Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
bmf

Elderly Care - File On 4 (Radio 4)

Recommended Posts

Hi

just listened to File on 4. I believe the elderly care issues coming up over the next few years are going to be a lot more painful than our current predicament. Right now the deficit is bad but can be turned around +if+ the working population fall into line. In 10 years we are past the point of no return and it will be near impossible to balance payments with such a large percentage of the population past working age.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01247gy

The thought that struck me when listening to the above was the difference between people who are 60 to 70 and my grandma's generation, 90+. The latter seem to eschew state help and instead either struggle on or trouble their immediate family. The new pensioners seem to expect whatever care they need to be provided by the state. They seem to want the best care available irrespective of the burden this places on the state.

Whether you agree with this or disagree with it the bottom line is it's not going to continue. One statistic from the programme was that the number of people over 90 will triple over the next 20 years. The only way such an imbalance could ever have been coped with would have been to save in advance. Sadly the boomers have not saved and have spent the next generation's money too.

My theory is that the boomers will sell their homes to pay for care, this will be into a falling market. This will force prices back down to a more reasonable level but at the same time will mean boomers don't realise the expected value and have a care budget shortfall. Not sure how we will deal with the ensuing mess. Probably immigration on a scale far greater than today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are going to be some pretty stomach churning realities facing us in the not to distant future.one being that the economy will not be able to carry so many people who are unproductive aand need-in no particular order

1 healthcare

2 hosuing

3 pensions/benefits

lot of politicans can kicking at the mo but the moment of reckoning ios drawing near.

With the demise of the family and the fact that its now normal to leave elderly reletives to thair fate in later life, especialy if the family home has no equity left in it. Few options will remain for our ageing population.

I think the govenment has a plan though. The media has been planting a solution in the population's conciousness for some time now, a previously unthinkable solution, a bit like abortion used to be unthinkable but is now common. The debate has begun and i think within a decade or two our industrial estates will have a few dark buildings springing up like they have in Switzerland. Incase you hav'nt already guessed try this link to the state funded BBC.link

Edited by Charliemouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the demise of the family and the fact that its now normal to leave elderly reletives to thair fate in later life, especialy if the family home has no equity left in it. Few options will remain for our ageing population.

I think the govenment has a plan though. The media has been planting a solution in the population's conciousness for some time now, a previously unthinkable solution, a bit like abortion used to be unthinkable but is now common. The debate has begun and i think within a decade or two our industrial estates will have a few dark buildings springing up like they have in Switzerland. Incase you hav'nt already guessed try this link to the state funded BBC.link

Agree. I wonder how widely the callousness will spread.

I could foresee families reforming, except people have too much debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With abortion society has sown the wind.

With euthanasia it will reap the whirlwind.

Bomber Harris.jpg

post-13458-0-06621600-1309328540_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very good phrase I heard last year is "Now is a good time to be old". It's true but there is nothing to be done about keeping it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Went for a coffee yesterday and noticed a really old guy stooped over his table. At one point I thought he'd died.

Then when he got up to leave the owner of the cafe asked "are you working today.....?" (can't remember his name). The old guy said "no not today, tomorrow!"

I couldn't believe he was still working. The cafe owner then explained how this fella was 80 years of age, but did a few days a week at some food factory nearby, being a butcher by "trade."

80 years old and still working. Well that is the future, if there are the jobs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government will buy their votes by putting up taxes and selling my future labour via bonds and printing.

More and more people will see JSA as a completely credible alternative, we'll have a Russian style collaspe and the elderly lose everything and are thrown onto the streets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

just listened to File on 4. I believe the elderly care issues coming up over the next few years are going to be a lot more painful than our current predicament. Right now the deficit is bad but can be turned around +if+ the working population fall into line. In 10 years we are past the point of no return and it will be near impossible to balance payments with such a large percentage of the population past working age.

Indeedie. The current generation of old are in a bubble, and it's breaking. Until it reforms, it can only get worse.

The thought that struck me when listening to the above was the difference between people who are 60 to 70 and my grandma's generation, 90+. The latter seem to eschew state help and instead either struggle on or trouble their immediate family. The new pensioners seem to expect whatever care they need to be provided by the state. They seem to want the best care available irrespective of the burden this places on the state.

Nonsense. It's today's 90-year-olds where the crisis is. They're the ones who need care in larger numbers.

Well, OK, there's another side to the crisis, which is the most severely disabled of all ages. But that's not a generational thing.

Whether you agree with this or disagree with it the bottom line is it's not going to continue. One statistic from the programme was that the number of people over 90 will triple over the next 20 years. The only way such an imbalance could ever have been coped with would have been to save in advance. Sadly the boomers have not saved and have spent the next generation's money too.

Bzzt. Boomers won't be 90 in 20 years. They'll be in their 80s. Or if you take the Willetts definition, many will be younger.

My theory is that the boomers will sell their homes to pay for care, this will be into a falling market. This will force prices back down to a more reasonable level but at the same time will mean boomers don't realise the expected value and have a care budget shortfall. Not sure how we will deal with the ensuing mess. Probably immigration on a scale far greater than today.

There is indeed potential for a long-term home-selling effect: indeed, it's happening already.

But what has to break is the current broken model. Instead of limiting care to the 'critical' and letting down those with substantial needs, we'll need to stop keeping zombies 'alive' in an undead state, and redirect care to those able to benefit. Like the old dears (as featured on the programme) who are losing out now.

That is, if global overpopulation hasn't hit the level of crisis to bring us famine within your 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of things are coming to a head, forcing our society to face reality. Something it hasn't done for a few decades. Instead we've been ignoring reality and by spending through our national inheritance and borrowing money against our children and grandchildren we've been able to keep going for a few decades.

A nation has to decide how much it can afford to spend on health care and then leave it to the administrators of the system to spend that money in the most utilitarian way. The maximum increase in quality of life with the available funding. Keeping very elderly people alive for a few more weeks with a bunch of medical procedures is very costly, but gives minimal quality of life improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very good phrase I heard last year is "Now is a good time to be old". It's true but there is nothing to be done about keeping it that way.

It's a great time to be old and healthy, with today's pensions and other benefits.

It's a terrible time to be in severe decline, when society keeps you on as a zombie beyond your natural lifespan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a great time to be old and healthy, with today's pensions and other benefits.

It's a terrible time to be in severe decline, when society keeps you on as a zombie beyond your natural lifespan.

Couldn't agree more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of limiting care to the 'critical' and letting down those with substantial needs, we'll need to stop keeping zombies 'alive' in an undead state, and redirect care to those able to benefit. Like the old dears (as featured on the programme) who are losing out now.

That is, if global overpopulation hasn't hit the level of crisis to bring us famine within your 20 years.

The thing is we do, ok its the newspapers but I've seen more than a few stories whereby old people are left with broken hips for essentially forever because it is inefficient to spend money on them. This prevokes outrage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A nation has to decide how much it can afford to spend on health care and then leave it to the administrators of the system to spend that money in the most utilitarian way. The maximum increase in quality of life with the available funding. Keeping very elderly people alive for a few more weeks with a bunch of medical procedures is very costly, but gives minimal quality of life improvement.

We need to stop trying to be immortal. We have all got to die of something, and when it's no longer cost effective to keep us alive seems as good a time as any to admit our time is up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to stop trying to be immortal. We have all got to die of something, and when it's no longer cost effective to keep us alive seems as good a time as any to admit our time is up.

Maybe this will come with the next generation of old people. The current lot in their 90s strike me as quite religious and so euthanasia would be sacrilege to them. The next generation are less religious, but perhaps they will find god when faced with this choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeedie. The current generation of old are in a bubble, and it's breaking. Until it reforms, it can only get worse.

Nonsense. It's today's 90-year-olds where the crisis is. They're the ones who need care in larger numbers.

Hmm. Think "nonsense" is over the top. I didn't say today's 90-year-olds weren't in crisis. I'm sure they are having a crap time. It's just that they have a different perspective on it, in my experience. From Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. My gran is more like Charlie. Those on the programme seemed like Veruca Salt. "Don't care how - just want it nooooooooooooow"

Bzzt. Boomers won't be 90 in 20 years. They'll be in their 80s. Or if you take the Willetts definition, many will be younger.

Ah - my apologies for that slip, thanks for correcting me. Whatever the label, in 20 years it will be a +lot+ worse.

There is indeed potential for a long-term home-selling effect: indeed, it's happening already.

But what has to break is the current broken model. Instead of limiting care to the 'critical' and letting down those with substantial needs, we'll need to stop keeping zombies 'alive' in an undead state, and redirect care to those able to benefit. Like the old dears (as featured on the programme) who are losing out now.

That is, if global overpopulation hasn't hit the level of crisis to bring us famine within your 20 years.

To my mind when you have a large imbalance in the number of old vs young the only way to pay for this is through savings garnered during the lifetime of the older generation. Otherwise you are condemning a bunch of youngsters to pay for 3 times the number of old people as those now old cared for themselves. It's been known for decades that we are getting older. It's been known for decades that people haven't saved enough. Yet out they went and spent. Went on holiday etc. Now youngsters are being told they have to pay the bill. Many people are at fault in this mess, but as I sit here typing this watching my 2 year old son playing, it certainly isn't his fault.

Perhaps it's a case of "you've made your bed, now lie in it?". Plus as we have said some redefinitions of when people should be allowed to die naturally rather than the current cop-out that makes everyone miserable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree. I wonder how widely the callousness will spread.

Here we go again with the 'callousness' bit.

Strange as it may seem, a lot of elderly people do not actually want to move in with their children. While they can still just about manage, they prefer to stay in their own homes, with their own things and their own familiar routines - and who wouldn't?

If they have relatives close enough, this can work pretty well.

However, what often happens later is that some crisis or other (broken hip, descent into dementia, etc. ) means that they come to need 24 hour care, often needing more than one full-time carer, and how many families can provide this? Not just all day, but all night too, every day and every night?

Frail people may need the loo in the middle of the night, often more than once; people with dementia wander about, bang doors, go into the street at 2 am in their pyjamas banging on neighbours' doors. Or start shouting in frustration if you've locked the door so effectively that they can't open it. For anyone needing to hold down a job, this sort of thing is impossible to cope with for more than a short period. And even if they don't, it's utterly exhausting.

I know a lot of people who've finally had to go down the care home route with an elderly relative, and not one has done it out of 'callousness'. On the contrary, it's always been a horrible and traumatic time for all concerned.

Edited by Mrs Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again with the 'callousness' bit.

Strange as it may seem, a lot of elderly people do not actually want to move in with their children. While they can still just about manage, they prefer to stay in their own homes, with their own things and their own familiar routines - and who wouldn't?

Whilst they can afford to it is their choice.

When they can't, it should cease to be their choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno why the government keeps promoting healthy eating and anti smoking...

Hell they should do what they do in CHina and encourage smoking and eating badly = people die earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. Think "nonsense" is over the top. I didn't say today's 90-year-olds weren't in crisis. I'm sure they are having a crap time. It's just that they have a different perspective on it, in my experience. From Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. My gran is more like Charlie. Those on the programme seemed like Veruca Salt. "Don't care how - just want it nooooooooooooow"

Ah - my apologies for that slip, thanks for correcting me. Whatever the label, in 20 years it will be a +lot+ worse.

To my mind when you have a large imbalance in the number of old vs young the only way to pay for this is through savings garnered during the lifetime of the older generation. Otherwise you are condemning a bunch of youngsters to pay for 3 times the number of old people as those now old cared for themselves. It's been known for decades that we are getting older. It's been known for decades that people haven't saved enough. Yet out they went and spent. Went on holiday etc. Now youngsters are being told they have to pay the bill. Many people are at fault in this mess, but as I sit here typing this watching my 2 year old son playing, it certainly isn't his fault.

Perhaps it's a case of "you've made your bed, now lie in it?". Plus as we have said some redefinitions of when people should be allowed to die naturally rather than the current cop-out that makes everyone miserable.

Think it was scepticus who pointed out that if you have a small young generation it is impossible to save much money for the society as a whole. Since those savings have to go as debt or investments somewhere they need opportunity to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of other people leaching on society apart from the elderly most of whom have at least worked, paid Tax /NIC and contributed to pension schemes in their lives.

While it is doubtless true that they have not saved enough to cover the cost of their increased life expectancy it is also true that much of what they have paid towards the cost of their old age has also been pissed away by governments and the financial sector on people who are far, far less deserving.

Indeed, the main sin of post war baby boomers is not that they are living an exceptionallly long time (UK life expectancy is unremarkable compared with the average for developed countries) but that they had too few children.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_death_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_birth_rate

I suspect it was the womens keeness to adopt the contraceptive pill from the mid 1960s onwards to avoid unplanned pregnancies (which was widely touted as the 'responsible thing to do') not the boomers supposed greed or financial recklessness that has done for the boomer generation.

One thing is for sure is that the UK is not special in facing the problem of an ageing population. The same force is at work in both the rest of the Western world and many parts of Asia

Anyway it is likely to be rendered academic in the next 20 years because if things fall apart as badly as some on here expect it is not just the old who are going to wind up dead prematurely.

Edited by stormymonday_2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.