Can party politics be set aside to save English social care?

Discuss news stories and political issues that affect carers.
The voters have spoken. No party has a clear mandate to govern. Amid the tumult of a hung parliament and impending Brexit negotiations, could social care emerge as the issue where the parties collaborate for a greater good?


Social care was a dominant issue in the election like never before. A botched manifesto pledge may have been the trigger point but it touched a nerve. It surfaced growing unease about how we care for frail and vulnerable people and how we pay for it.
read in full here
https://www.theguardian.com/social-care ... ul-burstow

x x
If wishes were horses, carers would ride.
Well, if nice Mr Corbyn gets to power and writes off the student debt, maybe he'd write off all the care costs as well while he's at it! :)

I truly don't know what the answer is, other than each of us long term saving the humungous amounts of money that 24x7 care costs, during our working lives....and then if we don't need it, we can leave it tax free to our descendents (IF we have any?) (or blow the lot just before we peg out, on a round the world cruise or whatever?)

Care is FIENDISHLY expensive, and how to pay is just as fiendish a problem.
No political party currently exists that can solve the problem.

A radical approach is needed.

Tinkering will not work nor current proposals made from the so called academics / suits.

Benefit System ? Part of the problem ?

To even contemplate who will be sitting at the table , one has to look at all those with an interest.

For instance , how does one select a few carers and carees , without alliances , to participate ?

Alternatively , are 13 million carers / carees to be excluded , and then told afterwards what their fate will be ? We , ourselves , have already seen that in the ( now aborted ) Carers Strategy.

Then , how does one ignore the potential costs when politicians are involved ?

Even then , a tentative agreement is reached .... £ 60 / 70 billion a year. Who pays and how funded ?

Common Good solution or a solution to fit each interest ?

Just a few thoughts.
SNP have a clear mandate in Scotland despite losing seats....However we have the Tories voted for by England foisted on us yet again. Its like being controlled by the bully living next door!

Eun
Looks like the destiny of both Scotland and England lies in N Ireland right now!
Maybe the cheapest thing the government could do long term is to invest in medical research into dementia, so as to make it a curable condition. Then the care costs would plummet!

It would be interesting to see just where the most money is spent (whether it's council, or self-funding) on elderly care - ie, who is it that costs the most?

Is it the dementia patients, those who have, say, obesity-related infirmities, or other infirmities (let alone if its all three!).

Because like it or not, there are some 'super-agers' who seem to need almost no care at all - my SIL's SIL's MIL is one, at 93, and my neighbour, also in his nineties and 'fit as a fiddle' is another. Their care needs are minimal (eg, son takes her supermarket shopping as 'long walking' is out).

So maybe the NHS should be funded to 'intervene earlier' to prevent the late-middle-aged becoming the 'expensive' patients in old age??

(But then again, what caused my hitherto incredibly fit 89 y/o MIL to develop dementia? The irony is that if she hadn't been so damn physically healthy, she'd have died of something like stroke/heart attack, etc, and never lived long enough to be a nonagenarian with (very very VERY expensive!) dementia.......)
People are living longer now, that is one reason.

If they had kept one of the Victorian era psychiatric hospitals open, but re-purposed it for elderly health care, that may have been cost effective, just maybe?