Fairness and equity
THERE will be few people in South Devon who disagree with economist Andrew Dilnot on the subject of care costs for the elderly.
With the number of elderly people set to soar by 50 per cent in the foreseeable future, his message that the existing system of social care requires root and branch reform is just what the people want to hear.
Mr Dilnot calls for care costs for the elderly to be capped at £35,000, and his initiative could bring an end to the days of people being forced to sell their homes to pay for care.
Under the revamp, no more than 30 per cent of a person's assets would be used to pay for their care.
This is absolutely right, and it doesn't matter what political viewpoint you see it from.
People who have spent their entire lives diligently paying into a social care system should not then see it whipped away from beneath them just when they need it most.
It might appear that this is not the best time to be considering such a move, what with a swingeing package of public service cuts under way.
But the cash cost of restoring some kind of balance and humanity to the sphere of social care would be miniscule not only compared to other areas of spending, but also in terms of the good it would do.
South Devon's elderly population are right to jubilant at the announcements, as are those who will be joining their ranks in the coming years.
If there must be cuts, then everyone will share the burden. But some burdens have been falling unfairly on those who can least afford to shoulder them, and who might expect in the later stages of their lives to enjoy some return for the dues they have been paying.
It is to be hoped that Mr Dilnot's report paves the way for a new atmosphere of fairness and equity.
3 Comments
by profostrich
Thursday, July 07 2011, 3:32PM
“Of course it is right that people who have paid into the system receive care. But it should not be forgotten that this is paid through current and future taxation, not some secret pot of money saved all the way along like a private pension. Therefore it is the younger generation who will be paying for this, not the older generation.
Perhaps the older generation could think about the affluence they have accrued thanks to a welfare state that has enabled them to live longer and the money they made on their properties thanks the property boom of the 1980s, when they make choices that might affect their future needs?
Hopefully the older generation will reflect on this when they protest at any form of job creation in the Bay? If there are no jobs, who is going to pay for their care later in life?”
by profostrich
Thursday, July 07 2011, 3:28PM
“Of course it is right that people who have paid into the system receive care. But it should not be forgotten that this is paid through current and future taxation, not some secret pot of money saved all the way along like a private pension. Therefore it is the younger generation who will be paying for this, not the older generation.
Perhaps the older generation could think about the affluence they have accrued thanks to a welfare state that has enabled them to live longer and the money they made on their properties thanks the property boom of the 1980s, when they make choices that might affect their future needs?
Hopefully the older generation will reflect on this when they protest at any form of job creation in the Bay? If there are no jobs, who is going to pay for their care later in life?”
by BayTaxpayer
Thursday, July 07 2011, 1:32PM
“Mmm, but why should people with money not contribute to their own care? Why should their assets be ring-fenced so that other people can inherit something they have not worked for or paid for while the rest of us have to pay for the care of their relatives?
If this sounds harsh, it is not meant to be. Certainly, the whole elderly care industry and its charges and practices need to be investigated (I know of one care home, not here in the Bay, who 'spent' the whole value of a relative's home in just two years) and better regulated. Money would be far better spent (by individuals and by the state) on trying to keep people in their own homes for as long as possible ... I know I don't want to end up in a home, no matter how well-appointed, how lovely the staff, and no matter who's paying the bill.”