Where should the cost burden for care of the elderly lie in society - with the state or individual

[mids2019]

I was watching an item on a politics show about the long standing problem of funding elderly care. There was some woman who was strongly critical of the funding middle as her mother had to swell her house to find care home fees. Could one argue that the parent had no need for her house with regrettably a very small chance of return so it is fair for that a set to be used in paying for free instead of the tax payer picking up the cost? It was an elephant in the room during the interview but the person losing the most in the scenario was the daughter who ultimately would inherit less but obviously this was not said.

I don't think there is a simple answer hence successive governments pushing this into touch but where should the cost burden lie, the state of the indiividual?

I think this subject is really co.implicated by the fact that we have universally free healthcare yet a private model for social care. There really is a sinking here. Hospitals will in future not be able to fill in for shortcomings of social care and there are many cases of the elderly taking up beds in hospitals as they can't be discharged without an adequate care package and I wonder if these cars packages are materialistic because of cost? We also get the situation where specialist nursing care is free yet caring in a care home is not so how do we square that circle?

Prisoners families didn't choose for them to commit crimes either.

Prisoners can't work as they're in prison. We have one of the highest incarceration rates in Europe. Instead of genius ideas like getting families to pay for things that have nothing to do with them, perhaps we should overhaul our justice system and have fewer prisoners and better rehabilitation schemes.

The families don't pay unless they want to. It comes out of the elderly persons funds.

You are wasting your time Prisoners druggies weed smokers. All worshipped on here. But elderly people, social housing tenants are looked down on

Prisoners can work when in prison and many of them do. A simple Google check will tell you that.

Same as they have TVs. Yet many elderly people are struggling to decide between heating or eating, let alone paying for a TV license.

As I said, people don't choose to get old and need a care plan. Families are expected to cough up then.

Prisoners choose to commit crimes. It's precisely the same logic.

How would it be easier to control?

@JenniferBooth It's ridiculous isn't it 😂

Don’t be ridiculous.

Cos care for the elderly is just in care homes or care in your own home. It's that simple. The issue is funding but the solution is simple.

As I said, people don't choose to get old and need a care plan. Families are expected to cough up then.

Incorrect. Families are not expected to pay for elderly care. Some chose to supplement LA funding, say, if a relative’s own money runs out, so they can stay where they are. But it is not an obligation.

Anyway, I suspect you and Jennifer Booth are playing with the same chess set, so I will leave it there with you both.

And when their parents sell their home (as most are forced to do!), it's the family that miss out.

Maybe prisoners families should sell their homes and assets to fund their relatives prisoners stay?

If a disabled young person, in pain, with a poor quality of life and no chance of getting better has the option of being kept alive with a cocktail of pills or being allowed to peacefully slip away, then I'd say the second option. It's not as bad though if you never know anything different. Going from being a capable, independent adult to completely dependent is not the same as being born and never learning those skills.

Then truth is that the NHS is already making choices about who lives and dies, and what quality of life those that live get, because there is simply not enough money to pay for everything. What is more valuable, keeping someone alive for 2 more years, or paying for IVF for a couple that desperately want a baby? Paying for a hip operation for a 60 year old who will be wheelchair bound without it or for a new and as yet unproven cancer treatment which could potentially save a child? It's not easy choices.

I just know I do not want to die alone and scared in a home that is not my home after having my life artificially extended for years beyond what would have been possible 20 years earlier, and I know my parents don't either.

I know this is a contentious subject as can be seen by the shocked comments you’ve received on here but others are saying let the elderly die basically if they are ‘just sat there’. That’s shocking!

Prisoners get money from the tax payer whilst in prison so they can spend it on tuck.(yes I know it’s not a lot but xxx that by the numbers of prisoners and it is!)

Why?
Surely they should get into a prison routine of working and any savings or revenue from that stays in the system to pay for their upkeep and educational needs.

The average amount a prisoner gets / week is £15 ( yes some less and some more)
There are 95,526 prisoners ( June 2023 figures )

Thats £15 x 95,526 prisoners = £1,432,890 / week !
So
£1,432,890 x 52 weeks = £74,510,280 / year !

As we are in such a mess financially in this country i think we need to look at ways, such as the above, to save money.

@StandingSideBySide and when they leave prison, they get £200 cash of what they've saved and the rest goes on a cheque. ANY money earned should be kept by the prison.

As for the comments on the elderly just 'sat there', they've not been 'sat there' whilst working their arses off to pay into a tax system!

I agree with everything you've said.

I know someone in a care home who is paying about £1800 a week for care. They are self funding. A lot of the residents however are not self - funding. They pay the subsidised rate which is between £180 and £190 per week. That is a massive difference, £1800 versus £180.

If having a bit of personal money and autonomy means that the prisoners are easier to manage, then removing it might cost more in additional staffing and inmate aggro.

I don’t know either way, but it’s rarely possible in any system to remove something without a consequence

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5113913-to-think-prison-reform-wasnt-the-top-of-most-voters-agenda

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3547983-Social-housing-stigma

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

What would help the poor souls is if they didn't commit the crime in the first place.

Not to mention if they had a home before they were sent to prison it’s still sat there when they get out.
No one’s taking it off them and the Government don’t put a charge on it to pay for their keep when they die.

The elderly are treated far worse than prisoners.

The cheapest thing any society can do with respect to prison is to reduce reoffending rates. Fewer crimes and lower prison costs - result on both fronts.

If someone is paying £180 a week then the local council are paying a big chunk on top, either making it up to £1800 or near enough.

Oh wow, with an argument like that, can’t think why you aren’t in policy.

Anyway, enough. This is way off topic.

To all sane posters: have a good evening.

Prison should be prison. Not a jolly boy's outing with TVs and tuck shops. That's how you'd stop re-offending.

Do you have a relative or friend in prison? You're very defensive of criminals.

By that very logic
One assumes
The Government are taking away all the pensioners savings because they aren’t fit enough to fight back.

Exactly! It's frustrating how it pays to be a criminal