiring NI contributions or only class three contributions.

      Unequal pay.

      Unequal opportunities.

      Pressure from partners etc.

For women now retiring, time taken to bring up young children is included for NI purposes.

 

      However at that time and still current is that residential/care/nursing homes are not provided by the 'Welfare State' the exception being poverty(Council) and multiple medical needs not met by a GP.  Successive Governments have totally failed to answer the question of "Who Pays?" for the ever increasing demand, the burden on the taxpayer/council taxpayer, the limits set by Government on protection of savings, council spending, hiring a workforce, etc all of which  reduce the provision of places. It is a mess.

       

 

I don't think people would object to paying something towards their care, but more than £1,000 a week is simply too much.

If that is genuinely the real cost (which I very much doubt) then it should be subsidised at least.

 

If we had to pay the full cost of medical treatment (eg £25,000 for a hip replacement,) how many would be able to afford it? 

Or would they have to sell their homes to be able to pay?

 

Come to think of it, with the majority of Gen Z unable to afford their own homes, what are they going to do when they reach old age?

 

[cressida]

At one time,  can't recall which party,  not having to sell your house was used as a vote catcher,  was it Cameron who promised that?

[Anna B]

Yes that was Cameron. Someone else (maybe Cameron?) promised a cap of £75,000 for care home fees, but it never happened.

 

[crookesey]

When I was young I guess that I was lucky, I sort of bounced off prospective injuries and illnesses, hospitals were for sick folk, not the likes of me, something that I’ve carried throughout my life. My GP practice has made an appointment for an ECG Investigation at the Northern General Hospital, despite me telling them that if they don’t do it at the Hallamshire then I’m not interested, over an hour each way on busses, two half hour walks to and from the department, and if my past experiences are a guide at least a two hours wait for an appointment, so no thanks.

[Annie Bynnol]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

I don't think people would object to paying something towards their care, but more than £1,000 a week is simply too much.

If that is genuinely the real cost (which I very much doubt) then it should be subsidised at least.

 

If we had to pay the full cost of medical treatment (eg £25,000 for a hip replacement,) how many would be able to afford it? 

Or would they have to sell their homes to be able to pay?

 

Come to think of it, with the majority of Gen Z unable to afford their own homes, what are they going to do when they reach old age?

 

   Why is £1 000 a week too much?

   With the average pensioner sitting on an income of £400 a week and an asset which increased massively in value (tax free)-their house, who do you expect to pay the difference?  Gen Z might be able to afford homes if they did not have to subsidize residential/care/nursing homes for those who have far more assets/means/income than they have.

    Residential/care/nursing homes are not part of medical provided by the NHS unless the resident has multiple or complex needs. The State does not support those who can afford residential/care/nursing homes.  Successive generations have not grasped that it is they as individuals who need to provide for themselves in old age through pensions, savings, insurance and liquidating assets.