[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 585: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 641: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Dementia : NHS Or Social Care ? Letter To The Guardian In 2014 - Page 2 - Carers UK Forum

Dementia : NHS Or Social Care ? Letter To The Guardian In 2014

For issues specific to caring for someone with dementia.
it's going to go on costing £100 a day.


NHS costs per day per patient ... some needing more treatment than others ?

Equal footing ... and funding ?

Still ... that's for the MAIN thread.
Yes, I'm sure an inpatient in a hospital costs more than £100 a day!

Probably more like two or three hundred.

But that isn't really the point, is it? No one 'lives in hospital' for years and years (except if you are in a coma or whatever!). ie, no one expects to 'live out their life' in a hospital ward.

The only important calculation is what the current total spend on self-funded dementia care is per annum.

Add that to whatever the councils are forking out for the sub-£23,500 residents, and you have the total annual cost of dementia care in the UK right now.

Do we dump that entire figure on the NHS??

We really are only talking about the self-funders, though. Otherwise it's just an arbitrary question of whether (non-self-funded) dementia care comes off the SS budget (DWP?) or the NHS budget (DoH). It's all the same tax money!
It all boils down to the asymmetry between the SS and the NHS.

NHS is NOT means tested, SS though IS means tested.

Again, it would interesting to know how many people who have private health care (Bupa etc), actually use the NHS at all?

There are most likely 'tiers'.....

eg, folk like me who use the NHS for (1) GP services and (2) medications (free to me now I am 'old'!) and (3) A & E services (ie, anything I don't have to 'queue') for.

Everything else I go private (ie, all hospital care).

But I now some rich folk who go to private GPs. I guess they would still agree to 'slum' in and NHS A&E department if they were in a car crash etc!!!!!
By the way, if this thread is based on a whingeing letter to the Guardian, I'm astonished!

ie, I'm astonished that the Guardian should sympathise with a 'capitalist pig' house-owning person trying to wriggle out of paying for their own dementia care!

Now, if it were an illegal immigrant trying to get free dementia care, that would be right up the Guardian's self-righteous street!!!!
Do we dump that entire figure on the NHS??


In my opinion , yes ... and fund through general taxation.

It's the politicians that make the distinction as to what is what.

The present system does no favours to either " Half " of the carer army ... those above and those at / below the Official Poverty Line.

A home is NOT income ... yet it is used as such under the present system ... and having hardly any income prevents millions accessing social care through the sheer cost of it.

A level playing field for all ... funded through general taxation based on the ability to pay ?

Inequality in society is a much bigger issue !

Again , plenty more on the MAIN thread ... time for anyone with an interest in this issue to add their contribution to it ?

Once that Green Paper is published , all bets are off !

Whatever that says won't affect me ... how about you ?
"In my opinion , yes ... and fund through general taxation."

Well, as I say, ironically it won't make much difference in the end, as most tax revenues come from the better off anyway!

So, whether I sell my house to pay for my eventual dementia care or just pay more in tax so the NHS can pay the care home fees, won't really make much difference to me.....IF I GET DEMENTIA!

The trouble is funding it through general taxation is that you are forcing all those who DON'T get dementia to pay for those who DO.

Just like state pensions in fact! my poor husband paid in THOUSANDS in National Insurance during his working life, and never lived to claim a penny of it back in his own state pension.

So, should the 'healthy' pay for the 'unhealthy'....????

What if the 'unhealthy' are unhealthy through their own selfish irresponsibility (obesity, addiction, etc etc)(or, of course sporting accidents!!!!)
"Inequality in society is a much bigger issue !"

Inequality of WHAT?

Ability?

Genetic health/illness?

Inherited wealth?
Maybe taxation to fund the NHS should be based on the following -

Those who KEEP HEALTHY do NOT pay the 'NHS-contribution' in their tax!

That would INCENTIVISE people to stay healthy!

At the moment, the problem is there is no DISINCENTIVE to NOT stay healthy! ie, I can get as fat as I damn well like, and STILL get treated on the NHS 'free'.

If we rewarded people (ie, through lower taxes) who make an effort to have health lifestyles, then the eventual cost to the NHS would more than cover the 'loss of tax revenue' !

It's a question of finding the right motivation - carrots as well as sticks.
"Inequality in society is a much bigger issue !"

Inequality of WHAT ?

Every sector of society one cares to look ?

The degree of " Inequality " is governed by political decisions.

Even ability can be stifled if the monies to progress are not there.

One born with a disabled will have an uphill struggle for the remainder of his / her life.

Even the cradle lottery ... being born to the " Right " parents.

As carers , we know that inequality only too well ... with half of the whole army with no option other than to be close / at / below the official poverty line ... no choice during our caring days ... unless , of course , said caring done within a family unit with at least member the breadwinner ?

We even see that in CUK ... all energy expended on one half , leaving the other half swinging in the wind.

It's how a society deals with " Inequality " that is the true judge of what kind of a society it really is.

The " Trickle down " policy seen over the decades in this country is fast being shown up for what it is ... a flawed policy ... the maintaining of wealth and power at the expense of the many ... Austerity being it's current God.
I would say that few people would disagree that those who are worse off through no fault of their own deserve some help from others.

But, say, does a very ,very elderly person, who has had a LOT longer life than many folk, deserve huge amounts of other people's money spent on them just so they can go on living EVEN LONGER??