Don't bother getting old,a good case for euthanasia?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by RoofRat, Jul 11, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Health Secretary Andrew Lansley,has spoken about 'elderly care' reforms,after the Dilnot report was published.

    He has stated that each case could cost as much as £100,000,and the government doesn't have the funds!

    Instead of flogging your house (which you scrimped and scraped to buy),the nice kind government will give you a loan to pay for your care home,the catch being,after you're dead,your house gets flogged anyway,to repay the the loan,with interest!

    If you live in rented accomodation,same deal,but your family pays back the loan instead,again with interest.

    Call me stupid if you must,not being a clever MP,and a member of the cabinet,but just try this on for size; the current Foreign Aid Budget is £8.8 billion p.a.,rising to £11.5 billion,in 2015,and it's 'ring fenced'!

    Which magic purse does this money come from,and why should we be financing projects like,an amusement park,and ferris wheel in Lashkar Gar.

    Don't give me the shit about,it comes back when the 'poor' countries purchase British Goods,using some of this money,think about it!

    You lend someone some money,they then use some of it to buy 'stuff' from 'your shop',but the money you lent them never gets repaid,why not just open your shop,and give it away,or let them take what they want for free,saves a lot of ****ing about.

    Get rid of the Department For International Development,stop giving away billions to people,who just take the piss,and spend it on the sick,and elderly in this country for a change!

    Hope I haven't been to 'radical'! ^~
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Sixty

    Sixty LE Moderator Book Reviewer
    1. ARRSE Cyclists and Triathletes

  3. Where are the loans to come from in the first place?

    Who will administer them on the government's behalf and how much of the money will be siphoned off in profit?

    What will happen if a glut of properties after e.g. a flu outbreak or harsh winter causes the final selling price to be lower than the accrued care costs?

    What is to stop 'the market' determining that in the event a booming housing market acts as guarantor, care costs will spiral to 'until the pips squeak' levels?

    Finally, how much has been donated to Party coffers by organisations or individuals in the care, insurance, lending or property sectors?

  4. My apologies,I watched his statement on Parliament TV,but the Telegraph gives the bare bones.

    I dare say Google could come up with a few more hits!

  5. All good questions,my only answer,don't ask Andrew Lansley,he hasn't a clue!

    All I can say is get rid of the DFID,not only would that release a number of administrators,it would also save billions ! ^~
  6. Was thinking of raising this here, as it's been all over the News and proudly trumpeted again today in the Commons. May be wrong, but local authorities will be asked to stump up the costs for elderly care (which can be £600 per week or more). Local authorities are responsible and have a duty to assess care needs and ensure access to suitable care, even if it's self funded. Under the new proposals, local authorities "will provide loans, with interest, to be repaid after death". So relatives have to sell the house and pay interest on care loans. Just who will administer the loans is anyone's guess. Cue a whole new financial industry rubbing their grubby hands together and loads of miserable third age patients and heirs .
  7. Sixty

    Sixty LE Moderator Book Reviewer
    1. ARRSE Cyclists and Triathletes

    The thought also arises that this will have a disproportionate affect on those who actually bothered to buy their own homes rather than those who fecklessly spunked every penny up the wall.

    I ask only as Nick Boles' proposals seem only to hit those who had the wherewithal to save for their old age and would target them aggressively.

    Would a compulsory savings scheme be the answer? Too much like making people responsible for themselves?
  8. Yes, if you've not been able or willing to buy your own home and you don't have large capital assets , it's free and maybe unfair. But in the larger social budget there should be money made available to fund all Care. For some it's a pretty rough time when Mum's gone bonkers. Or for other reasons, which cause grief. There are families who for various reasons have never been able to buy a home or amass large savings to meet Care costs. Yes, some should have planned for elderly Care, saved or taken out insurance, because it was always coming.

    Those who need care in their own homes must bear the full cost if they have savings of more than £23,250. If they have to move into residential care, they have to pay the full cost if they have total assets of more than £23,250 including their home. Those who don't have those assets are under the proposals going to get free care. This has affected and is always going to affect the middle classes who've bought their home, and their families. With two of our own family receiving Care now, it's still pretty expensive and stuff has been sold off to meet the sky high Care fees.
  9. At least it will give the person going into a care home a couple of options. They could let their family continue living in the family home or rent it out to give some type of income. The current situation, where the home has to be sold, cuts down on the options. Different councils have different rules on the way care is provided. At least by making it a national policy the older person can choose to move closer to family if necessary. OK, not a win-win situation but at least makes it a bit less of a hassle. The way it's been (since 1948 ) has to change. Blair said something about kids not having to sell up to look after their parents. That was back in 1997 but, 13 years later, nothing changed.
    The bit about the hard-working savers vs the feckless piss-it-up-the-wall brigade is unfair in so many ways. Try saving and having a bit put away and then trying to claim benefits if you're made redundant. You'll get the bare minimum whilst those who have blown the lot will be well looked after. As they say, if you have savings you don't need the money.
    And, yes, agree on the foreign aid. Unfortunately Brown pledged at a G20 (Gleneagles?) meeting to give 0.7% of GDP which has rather hamstrung his successors. Still, the Afghan war has cost 18 billion so far, may be some savings after next year. Super government computer systems that don't work? Savings to be had everywhere.
    (Just as an aside now that I've mention the computer systems, why didn't that NHS one work? Here, in Spain, all GP surgeries, hospitals etc are linked. If I go into one surgery they call up my records and, more importantly, my entitlement to Spanish NHS facilities. They have just started charging pensioners 10% of the cost of prescriptions with a cap of 8 euros or 18 euros a month depending on how much you earn. How do they know? Well, the tax records are fed into the same system and the prescription prints up the maximum you can be charged in a month, how much the medication costs and what your contribution is - non pensioners pay 40% of the cost of the medication and can have it changed at the GP or hospital to a cheaper, generic version. If it works in a so-called minor country like Spain, why didn't it work in a super major country like UK? Sorry for off topic but just curious - oh, and the missus gets one repeat prescription which cost €1.60 a month. Two acute scripts for antibiotics and painkillers cost a huge 79 cents.)