This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
What would be the problem with funding the NHS largely from the estates of NHS users, according to how much they have used it, after they and their spouses have died? Every consultation and treatment - all free at the point of use - could be costed and added to your slate throughout your life, and then the bill could be paid after you're gone and have no further use for the money.
This is the natural extension to May's social care proposals, so why wouldn't it be a good plan?
This is the natural extension to May's social care proposals, so why wouldn't it be a good plan?
3
5
In reply to john arran:
Folk will spend everything they have, remortgage their homes, gift it to relatives... they will die with zero assets?
If you can afford to gain assets through life, then fund the nhs through life. Cash in the bank is better than a cheque in the post.
Folk will spend everything they have, remortgage their homes, gift it to relatives... they will die with zero assets?
If you can afford to gain assets through life, then fund the nhs through life. Cash in the bank is better than a cheque in the post.
9
In reply to john arran:
Because we need strong and stable leadership in the national interest, not a coalition of chaos, that is why.
Next question!
Who let him near a microphone...?
Because we need strong and stable leadership in the national interest, not a coalition of chaos, that is why.
Next question!
Who let him near a microphone...?
8
1
In reply to john arran:
Most of that money will be going on end of life care, you can't spend the money after your death twice...
I think Summo's 'evasion' points are significant negatives, and I'd prefer higher general taxation.
Most of that money will be going on end of life care, you can't spend the money after your death twice...
I think Summo's 'evasion' points are significant negatives, and I'd prefer higher general taxation.
4
In reply to john arran:
Because it's (generally*) a lottery as to whether you will get ill or not and require treatment. On that basis the cost of treatment should be borne by society as a whole. Your proposal penalises those unfortunate enough to get ill and doesn't expect any contribution from those lucky enough to have avoided illness. The fact that it's taken from your estate after your death is still unfair if you compare that with the estates of those who didn't get ill.
If you are talking about raising money from inheritance tax then it has to be on a sliding sale across the board - not linked to a person's life time health.
*I say "generally" because there are some who abuse their life style regardless of warnings thereby increasing their risk of illness which increases the costs on society as a whole - not really certain how you would deal with this aspect of the equation, and where would society draw the line? Eg people who take up smoking at one end of the scale and those, like many of us, who chose to undertake higher risk sports at the other end. Difficult, but that's just further complicating your proposal.
Because it's (generally*) a lottery as to whether you will get ill or not and require treatment. On that basis the cost of treatment should be borne by society as a whole. Your proposal penalises those unfortunate enough to get ill and doesn't expect any contribution from those lucky enough to have avoided illness. The fact that it's taken from your estate after your death is still unfair if you compare that with the estates of those who didn't get ill.
If you are talking about raising money from inheritance tax then it has to be on a sliding sale across the board - not linked to a person's life time health.
*I say "generally" because there are some who abuse their life style regardless of warnings thereby increasing their risk of illness which increases the costs on society as a whole - not really certain how you would deal with this aspect of the equation, and where would society draw the line? Eg people who take up smoking at one end of the scale and those, like many of us, who chose to undertake higher risk sports at the other end. Difficult, but that's just further complicating your proposal.
8
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Even taking money from an estate for end of life care is a lottery. Those "lucky" enough to pop of suddenly compared to those who linger for months costing thousands a month are financially getting away with it. There is also a potentially sinister side to May's end of life care proposals (as with the euthanasia debate) that children, who are usually beneficiaries, will be tempted not to give granny the best end of life care she should get in an attempt to hurry along the financially draining ticking time clock as they see their inheritance eroding.
> Most of that money will be going on end of life care, you can't spend the money after your death twice...
Even taking money from an estate for end of life care is a lottery. Those "lucky" enough to pop of suddenly compared to those who linger for months costing thousands a month are financially getting away with it. There is also a potentially sinister side to May's end of life care proposals (as with the euthanasia debate) that children, who are usually beneficiaries, will be tempted not to give granny the best end of life care she should get in an attempt to hurry along the financially draining ticking time clock as they see their inheritance eroding.
Post edited at 09:01
2
1
In reply to john arran:
Some rambling and barely coherent musings on a Sunday morning.
Demographically speaking, I reckon the notion of 'an estate' upon death, has (with a very small number of exceptions) about a generation left before it is a quaint anachronism much like rationing and capital punishment. Seriously, one of my biggest concerns about the future of this country, and I hear no one talking about it*is the intergenerational evaporation of capital from all but the wealthiest.The much touted bank of mum and dad is by definition a one time phenomenum, most of the current generation of parents will not be able to offer the same support to their children financially as they may have received and consequently capital will evaporate in childcare, tuition fees, mortgage interest or rent and finally social care. No one seems to look over the immediate horizon (next election...?) and ponder where we are going in a few decades time.
It also will completely diminish the voluntary sector, how many institutions, from charities to amateur dramatics are run by those retired and on pensions good enough to support an active lifestyle. Also how many companies rely on the fast disappearing prosperous pensioner market - cruise companies and most of the advertisers in the Mail on Sunday so there will be a tangible hit on the economy. As retirement ages increase most people will be just too knackered to take on these roles. However, automation might free up many people who could do these things, but could they afford to do anything other than just get by?
NHS funding needs reform because I think the demographic and socio economic outlook for the next 50 years looks dire for an institution like that. The only answer I can see is a total revision of the purpose of the
NHS (less spent on treating lifestyle induced illness? Charges for repeated inappropriate use of A&E? Adequate provision for mental health outwith the immediate care environment?) and ending the current way of keeping people alive almost endlessly with no prospect of improvent let alone recovery, in short proper provision for an appropriate, dignified and humane end to life.
I don't feel that the NHS is 'safe' in the hands of any political party. If it was the family car the Tories seem content to buy a nice air freshener while ignoring the fact that the wheel bearings are about to collapse, while labour would try to fix those wheel bearings by reinforcing them with bundles of borrowed twenties. That those wheels are still just wobbly and not lying in the hard shoulder is testimony to the humanity and dedication of the front line NHS staff, not any great policy from governments in the last few decades.
* I suppose they do, it's the 'rich getting richer the poor getting poorer'
Some rambling and barely coherent musings on a Sunday morning.
Demographically speaking, I reckon the notion of 'an estate' upon death, has (with a very small number of exceptions) about a generation left before it is a quaint anachronism much like rationing and capital punishment. Seriously, one of my biggest concerns about the future of this country, and I hear no one talking about it*is the intergenerational evaporation of capital from all but the wealthiest.The much touted bank of mum and dad is by definition a one time phenomenum, most of the current generation of parents will not be able to offer the same support to their children financially as they may have received and consequently capital will evaporate in childcare, tuition fees, mortgage interest or rent and finally social care. No one seems to look over the immediate horizon (next election...?) and ponder where we are going in a few decades time.
It also will completely diminish the voluntary sector, how many institutions, from charities to amateur dramatics are run by those retired and on pensions good enough to support an active lifestyle. Also how many companies rely on the fast disappearing prosperous pensioner market - cruise companies and most of the advertisers in the Mail on Sunday so there will be a tangible hit on the economy. As retirement ages increase most people will be just too knackered to take on these roles. However, automation might free up many people who could do these things, but could they afford to do anything other than just get by?
NHS funding needs reform because I think the demographic and socio economic outlook for the next 50 years looks dire for an institution like that. The only answer I can see is a total revision of the purpose of the
NHS (less spent on treating lifestyle induced illness? Charges for repeated inappropriate use of A&E? Adequate provision for mental health outwith the immediate care environment?) and ending the current way of keeping people alive almost endlessly with no prospect of improvent let alone recovery, in short proper provision for an appropriate, dignified and humane end to life.
I don't feel that the NHS is 'safe' in the hands of any political party. If it was the family car the Tories seem content to buy a nice air freshener while ignoring the fact that the wheel bearings are about to collapse, while labour would try to fix those wheel bearings by reinforcing them with bundles of borrowed twenties. That those wheels are still just wobbly and not lying in the hard shoulder is testimony to the humanity and dedication of the front line NHS staff, not any great policy from governments in the last few decades.
* I suppose they do, it's the 'rich getting richer the poor getting poorer'
Post edited at 09:40
7
In reply to john arran:
How would you deal with a person who has property abroad, but say if they needed serious medical care came back to blighty?
How would you deal with a person who has property abroad, but say if they needed serious medical care came back to blighty?
2
In reply to DerwentDiluted:
Except that they just claimed to have bought a new air freshener, what they've actually done is increased the annual air freshener budget by 10% below inflation whilst introducing a new rule that air fresheners may only be purchased from their mate Dave's air freshener emporium, where they are 50% more expensive than the corner shop.
The wobbly wheels were given to Circle Health a few years ago (well, they're round, so it seemed apt right?) and are rented back at £20 a mile. If you prefer you can choose to rent some from Virgin instead, who are equally expensive and can't be trusted to supply actual tyres, but you're not allowed to buy your own wheels. In spite of the fact that you, the driver, own the factory where the wheels are made.
The windscreen wipers are Romanian, so we're planning to hound them out of the country to show the Sun readers that we're showing the EU who's boss. Apparently G4S have some they can let us use for a very reasonable weekly rent, plus a rainy-day surcharge. They've reassured Jeremy that they're not going to stitch him up like they did in his old job that time he booked them to do the door at the Olympics. Well, actually they just laughed, but he's sure that's what they meant.
> If it was the family car the Tories seem content to buy a nice air freshener while ignoring the fact that the wheel bearings are about to collapse, while labour would try to fix those wheel bearings by reinforcing them with bundles of borrowed twenties.
Except that they just claimed to have bought a new air freshener, what they've actually done is increased the annual air freshener budget by 10% below inflation whilst introducing a new rule that air fresheners may only be purchased from their mate Dave's air freshener emporium, where they are 50% more expensive than the corner shop.
The wobbly wheels were given to Circle Health a few years ago (well, they're round, so it seemed apt right?) and are rented back at £20 a mile. If you prefer you can choose to rent some from Virgin instead, who are equally expensive and can't be trusted to supply actual tyres, but you're not allowed to buy your own wheels. In spite of the fact that you, the driver, own the factory where the wheels are made.
The windscreen wipers are Romanian, so we're planning to hound them out of the country to show the Sun readers that we're showing the EU who's boss. Apparently G4S have some they can let us use for a very reasonable weekly rent, plus a rainy-day surcharge. They've reassured Jeremy that they're not going to stitch him up like they did in his old job that time he booked them to do the door at the Olympics. Well, actually they just laughed, but he's sure that's what they meant.
14
1
In reply to john arran:
Why not sell the only real asset after the expiry date which is the body and it's organs?
Wouldn't a few kidneys, a heart and cornea be worth more to the nation than a small ex-council house?
In fact the NHS/Government could take some of the organs as a down payment while patients are still healthy for use. Say, for example, you have a night out fall over and break a clavical why not have a kidney removed at the same time to help keep somebody off dyalasis? That would keep that cost down and make the NHS cheaper.
Maybe harvested organs from those who walk through the doors into an A&E department could be sold onto other nations to boost vital funding of the NHS?
Why not sell the only real asset after the expiry date which is the body and it's organs?
Wouldn't a few kidneys, a heart and cornea be worth more to the nation than a small ex-council house?
In fact the NHS/Government could take some of the organs as a down payment while patients are still healthy for use. Say, for example, you have a night out fall over and break a clavical why not have a kidney removed at the same time to help keep somebody off dyalasis? That would keep that cost down and make the NHS cheaper.
Maybe harvested organs from those who walk through the doors into an A&E department could be sold onto other nations to boost vital funding of the NHS?
2
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Ahh, with him saying it was a serious question......my irony detector must not be working well today
Ahh, with him saying it was a serious question......my irony detector must not be working well today
In reply to J1234:
Then you treat overseas assets the same as UK assets..............
> How would you deal with a person who has property abroad, but say if they needed serious medical care came back to blighty?
Then you treat overseas assets the same as UK assets..............
In reply to john arran:
That's how it funded on at the moment. Bounced cheques, IOUs and the ever widening maw of a pyramid scheme.
Be funny if she looses the election over this, because ruddy faced baby boomers think everyone else should pay to keep them in diapers - just not their kids. Doesn't affect the poor at all yet my Facebook feed is littered with snowflakes complaining about Teresa attacking pensioners.
Labour or any other government will introduce something similar but none of them have the cojones to explain to the country why immigration won't stop and why one of the richest nations on the earth can't afford healthcare for its elderly.
D
That's how it funded on at the moment. Bounced cheques, IOUs and the ever widening maw of a pyramid scheme.
Be funny if she looses the election over this, because ruddy faced baby boomers think everyone else should pay to keep them in diapers - just not their kids. Doesn't affect the poor at all yet my Facebook feed is littered with snowflakes complaining about Teresa attacking pensioners.
Labour or any other government will introduce something similar but none of them have the cojones to explain to the country why immigration won't stop and why one of the richest nations on the earth can't afford healthcare for its elderly.
D
1
In reply to Dauphin:
People have had 30 years of low tax. Many have had foreign holidays once or twice every year. They might have two newish cars on their drive, costing £10-30k, eat out a few times a month.
Then when old it's the government job to fund their healthcare in old age. Country is full of dreamers who believed they could have it all, with a generation coming behind who think it's their right to have it all as well for peanuts.
> and why one of the richest nations on the earth can't afford healthcare for its elderly. D
People have had 30 years of low tax. Many have had foreign holidays once or twice every year. They might have two newish cars on their drive, costing £10-30k, eat out a few times a month.
Then when old it's the government job to fund their healthcare in old age. Country is full of dreamers who believed they could have it all, with a generation coming behind who think it's their right to have it all as well for peanuts.
10
In reply to summo:
That was my earlier point. In order to pay my mortgage I didn't have all the niceties above that you mentioned, and paid
higher income tax which also helped fund the generation AHEAD of me. I now feel like I'm about to support those who could have saved for their future but didn't.
> People have had 30 years of low tax. Many have had foreign holidays once or twice every year. They might have two newish cars on their drive, costing £10-30k, eat out a few times a month.Then when old it's the government job to fund their healthcare in old age. Country is full of dreamers who believed they could have it all, with a generation coming behind who think it's their right to have it all as well for peanuts.
That was my earlier point. In order to pay my mortgage I didn't have all the niceties above that you mentioned, and paid
higher income tax which also helped fund the generation AHEAD of me. I now feel like I'm about to support those who could have saved for their future but didn't.
5
1
In reply to john arran:
Gaming (as summo points out) and risk pooling. Same reasons May's plan for social care is rubbish. Higher tax in some way would be better - higher inheritance tax for example.
The only think to recommend it is political. People like to see a direct link between spending and taxes. (See discussion on means testing winter fuel allowance for example)
Gaming (as summo points out) and risk pooling. Same reasons May's plan for social care is rubbish. Higher tax in some way would be better - higher inheritance tax for example.
The only think to recommend it is political. People like to see a direct link between spending and taxes. (See discussion on means testing winter fuel allowance for example)
In reply to The Lemming:
More 'Doner' card than Donor card.
> Why not sell the only real asset after the expiry date which is the body and it's organs?
More 'Doner' card than Donor card.
1
In reply to J1234:
It was a serious question for consideration, but certainly not a serious proposal. My intention was to find out what people thought about such a scheme to part-fund healthcare, seeing as that's exactly what May is proposing now for people suffering from some health conditions. Seems like pretty much everyone agrees that something needs to be done, but pretty much everyone also thinks that paying for your own healthcare costs out of your own estate is either unworkable, or unfair, or both.
So why are so many people still going to be voting for the party that's dead set on imposing such a thing?
> Ahh, with him saying it was a serious question......my irony detector must not be working well today
It was a serious question for consideration, but certainly not a serious proposal. My intention was to find out what people thought about such a scheme to part-fund healthcare, seeing as that's exactly what May is proposing now for people suffering from some health conditions. Seems like pretty much everyone agrees that something needs to be done, but pretty much everyone also thinks that paying for your own healthcare costs out of your own estate is either unworkable, or unfair, or both.
So why are so many people still going to be voting for the party that's dead set on imposing such a thing?
2
In reply to john arran:
Because being seriously ill isn't a choice.
Lives, and the quality of those lives, are / is worth more than money.
My Father was terminally ill and probably cost the tax payer well over half a million quid. Then he died. He didn't do that out of choice. It's not the life he had planned. When you're dying you have enough to worry about without thinking about the additional burden you'll be to your family when you eventually die.
Have a think when you post this CR*p about the people who might read it.
Normally you come across as a lovely bloke on here.
> What would be the problem with funding the NHS largely from the estates of NHS users, according to how much they have used it, after they and their spouses have died? Every consultation and treatment - all free at the point of use - could be costed and added to your slate throughout your life, and then the bill could be paid after you're gone and have no further use for the money.This is the natural extension to May's social care proposals, so why wouldn't it be a good plan?
Because being seriously ill isn't a choice.
Lives, and the quality of those lives, are / is worth more than money.
My Father was terminally ill and probably cost the tax payer well over half a million quid. Then he died. He didn't do that out of choice. It's not the life he had planned. When you're dying you have enough to worry about without thinking about the additional burden you'll be to your family when you eventually die.
Have a think when you post this CR*p about the people who might read it.
Normally you come across as a lovely bloke on here.
Post edited at 18:31
In reply to bouldery bits:
I think the question is being asked devil advocate style. I don't think it's actually something John is attempting to premote.
I think the question is being asked devil advocate style. I don't think it's actually something John is attempting to premote.
2
In reply to john arran:
At a guess I'd say it's because there are other things in the Tory party manifesto with which they agree, more than in those of the other parties. It's not a single issue vote, although some may well see it as such.
> So why are so many people still going to be voting for the party that's dead set on imposing such a thing?
At a guess I'd say it's because there are other things in the Tory party manifesto with which they agree, more than in those of the other parties. It's not a single issue vote, although some may well see it as such.
1
In reply to bouldery bits:
Sorry bb. Please see JLS's reply above, which sums it up pretty well. I don't think people really appreciate the ease with which a policy for 'social care' could turn into one for 'health care'. Indeed the phrase 'social care' itself is a complete misnomer as it's mainly only necessary in cases of health impairment. Dangerous times.
> Have a think when you post this CR*p about the people who might read it.
Sorry bb. Please see JLS's reply above, which sums it up pretty well. I don't think people really appreciate the ease with which a policy for 'social care' could turn into one for 'health care'. Indeed the phrase 'social care' itself is a complete misnomer as it's mainly only necessary in cases of health impairment. Dangerous times.
3
In reply to john arran:
Another terrible thing about that I don't think's been mentioned is that some people won't get care that they need to save money for their kids, or if they do get it, will feel guilty about it. There genuinely will be people that kill themselves to avoid 'being a burden'.
Another terrible thing about that I don't think's been mentioned is that some people won't get care that they need to save money for their kids, or if they do get it, will feel guilty about it. There genuinely will be people that kill themselves to avoid 'being a burden'.
1
In reply to john arran:
Hi John,
Really sorry to react like that. If I'd thought it through for a moment I would have realised it was probably devils advocate.
It's a bit of a touchy subject for me as I'm sure you can guess!
Cheers,
BB
Hi John,
Really sorry to react like that. If I'd thought it through for a moment I would have realised it was probably devils advocate.
It's a bit of a touchy subject for me as I'm sure you can guess!
Cheers,
BB
2
In reply to bouldery bits:
I got the impression it was a 'thought experiment' more than something proposed as a good idea, ie if May likes this idea, why not xyz?
It occurred to me that it might happen that people with the early signs of dementia might have themselves moved (ambiguity intended) into houses costing less than 1000K as a way for them to avoid their family not getting as much money as they might, with the money from the bigger house sale being gifted to anyone who could benefit.
I think it wouldn't be good, but some people might do that, because humans are varied enough too etc.
> Because being seriously ill isn't a choice...Have a think when you post this CR*p about the people who might read it. Normally you come across as a lovely bloke on here.
I got the impression it was a 'thought experiment' more than something proposed as a good idea, ie if May likes this idea, why not xyz?
It occurred to me that it might happen that people with the early signs of dementia might have themselves moved (ambiguity intended) into houses costing less than 1000K as a way for them to avoid their family not getting as much money as they might, with the money from the bigger house sale being gifted to anyone who could benefit.
I think it wouldn't be good, but some people might do that, because humans are varied enough too etc.
Post edited at 20:34
In reply to john arran:
I agree that slipping from social care to health care is problematic.
However the increasing atomisation of families means that traditional models of social care for the elderly I.e. Largely provided by the family are hard to apply. My grandmothers home care lady was amazed at the level of support from our family that grandma got. This mostly comprised my mum and dad getting her up in the mornings and to bed at night.
If most families do not provide this level of support for their infirm elderly members, then somebody else needs to - state or private. That costs a huge amount. If families or individuals cannot contribute time, then why should they not be expected to contribute cash to the extent they are able.....from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs?
I agree that slipping from social care to health care is problematic.
However the increasing atomisation of families means that traditional models of social care for the elderly I.e. Largely provided by the family are hard to apply. My grandmothers home care lady was amazed at the level of support from our family that grandma got. This mostly comprised my mum and dad getting her up in the mornings and to bed at night.
If most families do not provide this level of support for their infirm elderly members, then somebody else needs to - state or private. That costs a huge amount. If families or individuals cannot contribute time, then why should they not be expected to contribute cash to the extent they are able.....from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs?
1
In reply to john arran:
Because the alternatives are ludicrous.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21722214-jeremy-corbyns-party-no-shap...
I do not think many consider the Conservative party ace, its just the alternatives are so shit.
People can defend Corbyn as much as they want, but the man is unelectable.
Farron, even he knows thats never going to happen.
Now from what I have heard of you I consider you a highly intelligent person, please explain to my where I am incorrect.
> So why are so many people still going to be voting for the party that's dead set on imposing such a thing?
Because the alternatives are ludicrous.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21722214-jeremy-corbyns-party-no-shap...
I do not think many consider the Conservative party ace, its just the alternatives are so shit.
People can defend Corbyn as much as they want, but the man is unelectable.
Farron, even he knows thats never going to happen.
Now from what I have heard of you I consider you a highly intelligent person, please explain to my where I am incorrect.
In reply to J1234:
Well thank you for the compliment but from where I'm sitting it looks like you're planning on voting for a party you know for sure will enact policies that will damage the social fabric of the UK to the detriment of a great many relatively impoverished people, who have saved carefully throughout their lives and have as a result been able to follow the zeitgeist of recent decades in achieving home ownership.
Now I very much wish that Corbyn had even moderate leadership skills, and that Farron was anything but invisible and ineffectual, but IMO either would be worth a punt compared to the dead certainty of getting what you really don't want with May, however strong and stable she may wish to be portrayed.
This cult of political personality is really damaging to the welfare of the country, when someone with a forceful persona can propose only poor and damaging policies, and yet still be trusted more than those with far more socially responsible ideas but without the media nous (nor, sadly in Corbyn's case, apparently the intelligence) to be seen as a credible alternative.
edit: it's taken all day for me to spot the glaringly obvious typo in the title!
> Now from what I have heard of you I consider you a highly intelligent person, please explain to my where I am incorrect.
Well thank you for the compliment but from where I'm sitting it looks like you're planning on voting for a party you know for sure will enact policies that will damage the social fabric of the UK to the detriment of a great many relatively impoverished people, who have saved carefully throughout their lives and have as a result been able to follow the zeitgeist of recent decades in achieving home ownership.
Now I very much wish that Corbyn had even moderate leadership skills, and that Farron was anything but invisible and ineffectual, but IMO either would be worth a punt compared to the dead certainty of getting what you really don't want with May, however strong and stable she may wish to be portrayed.
This cult of political personality is really damaging to the welfare of the country, when someone with a forceful persona can propose only poor and damaging policies, and yet still be trusted more than those with far more socially responsible ideas but without the media nous (nor, sadly in Corbyn's case, apparently the intelligence) to be seen as a credible alternative.
edit: it's taken all day for me to spot the glaringly obvious typo in the title!
Post edited at 21:18
6
In reply to john arran:
She hasn't got a forceful persona, dead from the neck up. Double Personality & character bypass. The most unimpassioned politician I've ever witnessed, doesn't even feel the need to pretend. Funny when I hear this about Corbyn. Sometimes I think the conservatives are deliberately sabotaging this election, elect a robot with a personality vacuum to lead them into and through Brexit with no vision presented of a future Britain, no deal with the E.U. and then terrify OAPS immediately before an election. I mean if one was fond of conspiracy theories; if they no:Brexit the party dies, if they Brexit, the economy and large parts of the country dies - better to hand it to the geography teacher to f*ck up this one.
The serious money could give a f*ck either way. Have your Brexit your way, anyway you like.
If its too much trouble.Bye bye. Gone.
D
She hasn't got a forceful persona, dead from the neck up. Double Personality & character bypass. The most unimpassioned politician I've ever witnessed, doesn't even feel the need to pretend. Funny when I hear this about Corbyn. Sometimes I think the conservatives are deliberately sabotaging this election, elect a robot with a personality vacuum to lead them into and through Brexit with no vision presented of a future Britain, no deal with the E.U. and then terrify OAPS immediately before an election. I mean if one was fond of conspiracy theories; if they no:Brexit the party dies, if they Brexit, the economy and large parts of the country dies - better to hand it to the geography teacher to f*ck up this one.
The serious money could give a f*ck either way. Have your Brexit your way, anyway you like.
If its too much trouble.Bye bye. Gone.
D
In reply to Timmd:
My mother got 'Free Care ' (Scotland) in her home for a few years, but in truth we had to top that up at our own cost as the carers did not really have time to give the care needed.
Once she moved into a care home, we got a bill for £50K a year. My mother did not own her home, but she had two pensions ( nowhere near £50K year) which the council now get until she dies.
'Free Care' in Scotland , is not quite as free as some imagine .
Edit added 'K ' to sums )
My mother got 'Free Care ' (Scotland) in her home for a few years, but in truth we had to top that up at our own cost as the carers did not really have time to give the care needed.
Once she moved into a care home, we got a bill for £50K a year. My mother did not own her home, but she had two pensions ( nowhere near £50K year) which the council now get until she dies.
'Free Care' in Scotland , is not quite as free as some imagine .
Edit added 'K ' to sums )
Post edited at 02:30
In reply to Dauphin:
The only conspiracy is politicians unwillingness to admit the UK is skint. The reason schools are struggling to the help the young, education now costs, the old must fund their care..... is because there isn't any money. No rocket science or conspiracies here, but no politician dare say it.
If things are to improve the young will have to pay more tax and old will have to give up some wealth they have accrued in the past 30 years.
> I mean if one was fond of conspiracy theories;
The only conspiracy is politicians unwillingness to admit the UK is skint. The reason schools are struggling to the help the young, education now costs, the old must fund their care..... is because there isn't any money. No rocket science or conspiracies here, but no politician dare say it.
If things are to improve the young will have to pay more tax and old will have to give up some wealth they have accrued in the past 30 years.
2
In reply to Dauphin:
I wasn't talking about personality, but persona, in the sense of "The aspect of someone's character that is presented to or perceived by others." [OED]. She is very keen to present a strong (and stable) image and her party appears to be convinced that she as a leader is more saleable to the electorate than are the party's policies. Despite what you or I may think of her as a person (I can't say I have much insight TBH), I think in this respect they're right. The only significant policy presented thus far seems to have plummeted their poll ratings overnight. No wonder they're keeping so quiet about the other horrors we probably have in store for us.
> She hasn't got a forceful persona, dead from the neck up. Double Personality & character bypass. The most unimpassioned politician I've ever witnessed, doesn't even feel the need to pretend.
I wasn't talking about personality, but persona, in the sense of "The aspect of someone's character that is presented to or perceived by others." [OED]. She is very keen to present a strong (and stable) image and her party appears to be convinced that she as a leader is more saleable to the electorate than are the party's policies. Despite what you or I may think of her as a person (I can't say I have much insight TBH), I think in this respect they're right. The only significant policy presented thus far seems to have plummeted their poll ratings overnight. No wonder they're keeping so quiet about the other horrors we probably have in store for us.
In reply to Jim C:
I don't doubt that you paid, I would be curious to know on what grounds your LA were able to charge you as opposed to your mother.
I don't doubt that you paid, I would be curious to know on what grounds your LA were able to charge you as opposed to your mother.
In reply to john arran:
Irony on irony, the policy on social care is the 1st Tory policy I've agreed with in years.
If I end up needing care, why should the tax payer have to fork out £50k per year just to protect my kid's inheritance? After all, by then I won't be needing my money or my house.
And if people complain 'it's a lottery' , well yes, so is getting dementia; the lottery is more accurately called 'life'.
Irony on irony, the policy on social care is the 1st Tory policy I've agreed with in years.
If I end up needing care, why should the tax payer have to fork out £50k per year just to protect my kid's inheritance? After all, by then I won't be needing my money or my house.
And if people complain 'it's a lottery' , well yes, so is getting dementia; the lottery is more accurately called 'life'.
5
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Potential reasons to disagree with it -
a. People might prefer a policy that pools risk - higher tax is paid on everyone's inheritance (or some other tax) and if you're unlucky enough to need care you get it.
b. People will probably be able to avoid the tax. Spend their money or give it to their kids before they need care.
c. Some people won't get care they need so they can leave money to their children.
d. Some people will feel guilty for getting the care they need.
Potential reasons to disagree with it -
a. People might prefer a policy that pools risk - higher tax is paid on everyone's inheritance (or some other tax) and if you're unlucky enough to need care you get it.
b. People will probably be able to avoid the tax. Spend their money or give it to their kids before they need care.
c. Some people won't get care they need so they can leave money to their children.
d. Some people will feel guilty for getting the care they need.
2
In reply to john arran:
Lots of good practical points above, but I think it's important to emphasize the cost of end of life care.
If you want to be really blunt (and therefore oversimplistic), the NHS is about how you die. It's either going to be accident and tragedy which we really try and mitigate, a sudden - but still early - death post retirement, the long and slow collapse of some cancers or dementia, or the relatively peaceful, best case scenario of slow deterioration with minimal chronic disease and being independent in an active retirement. Those are your options.
The NHS, up to now, has been really good at preventing the first two, but whilst that's extended people's lives what it's really done is push more people into that third category; living and battling with Chronic illness and facing slow, painful decline whilst the NHS does what it can to keep you going.
End of life care is really expensive. Just staying in a high dependency unit costs at least £2,000 p/d; and that's before you actually do anything. What you'd be doing is putting either the person, or the family, to put a price on the end of their life. I'm not sure putting vulnerable people in a position where they have to choose between hanging on for a bit longer, often with the outside chance of remission, or accepting their lot and ensuring that they can hand on something to their children, is particularly morally praiseworthy.
Lots of good practical points above, but I think it's important to emphasize the cost of end of life care.
If you want to be really blunt (and therefore oversimplistic), the NHS is about how you die. It's either going to be accident and tragedy which we really try and mitigate, a sudden - but still early - death post retirement, the long and slow collapse of some cancers or dementia, or the relatively peaceful, best case scenario of slow deterioration with minimal chronic disease and being independent in an active retirement. Those are your options.
The NHS, up to now, has been really good at preventing the first two, but whilst that's extended people's lives what it's really done is push more people into that third category; living and battling with Chronic illness and facing slow, painful decline whilst the NHS does what it can to keep you going.
End of life care is really expensive. Just staying in a high dependency unit costs at least £2,000 p/d; and that's before you actually do anything. What you'd be doing is putting either the person, or the family, to put a price on the end of their life. I'm not sure putting vulnerable people in a position where they have to choose between hanging on for a bit longer, often with the outside chance of remission, or accepting their lot and ensuring that they can hand on something to their children, is particularly morally praiseworthy.
2
In reply to BFG:
The reality is care needs to be paid for by someone. People and their families can either fund it; or you put a few percent on the tax base rate and care for everyone regardless of income and assets.
The Tory suggestion is kind of mid ground, but doesn't solve everything. The other parties are quick to label it dementia tax, but no party has a sound plan for funding long term health. We can extend our lives by decades medically, but it's incredibly expensive.
Perhaps grants, tax allowances, planning exceptions for people who become 3 or even 4 generation households. It obviously breaks with that UK tradition of bunging granny off in a home and visiting her for 2 hrs on Sunday.
> What you'd be doing is putting either the person, or the family, to put a price on the end of their life.
The reality is care needs to be paid for by someone. People and their families can either fund it; or you put a few percent on the tax base rate and care for everyone regardless of income and assets.
The Tory suggestion is kind of mid ground, but doesn't solve everything. The other parties are quick to label it dementia tax, but no party has a sound plan for funding long term health. We can extend our lives by decades medically, but it's incredibly expensive.
Perhaps grants, tax allowances, planning exceptions for people who become 3 or even 4 generation households. It obviously breaks with that UK tradition of bunging granny off in a home and visiting her for 2 hrs on Sunday.
In reply to john arran:
Agreed. I'm finding it incredibly depressing that people are basically abdicating moral responsibility for the consequences of their actions based on a sort of vague handwave about how they don't have any choice because Jeremy Corbyn is, you know, just, well...
> This cult of political personality is really damaging to the welfare of the country, when someone with a forceful persona can propose only poor and damaging policies, and yet still be trusted more than those with far more socially responsible ideas but without the media nous (nor, sadly in Corbyn's case, apparently the intelligence) to be seen as a credible alternative.
Agreed. I'm finding it incredibly depressing that people are basically abdicating moral responsibility for the consequences of their actions based on a sort of vague handwave about how they don't have any choice because Jeremy Corbyn is, you know, just, well...
2
In reply to summo:
You're conflating the proposed Social Care changes with the above idea of funding the NHS through the deceased person's estate.
Clearly the NHS has to be funded by either general taxation or something more targeted. However, funding the NHS from dead people's estates will mean people putting a price on end of life care. It will mean asking people to put a price on their life at the time of their most vulnerable.
Lets put it another way. The QALY mechanism for rating the value of new drugs rates a year of life as worth, roughly £25,000. So, if a new treatment can give you five years of life, the NHS can spend £125,000 on it. Ten years and we can spend £250,000. Many cancer treatments are at or around this cost threshold. How many parents need to be put in the position of choosing between their quality of life and their children's before this mechanism becomes morally dubious?
That's not to say I extend those opinions to Social Care - I don't know enough about the concrete proposal in the Tory manifesto to have an opinion.
There is a relatively straightforward solution in the long term to dealing with this in the NHS: statistical modelling, risk stratification and a greater targeting of services to those in their 30s / 40s when we can change the patterns of behaviour that make people more likely to become chronically ill in their 60s and above. This works; the problem is that it won't deliver for two decades. Therefore, it's not popular politically as it won't deliver in the 5 year cycle that govt cares about, politicians worry about policies that exclude people (if someone is targeted someone else misses out) and you have to work out how to bridge the gap.
I think, in the medium term we're likely to see greater devolution of health to local authorities and LAs merging with CCGs. What makes you and keeps you healthy is mostly out of the NHS's hands; it's your community, education, the quality of your housing, job opportunities, public transport, etc. Having one healthcare organisation - in an area - that deals with the needs of the local population holistically makes sense. The 'danger' is that as services merge, there will be a clash of Social Care and healthcare ethos: the former is means tested, the latter is not. At some point, that gap is going to have to be bridged.
You're conflating the proposed Social Care changes with the above idea of funding the NHS through the deceased person's estate.
Clearly the NHS has to be funded by either general taxation or something more targeted. However, funding the NHS from dead people's estates will mean people putting a price on end of life care. It will mean asking people to put a price on their life at the time of their most vulnerable.
Lets put it another way. The QALY mechanism for rating the value of new drugs rates a year of life as worth, roughly £25,000. So, if a new treatment can give you five years of life, the NHS can spend £125,000 on it. Ten years and we can spend £250,000. Many cancer treatments are at or around this cost threshold. How many parents need to be put in the position of choosing between their quality of life and their children's before this mechanism becomes morally dubious?
That's not to say I extend those opinions to Social Care - I don't know enough about the concrete proposal in the Tory manifesto to have an opinion.
There is a relatively straightforward solution in the long term to dealing with this in the NHS: statistical modelling, risk stratification and a greater targeting of services to those in their 30s / 40s when we can change the patterns of behaviour that make people more likely to become chronically ill in their 60s and above. This works; the problem is that it won't deliver for two decades. Therefore, it's not popular politically as it won't deliver in the 5 year cycle that govt cares about, politicians worry about policies that exclude people (if someone is targeted someone else misses out) and you have to work out how to bridge the gap.
I think, in the medium term we're likely to see greater devolution of health to local authorities and LAs merging with CCGs. What makes you and keeps you healthy is mostly out of the NHS's hands; it's your community, education, the quality of your housing, job opportunities, public transport, etc. Having one healthcare organisation - in an area - that deals with the needs of the local population holistically makes sense. The 'danger' is that as services merge, there will be a clash of Social Care and healthcare ethos: the former is means tested, the latter is not. At some point, that gap is going to have to be bridged.
3
In reply to BFG:
The 'danger' is that as services merge, there will be a clash of Social Care and healthcare ethos: the former is means tested, the latter is not. At some point, that gap is going to have to be bridged.
For the old old, its an entirely fictitious distinction.
D
The 'danger' is that as services merge, there will be a clash of Social Care and healthcare ethos: the former is means tested, the latter is not. At some point, that gap is going to have to be bridged.
For the old old, its an entirely fictitious distinction.
D
1
In reply to Dauphin:
I think, for most people, the lines are rather blurred. When you have a kid, do you know which services are strictly being provided by the local government and which by the NHS? What about occupational therapy? Cancer? Diabetes? The local govt employs clinicians and carers, the NHS employs Social Workers. That's before we talked about voluntary, community or private enterprises.
On the other hand, people fall through the gaps between services; especially the vulnerable. So I would call the divide entirely fictitious.
I think, for most people, the lines are rather blurred. When you have a kid, do you know which services are strictly being provided by the local government and which by the NHS? What about occupational therapy? Cancer? Diabetes? The local govt employs clinicians and carers, the NHS employs Social Workers. That's before we talked about voluntary, community or private enterprises.
On the other hand, people fall through the gaps between services; especially the vulnerable. So I would call the divide entirely fictitious.
1
In reply to BFG:
I don't think you can separate the two so readily. Otherwise you get the position where people hang on in the nhs, to save their estate funding a home etc.. rightly or wrongly you would have to force people to leave hospital. Which is kind of the problem now.
I don't think you can separate the two so readily. Otherwise you get the position where people hang on in the nhs, to save their estate funding a home etc.. rightly or wrongly you would have to force people to leave hospital. Which is kind of the problem now.
1
In reply to summo:
You can separate the two because I'm responding to a question on a forum and you're talking about a real, actual policy that will probably come into effect.
You can separate the two because I'm responding to a question on a forum and you're talking about a real, actual policy that will probably come into effect.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
The whole point of the thread was to point out that your logic could equally apply to any other branch of healthcare, once it is introduced for dementia and other home-bound conditions. Would you be in agreement with that as well, as I can't see any fundamental difference between the two.
What May is proposing is effectively pay-as-you-go (or, more accurately, pay-when-you're-gone!) healthcare, charged at actual cost regardless of income or wealth, except for those with minimal savings or assets. Healthcare generally at present is charged in a graduated way, largely according to income. Are you happy for most people to pay more and rich people to pay less, on average? Also, healthcare generally at present is charged to everyone regardless of whether they're lucky, unlucky, careful or reckless. Are you happy that only those who get sick would end up paying?
Do you not think that charges like that might affect people's behaviour? For example, not admitting to conditions when they may be early-stage treatable for fear of incurring charges, or at worst even voluntary euthanasia or suicide near end of life so as to give dependants a better chance in life.
> Irony on irony, the policy on social care is the 1st Tory policy I've agreed with in years.If I end up needing care, why should the tax payer have to fork out £50k per year just to protect my kid's inheritance? After all, by then I won't be needing my money or my house.And if people complain 'it's a lottery' , well yes, so is getting dementia; the lottery is more accurately called 'life'.
The whole point of the thread was to point out that your logic could equally apply to any other branch of healthcare, once it is introduced for dementia and other home-bound conditions. Would you be in agreement with that as well, as I can't see any fundamental difference between the two.
What May is proposing is effectively pay-as-you-go (or, more accurately, pay-when-you're-gone!) healthcare, charged at actual cost regardless of income or wealth, except for those with minimal savings or assets. Healthcare generally at present is charged in a graduated way, largely according to income. Are you happy for most people to pay more and rich people to pay less, on average? Also, healthcare generally at present is charged to everyone regardless of whether they're lucky, unlucky, careful or reckless. Are you happy that only those who get sick would end up paying?
Do you not think that charges like that might affect people's behaviour? For example, not admitting to conditions when they may be early-stage treatable for fear of incurring charges, or at worst even voluntary euthanasia or suicide near end of life so as to give dependants a better chance in life.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...