I think the paying for care issue is particularly contentious for several reasons though.
Conditions like dementia and Parkinsons are medical conditions of an organic nature that eventually require a large degree of medical supervision and intervention. Yet they are treated as "social care" issues. When people are diagnosed, they may still have capacity, and are expected to frame their life going forward with the expectation that they will need care in the future so any assets they have should be regarded as for the purpose of paying for care down the line on pain of being accused of deprivation of assets later on.
Which is all good and well, except if they are at the lower end of the economic spectrum means that nearly every penny will be swallowed up really fast by care home fees when the time comes. Self funders essentially subsidise those without assets as care homes are businesses run for profit.
Those at the higher end of the economic scale will be in a position to arrange their finances to protect some of those assets and/or have enough to still pass on inheritance to offspring,while Mabel who lives in a depressed area, and whose right to buy council house hasn't leapt in value will be "allowed" to retain about £13,000.00 to pass on, tie up her affairs and bury her because the 150,000 it ended up being worth paid for perhaps two years care, and moving forward her entire state pension is also taken to partly pay for care.
In the current economy, inheritance is what gets some out of poverty and benefit traps and it's a model that has been encouraged economically with the cultural holy grail of home ownership, providing you with an asset to pass down.
If you are unlucky enough to be hit by the most wretched diseases of old age, you have to accept that the cost of your care will wipe out your hardwork and sacrifices in a breathtakingly short time leaving your family with enough to sort out your affairs and bury you but not much else.
The argument that no-one should expect an inheritance and should build their own security is very noble, but that's becoming harder for more people and is in contradiction with the way things have operated forever.
I'm not arguing that nobody should pay for care ever, but the current model is unfairly weighted against those with the least amount of money in the first place who did try to improve life for themselves and their families going forward, purely because they were unlucky enough to become ill.
Another argument is that families who want their inheritance should care for their elders at home, which some do. But it usually means a reduction in their income as it's a 24 hour job and thus another area of financial deprivation builds up with the added possibility of mis-steps in the CA department for example.
So then some will bring in the assisted dying debate. And that's a whole other can of emotive worms, which takes us into harrowing territory.
It's a pretty pickle indeed, isn't it, with so many issues.
And that's without touching on the fact that paid carers aren't paid nearly enough for the job they do, which is gruelling.
I know what I'm getting at, but have only just woken up so bear with me. I think what I'm saying is that it's another system that needs overhauling to at least level the field a bit for those whose tiny bit of something, that they pursued in the hope that they could improve their own and their families lot as they were encouraged to do doesn't completely vanish for the "crime" of misfortune in developing a disease.