BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Who should be responsible for social care?

13:37 UK time, Tuesday, 16 November 2010

Social care should no longer be seen as a right from the state but instead "everyone's responsibility", the government says. How should social care be funded?

The attempt to change the perception of social care was made as ministers set out new plans for social care in England. They promised more support for carers, an increase in personal budgets and a greater role for the voluntary sector.

Richard Jones, the president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, said "It is about a shift in perception and helping people understand there is a partnership between the individual, families and the state."

Should everyone take responsibility for social care? Should the voluntary sector have a greater role to play? What is the fairest way of providing social care? Are you, or is someone in your family in receipt of social care?

This debate is closed. Thank you for your comments.

Comments

Page 1 of 4

  • Comment number 1.

    This time bomb has been ticking for decades, so once again a lack of cohesive forward planning is evident. In any event, social care costs money; it just depends on who is prepared to provide it. No doubt some will expect the state (i.e. the taxpayer) to look after their elderly relatives, whilst others will do the bulk of the caring themselves, without so much as a murmer.

  • Comment number 2.

    There won't be any social care, so it's not really an issue. I just hope the rich will be able to step over the piles of dying poor, jobless, homeless, and disabled on their way to Gordon Ramsay's latest food trough

  • Comment number 3.

    Cue the usual suspects saying it's all about killing off the weakest or poorest. They'll be complaining they pay their taxes, so society (i.e. everyone else) should be doing it.

  • Comment number 4.

    When hearing this do people still doubt that or Welfare system has been ruined by the strain of the population rise?
    Britain is moving towards euthanasia when refusing drugs and treatments for people who have a limited life expectancy. Remember when you stay silent about the powers that be trying to put a cash figure on life that they would also do that to your loved ones and yourself.
    I know one thing for sure. Children should not be carers for adults. They have a right to be cared for and not expected to come home from school and take on the responsibility of looking after someone else. Why is this not illegal?

  • Comment number 5.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 6.

    When did looking after yourself in old age become "social" care?

    You are trying to answer your question in the question.

    What you should have asked is Who pays for YOUR care?

    And the answer is YOU. It is not a "social" responsibility.

  • Comment number 7.

    Social care should no longer be seen as a right from the state but instead "everyone's responsibility", the government says. Good grief! Why do we have a government at all? They attempt to dissolve themselves of governmental responsibility at every given opportunity. It`s now said that there are four times more young carers in the UK than officially recognised and they`re telling us it`s "everyones responsibility?"! How DARE they insult all those carers, young and old, who gladly give up their own lives to do what the government should be doing. Does this government have no shame? Is there no level they won`t sink to just a save a few pounds? It`s sickening just to listen to their bile.

  • Comment number 8.

    Big Society - because you're worth it.

    How many public services do this incompetent Government want to fob off under the guise of a non-idea to the millions of people who, despite working full-time (fnar fnar), are willing to work for free?

    Maybe if we refuse to volunteer they'll also threaten to cancel Eastenders?

    Who voted this mess in? Fools, the lot of you.

  • Comment number 9.

    Bibi writes: "There won't be any social care, so it's not really an issue. I just hope the rich will be able to step over the piles of dying poor, jobless, homeless, and disabled on their way to Gordon Ramsay's latest food trough."

    Puhleeze! I'm not walking over anybody.

    You can carry me.

  • Comment number 10.

    Paul Burstow said the research "rightly highlights the numbers of hidden young carers", some of whom were "shouldering intolerable burdens".

    And yet it`s not a right from the state but everyones responsibility. Hypocrisy of the highest order.

  • Comment number 11.

    BBC Article.

    "The unpaid work of carers saves the UK £87bn per year - more than the total amount spent by the NHS in the last financial year, say experts"

    BBC Article.

    Richard Jones, the president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, said the sector was facing a "significant funding challenge".

    Don`t you dare say people are not being socially responsible, after all, they`re saving you £87bn a year.

  • Comment number 12.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 13.

    It should be funded as it is supposed to be now via taxation through the state, we are paying for it, we just aren't getting it.
    I realise the Rabid right want to sell the poor off or turn them into solyent Green. But we are grave danger or immitating third world countries and having the poor and the sick dying in the streets if we keep going in this direction.
    I am a higher rate tax payer and have been most of my working life, I don't object to taxes if they are spent effectively (this does not include hiring private photographers or subsidising House of commons booze).

  • Comment number 14.

    All this off loading of Social Care and the Big Society. All of this is indicative of this ridiculous Condem Administration showing that they don't have any plans, let alone a clue of how to run this country. Its all been passed off to everyone else to do. At least New Labour had an idea that they were ruining things or so it is alleged. Still at least Camouflage and the Condems have one idea and that is to take care of their friends in the City. Keep raking it in Boys you know you deserve it, make sure that the old, sick and destitute don't get a look in.

  • Comment number 15.

    Should everyone take responsibility for social care?

    This could be good if we had a fair society and caring communities, but we don't (look at the effect of the explosion in unoccupied second homes on villages and small towns).

    It's unfair of government to place an ever bigger burden on the low or non paid who don't get a living wage (£8 per hour outside London), it's in effect a subsidy for the better off helping maintain their relative wealth.

  • Comment number 16.

    There are countries where the family is looked after by their next generation. Everyone chips in and looks after the weaker members.

    In this country there are people who think it is beneeth them to look after their own. Some people think others should do it and be funded by the collective tax money.

    The problem now is that there is so little money in the tax system that we cant afford to palm off responsibilities anymore.

  • Comment number 17.

    6. At 2:10pm on 16 Nov 2010, MellorSJ wrote:
    When did looking after yourself in old age become "social" care?

    You are trying to answer your question in the question.

    What you should have asked is Who pays for YOUR care?

    And the answer is YOU. It is not a "social" responsibility.
    **********************************************************
    SO lets deal with the hypothetical, you lose all your money, or become poor through no fault of your own say for instance like in the wall street crash.
    Is it ok for you to rot in the street. ? Or will you do the right thing and dispose of yourself !

  • Comment number 18.

    I really am waiting for the day when the government admit that something IS their responsibility.

  • Comment number 19.

    corncobuk wrote: "Social care should no longer be seen as a right from the state but instead "everyone's responsibility", the government says. Good grief! Why do we have a government at all? They attempt to dissolve themselves of governmental responsibility at every given opportunity. It`s now said that there are four times more young carers in the UK than officially recognised and they`re telling us it`s "everyones responsibility?"! How DARE they insult all those carers, young and old, who gladly give up their own lives to do what the government should be doing. Does this government have no shame? Is there no level they won`t sink to just a save a few pounds? It`s sickening just to listen to their bile."

    No, corncobuk. It is, in fact the responsibility of the individual and the fsmily to look after their own.

    Granted, there are situations where this is impossible. And, granted, there are situations where the individual involved is unable to pay. But these are the EXCEPTIONS, not the rule.

    There is NO SUCH THING as "social care." We're each responsible for our own families.

  • Comment number 20.

    Who should be responsible for social care? New
    Social care should no longer be seen as a right from the state but instead "everyone's responsibility", the government says.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Here we go again. In a democracy the State is, or should be, the representation of EVERYONE. Therefore if the Government is saying it's everyone's responsibility, that means it's the State's. So they contradict themselves (again) and a person does have a right to expect the State (everyone) to do something about this, as everyone who is in a position to will have paid in for just that.


    I agree with other posters who say "what has the word "social" to do with nursing and other needs in old age?" when it appears this is what is meant.

  • Comment number 21.

    Since the original introduction of the "welfare state" in the UK the State entered into a social contract with the people under which an agreement was struck.

    The agreement effectively recognises that, in return for payments of National Insurance Contributions from wages, the state will provide for you and your dependant family should you become unable to provide yourself. Even more specifically, the NHS was formed with the promise of "cradle to grave" care for people with that care being *free at the point of use*.

    The result of anyone taking money in exchange for the provision of agreed services or the promise of the future provision of services, is surely to create a binding contract.

    Well I have been paying my subscriptions and I expect to see the services as and when I need to rely upon them.

    If you want to start the argument "Who should be responsible for social care in the future?" then we could have a debate and align people's expectations correctly, allowing them to make alternative provision. As is, based on the historic actions of the state and the willingness with which they accepted payment via National Insurance I would say that there is already an obligation on the State to provide the care that they promised when they took the money.

    This is not me saying "this is someone elses problem". This is me saying, "I made provision for this eventuality, I took out a personal insurance policy backed by the State and I paid my contributions too".

    If you want to remove or reduce the benefits that I will receive in exchange for my contributions, I want to see a corresponding reduction in the contribution taken and preferably a repayment of part of the contributions taken to date.

    Don't come along and tell me that my contributions will never cover the future cost of my benefits. The value of my home insurance contributions would not cover the cost of rebuilding my home and replacing my belongings but that is typical for an insurance policy works. I was not responsible for pricing the NIC or the services and I have not been offered an opt-out from making the payments so all in all I assume that the people doing those jobs should be doing them properly. My end of the bargain was to make my payments and I have. If you want to deny benefits to capable, non-dependent adults who have never made a contribution then you have my support. Might save enough to cover the cost of providing services to those who have contributed.

  • Comment number 22.

    If there are no relatives in contact with parents, or, families, living nearby who can become willing carers then it is obvious to all but wholy selfish introverts that the State has to carry out those duties towards the elderly, and infirm - otherwise we go back to an age wherein totally thoughtless and evil aristocracies and that includes commerce would have us held as subjugants to a class system they have been attempting to impose on us over the past few weeks; and which Blair's pseudo-tories also attempted to impose on us over the past decade.

  • Comment number 23.

    Parents are responsible for caring for their kids. No question of that.
    But kids should not be held to ransom as carers for parents.
    The poor kid on the BBC this morning got such a raw deal. Total emotional blackmail from his mother - "I can't imagine my life without him" and all the while the poor guy can't sit his A levels or go to Uni.
    I don't know how we turned into a nation of people that are unable to look after themselves, but the trend needs to be reversed.
    Society simply can't afford to replace the 700,000 family members who care for their kin.

  • Comment number 24.

    It would be great if social care could be undertaken within the family and this is what my wife and I did for both our parents but today; with many people employed abroad or at the other end of the country,it is not always possible.
    Yes it does cost money to operate decent social care but those needing it have spent their whole lives working and spending which the country could not do without.
    A society based on greed, which is basically what our present society seems to be, will find it very difficult to change into one of social responsibility.

  • Comment number 25.

    8. At 2:11pm on 16 Nov 2010, LoonyLiberal wrote:

    Maybe if we refuse to volunteer they'll also threaten to cancel Eastenders?


    That's an incentive, not a punishment!

  • Comment number 26.

    18. At 2:29pm on 16 Nov 2010, suzie127 wrote:

    I really am waiting for the day when the government admit that something IS their responsibility.

    ----------------------

    They are responsible for paying off the debt. They accept that.

    They aint responsible for the debt.
    They aint responsible for the reduction of services because of the debt.
    They aint responsible for lack of willingness or responsibility among the population.

    So what do you mean?

  • Comment number 27.

    For myself this is just the start of things to come. My mother had a stroke back in April and is still currently in hospital. When she comes out of hospital it will be my 60 year old father and 15 year old younger sister that are going to be the primary care givers. Due to the recession my father is no longer in employment and due to his age it is going to be more difficult to get a job. He's currently seeking financial advise from all different sections, also with the added stress that is highly unlikely that my mother will be able to move back into the current home due to everything being upstairs. With this already being an extreme financial strain these cuts are just going to add to this and thousands of other families in similar or worse of state. How about cutting from somewhere that maybe affects those that have too much money.

  • Comment number 28.

    I am and 100`s of thousands will be in social care as in the new wave of unemployed thanks to the cuts, it is not just the sick and old that are in social care I would be very weary in how this government word it we know what it used to mean.

  • Comment number 29.

    Beware there is a big scam breaking...

    Organised gangs are taking up to 40% of your earnings for services they promised you but now do not want to deliver...worse still they want you to either provide them for yourself voluntarily or go without.

    It's called the BIG SOCIETY CON

    Yet still, some people on here believe everything should be our own responsibility, paid for by ourselves.

    Like the "BIG SOCIETY" idea I'm struggling to understand what they mean…Is it because the Government has been giving us these services for FREE.

    Erm, If I pay nearly 40% of my earnings in various TAXES…isn’t that actually paying for them yourself…doh!

  • Comment number 30.

    6. At 2:10pm on 16 Nov 2010, MellorSJ wrote:
    What you should have asked is Who pays for YOUR care?
    And the answer is YOU. It is not a "social" responsibility.

    **********

    A wonderfully Neanderthal statement, but thats probably a bit harsh on our ancestors. Looking after the old and sick is a basic requirement of any society, so has been around for a long time.

    How lonely it must be in the barren wasteland of your social concience.

  • Comment number 31.

    19. At 2:30pm on 16 Nov 2010, MellorSJ wrote:

    corncobuk wrote: "Social care should no longer be seen as a right from the state but instead "everyone's responsibility", the government says. Good grief! Why do we have a government at all? They attempt to dissolve themselves of governmental responsibility at every given opportunity. It`s now said that there are four times more young carers in the UK than officially recognised and they`re telling us it`s "everyones responsibility?"! How DARE they insult all those carers, young and old, who gladly give up their own lives to do what the government should be doing. Does this government have no shame? Is there no level they won`t sink to just a save a few pounds? It`s sickening just to listen to their bile."

    No, corncobuk. It is, in fact the responsibility of the individual and the fsmily to look after their own.

    Granted, there are situations where this is impossible. And, granted, there are situations where the individual involved is unable to pay. But these are the EXCEPTIONS, not the rule.

    There is NO SUCH THING as "social care." We're each responsible for our own families.

    -----------------------------------------------

    While i agree up to a point Mellor if there is no such thing as social care how is it we are saving the UK £86bn a year?....£86bn a year is being saved, ergo there must be social care. You are telling me that there is no such thing as social care yet it appears the government feel they to be involved in our happiness as was stated on this very site:

    Almost 30 MPs have signed a Commons motion calling for the move, arguing that promoting happiness and well-being is a legitimate and important goal of government.

    Be honest, they cherry-pick policy dependant on cost, and if it costs make people " socially responsible". That`s the top and bottom of it.

  • Comment number 32.

    It seems to me that these young carers never considered help from the state to be a right.

  • Comment number 33.

    Ah.

    Care in the community part II
    Maggie would be pleased.

    Our transition to a mini United States continues and the NHS's days are numbered.

  • Comment number 34.

    bob6000bob writes: "Well I have been paying my subscriptions and I expect to see the services as and when I need to rely upon them."

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    ROFTLMAO!

    Oh! Bob! You oughtta be a comedian!

  • Comment number 35.

    I am looking after an old lady at the moment because she has lost her independence and until her house is sold she cannot afford to pay the exhorbitant nursing home fees.
    Someone comes morning and night to wash her and dress her, free comode, bed rail, all sorts of gadgets for her disabilities, now a soft mattress for her bed sores - all these by courtesy of the state.
    Previously she has been in hospital then a rehabilitation home. I dread to think how much it all cost.
    Where the govenment needs to come in is to regulate nursing homes and stop the exhorbitant fees that they charge. Other countries, that I am familiar with and where salaries are similar, have much lower fees. Nursing homes charge about a quarter the amount and they must still be making a profit. Even the sale of a house will only last for 5 years and it is back to the state.

  • Comment number 36.

    Bob6000bob continues: "so all in all I assume that the people doing those jobs should be doing them properly."

    Gasp! Snuffle! Please .... Write no more! Gasp!

    I can barely catch my breath from laughing. PLEASE! Stop!

  • Comment number 37.

    Having spent the best part of 30 years as a carer, without so much as 1 penny support from the state, I would suggest that any rhetoric about help will not materialise in actual help or support. Euthanasia has already found it's way in to the system as a solution to the problem.

  • Comment number 38.

    Yee Gods, looks like we are going to swap places with China.

  • Comment number 39.

    I already take responsibility for the care/ social needs of my disabled partner because I wouldn't trust the state to provide anything like dignified care for him. I will do the same, if the need arises, for my parents & childless auntie. I do find it very sad that the NHS/ social 'services' spend so much time arguing about who is going to fund a person's needs, with each trying to justify why it shouldn't come out of their budget. Social services is a joke in this country, more like a government funded spy agency, ready to condemn families trying hard to cope, but not actually providing any meaningful support. My friend's older parents had to take social services to the high court just to get a weekends respite care for their severely disabled son who requires round the clock care. The need in this case was VERY clear, but it still took many months of stress & heartache just to get some basic support to enable them to continue functioning for their son.


    I also have many friends that work in care homes. It's heart breaking to walk in to these homes & see the elderly patients sitting around in their chairs just dribbling the day away because no one can be bothered to provide activities & entertainment for them. Even altzheimers patients can join in a sing along, it helps keep what little function they do have active. One friend recently lost her job in a care home because she told relatives of a resident that all activities, such as the weekly visit from the art lady & hairdresser, had been stopped several months ago, despite the home still advertising in all of its literature that it had regular activities for their residents. She told the relatives because they had noticed a decline in their relative.

    So much for Mr Cameron's pre-election rhetoric of carers should be supported & recognised by the state more.

  • Comment number 40.

    @MellorSJ

    Luckily my blood pressure is not as high as my first post might suggest (or no doubt I would already be in NHS care).

    I do, however, wonder if maybe our collective blood pressure on these issues *should* be a little higher.

    I feel that there is some comparison to be drawn to the situation where, if you gradually increase the temperature of water in a pot you can eventually boil your apocryphal frog alive without it noticing the increasing threat.

  • Comment number 41.

    corncobuk reasonably asks: "if there is no such thing as social care how is it we are saving the UK £86bn a year?....£86bn a year is being saved, ergo there must be social care."

    Ergo? Bovine excrement!

    The issue here is that the Beeb, being the media arm of NuLabour and all their evil works, uses language like this to define the debate. There's no "ergo" about it.

    Similarly, the "cost" of tax reductions, on closer examination, turns out to be nothing more than reduced revenue. There's no "cost" anywhere to be seen.

    "Progressive" is another lovely. What could better than to be "progressive"? Neanderthal, as some poster claims? I think not. "Progressive" is the lovely euphemism for theft and political correctness.

    We need to get real. There is NO SUCH THING as "social" care.

  • Comment number 42.

    ady wrote: "Ah.

    Care in the community part II
    Maggie would be pleased.

    Our transition to a mini United States continues and the NHS's days are numbered."

    We live in hope.

  • Comment number 43.

    It is physically impossible to pay for every ones care in old age. Care homes charge between £500 and £1000 per week per person, much of that cost is due to legislation and complying with Council rules. You have to face death mainly looking after yourself there is no alternative, death is simply a fact of life for us all.

  • Comment number 44.

    I am looking forward to Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg pitching in by perhaps sitting chatting to an elderly Gentleman and may be doing their garden while they are there. They would be an inspiration to us all.

  • Comment number 45.

    I'm trying to square the circle....Tory party...they who wax lyrical about business, enterprise, market forces...then ask it's people, who pay taxes for services, to carry on paying taxes but do the work we already pay for for free.

    Then there are the LibDems who go on and on and on and on about creating a "Fair Society" allowing their coalition chums to treble student fees, who agree to savage cuts and tax changes that are regressive and will hit the lowest income families hardest. I implore people to read what Clegg has to say on the LibDems web on how his party have shaped the politics of social conscience in this country...it's an absolute hoot when you think how readily he sold out for 5 pieces of silver.

    The BIG FAIR SOCIETY.....the one where we will bail out banks, hit students with massive debt or deprive them of their aspiration of University Education.

    So we'll have the CONDEMS to thank for putting the Great back into GREAT BRITAIN with their vision of the new order.

    Even MT could only have dreamed in her wildest fantasiies of what's planned, what's to come...

    If it all goes wrong on the streets DC can always ask Sarkozy for back up from the French Foreign Legion!!!























  • Comment number 46.

    Well that’s good isn't it!
    I and my family pay our national insurance for 50 odd years now the government wants to welsh on the deal, talk about thieves and scoundrels
    I suppose the government wants us to just die at the age of 65, you know, just to make things convenient all round or maybe sell our property so that they get some more money out of us as well dumping us.

  • Comment number 47.

    The usual rubbish from an administration which is busy reneging on every obligation to the citizens of this country that it can!

    The only reason we HAVE a government - an expensive and interfering organisation - is to provide those services which the individual citizen cannot provide for himself. As they don't want to provide them - never mind feeble excuses about being skint: so am I but I am still trying to meet my obligations and responsibilities, thank you! - I fail to see any point in actually having a government any more.

  • Comment number 48.

    MellorSJ
    said
    "We need to get real. There is NO SUCH THING as "social" care".

    Comedians...don't you just love them...satire, hyperbole...to die for...laughing of course.

    Could put your words to John Lennon's - God......

    I don't believe in Social Care
    I don't believe in the Big Society
    I don't believe in Politicians
    I don't believe in Taxation.....

    I just believe in ME

  • Comment number 49.

    21 FIRST CENTURY ; AND YOU ARE ASKING
    STUPID QUESTIONS LIKE THAT ?!

  • Comment number 50.

    44. At 3:35pm on 16 Nov 2010, everybear wrote:

    I am looking forward to Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg pitching in by perhaps sitting chatting to an elderly Gentleman and may be doing their garden while they are there. They would be an inspiration to us all.

    -------------------------

    And if they did they would be accused of posing and then people complain that they should be reducing the deficit instead of trying to convince people about pitching in.

  • Comment number 51.

    · 36. At 3:02pm on 16 Nov 2010, MellorSJ wrote:
    Bob6000bob continues: "so all in all I assume that the people doing those jobs should be doing them properly."

    Gasp! Snuffle! Please .... Write no more! Gasp!

    I can barely catch my breath from laughing. PLEASE! Stop!

    ############################

    Do you have parents? Or Grandparents?



  • Comment number 52.

    stopthespin asserts: "I just believe in ME"

    Damn right I do.

    I believe in providing for myself.

    I believe in providing for my family.

    I believe in providing for those unable to take care of themselves.


    I do not believe that the state is responsible for providing for me.

    I do not believe that the state is responsible for providing for my family.

    I do not believe that the state can magic up £4 for every £3 we put into it to provide for those unable to take care of themselves.


    Don't you?

  • Comment number 53.

    Most of us in our 60s have worked for 40+ years, paid our taxes and NI contributions on the understanding that at some point in the future, when and If we needed it, then society would be there to tend our needs as we slide into oblivion.
    Now it appears that the "governments (plural) " over past 40 years have been spending our "Social Care" money on other things , like fat pensions for MP's , excessive perks and expenses, etc....AND now they have spent all the lolly, they come cap in hand to us and say -- "Sorry the pot is empty -- you'll have to fend for your self.
    So i say empty all the MP's pension pots , perks and trust funds back into the countries social fund ..AND let THEM fend for themselves.

    You Know it makes sense

    ;-}}

  • Comment number 54.

    "At 3:35pm on 16 Nov 2010, everybear wrote:

    I am looking forward to Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg pitching in by perhaps sitting chatting to an elderly Gentleman and may be doing their garden while they are there. They would be an inspiration to us all."

    I say, that's a bit harsh - the poor old gentleman can no longer obtain social care, his pension's been cut and now he has to do Clegg AND Cameron's garden? That amounts to half of the UK green space. Hope the poor old gentleman hasn't a wife who needs care - it could be weeks between changes of incontinence pads. Now there's a good scheme for the Tories to throw money at - get the car designers and engineers to produce extended service interval personal care items - catheters that need changed only every 12,000 miles (visual inspection at 6,000 miles to check for leaks around the seals) and then give everyone needing social care a 10% discount voucher for Kwik Fit ("You'd be amazed at what we do" - well you might have been before the election result).

  • Comment number 55.

    46. At 3:46pm on 16 Nov 2010, 1stTopic wrote:
    "...now the government wants to welsh on the deal..."
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Odd use of a Celtic adjective really, given that it's the Anglo-Saxons who are famous for doing this among the nations of this globe.



  • Comment number 56.

    Families should look after families so far as they are able. Those without families or families without the resources should obviously receive assistance.

    At the age of 84 my widowed mother came to live with us after suffering an severely injurious fall at her own home. She lived with us for over 11 years and was great fun to have around, worshipped by her great grandchildren she enjoyed life to the full and gave much enjoyment to all her family. The last two years of her life she lived in a residential home which she paid for herself, she placed herself in the home after declaring that she was hindering my wife and myself from enjoying our retirement to the full, no arguments were permitted. The home was a very good one and relatively inexpensive, the staff and those fellow inmates with the mental capacity enjoyed her company to the end. It was only in the last few weeks of her life that she became physically dependent on others.

    We were lucky, she was physically and mentally in good order. If she had been physically and/or mentally dependent over all that time the story would have been a lot less happy.

    Need must be the criterion for assistance to be given by the state, but it must be REAL NEED.

  • Comment number 57.

    If the GOONDEMS really believe in the BIG SOCIETY...then I strongly urge them to MOVE ON and find some voluntary work to occupy themselves.

    Picking up leaves might be about their level. Then at least they could legitimately claim they've served the public.

  • Comment number 58.

    The good news is that the NHS will continue to provide "cradle to grave" care. The bad news is that everyone aged over 60 will be shot starting in 2011 as the voluntary work by the unemployed Phase I is launched. By 2013 the only granny left will be The Queen (provided she can keep moving between safe houses).

  • Comment number 59.

    Who should be responsible for social care?

    Not me.

  • Comment number 60.

    Social care is already seen as everyone's responsibility. Everybody pays taxes into the public kitty, Social care is funded from that.

    What is this? Another example of doublespeak from the government maybe?

    Voluntary sector indeed. A clear example of government trying to find someone willing to take another citizen's employment away from them, by performing a task and not charging for it.

  • Comment number 61.

    41. At 3:21pm on 16 Nov 2010, MellorSJ wrote:

    corncobuk reasonably asks: "if there is no such thing as social care how is it we are saving the UK £86bn a year?....£86bn a year is being saved, ergo there must be social care."

    Ergo? Bovine excrement!

    The issue here is that the Beeb, being the media arm of NuLabour and all their evil works, uses language like this to define the debate. There's no "ergo" about it.

    Similarly, the "cost" of tax reductions, on closer examination, turns out to be nothing more than reduced revenue. There's no "cost" anywhere to be seen.

    "Progressive" is another lovely. What could better than to be "progressive"? Neanderthal, as some poster claims? I think not. "Progressive" is the lovely euphemism for theft and political correctness.

    We need to get real. There is NO SUCH THING as "social" care.

    ----------------------------------------

    This wasn`t a BBC survey but a private enterprise that gave the £86bn figure, so you can`t shoot the messenger for publicising the message. Of course you`re right about not being a "cost" to tax reductions, but a cost to those who, through no choice, had to pay through taxes, those monies which were paid to cushion such an event as this. Either way it`s a gain/gain for the government. Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.

  • Comment number 62.

    56. At 4:20pm on 16 Nov 2010, SimpleOldSailor wrote: "Need (sic for social care) must be the criterion for assistance to be given by the state, but it must be REAL NEED."

    REAL Need has to exist - that's why the Care Assessment is made. The reason for Community Care introduction in 1993 (despite the hype about "caring") was to reduce the then burgeoning cost of residential and nursing care. Since then, hard-pressed local authorities have become "gatekeepers" by raising the criteria for admission to residential care and have begun to apply similar criteria for those needing domiciliary care (e.g. Home care or Day Centre attendance). I remember the retirement speech of a Social Work Divisional Director in the late 1990's - he said "I'm retiring now - before I have to say to a Service User - 'Well, Mrs Smith, you can EITHER have a bath hoist OR someone to help you use it ..." 2011 Enter Big Dave and Little Nick

  • Comment number 63.

    52. At 4:12pm on 16 Nov 2010, MellorSJ wrote:

    I do not believe that the state can magic up £4 for every £3 we put into it to provide for those unable to take care of themselves.

    Don't you?

    -------------------------------------

    Look, we know you can't stand the sight of other human beings, but not all state money goes into caring for the people that have throughout their years paid for it in NI contributions.

    Trident, for example, is a smacking waste of money that benefits precisely no one except the Americans. Please feel free to take your vitriol against that. The MP's bar is subsidised - I'd argue that'd cause a small increase in our NHS spending but lets not forget that our masters will be going private.

    Point? Stop treading on the small bloke. Not everyone is perfect and it's not dependent on class nor walk of life. Government spending goes well beyond necessary and welcomed spending on the general population.

  • Comment number 64.

    MellorSJ
    said stopthespin asserts: "I just believe in ME"

    Try to at least show some level of comprehension...I did not assert..I just believe in ME.......read it again....or maybe not.

    So can I assume from what you say about not wanting the state to provide for you....you mean defence, road, hospitals, education....etc etc.

    Got your own then?

    Or which planet did you and the family move to.

    Anyway's Politicains should find it easy to magic £3 to £4 ...they can get money for anything..even those that are multi millionaires, can get moat's cleaned, manure, kit kats free of charge......they're very resourceful...all they need to do is consult the "Green Book" for hints and tips.

  • Comment number 65.

    · 52. At 4:12pm on 16 Nov 2010, MellorSJ wrote:
    stopthespin asserts: "I just believe in ME"

    Damn right I do.

    I believe in providing for myself.

    I believe in providing for my family.

    I believe in providing for those unable to take care of themselves.


    I do not believe that the state is responsible for providing for me.

    I do not believe that the state is responsible for providing for my family.

    I do not believe that the state can magic up £4 for every £3 we put into it to provide for those unable to take care of themselves.


    Don't you?

    #############################

    As you don’t live here, in the UK, then you are correct.

    The state is not responsible for you

    The state is only responsible for the people that live here



  • Comment number 66.

    Wherever possible, social care should be the responsibility of the family and no-one else; that's how it was years ago.

    The present arrangement is just a reflection of today's nanny state, where it's always another's responsibility and everyone else has to share the burden. This has, to some extent, come about because so many people who would have died naturally at a younger age are now being kept alive in the cause of medicine.

    Just look at the number of nursing home patients who spend their last days, weeks and often years lying on a bed, staring at the ceiling, pumped with drugs and fed intravenously. What an undignified way to go.

  • Comment number 67.

    The family - who else loves you like they do?

  • Comment number 68.

    "59. At 4:30pm on 16 Nov 2010, Kuradi Vitukari wrote:
    Who should be responsible for social care?

    Not me."

    So if you are struck down by a debilatating illness or in a serious accident left unable to work or be independent shall we just leave you to rot in the streets??

  • Comment number 69.

    Social care is only 'given' i.e. paid for out of the insurance policy all normal wage earners pay into, for medical need. And no, the relatives cannot always do it all themselves. If you are a 6ft gentleman who through Parkinsons or some other dreadful disease, cannot use your limbs to wash or dress yourself then someone else has to do this for you. Keeping clean and taking exercise being medical necessities for humans.If the person who lives with you is only 5ft 3inches then they cannot do this themselves.

    It seems plain enough to me.

    If we all earned £100,000 plus a year then maybe we could afford to pay privately for this medicine.

    Put up national insurance/ taxes if needbe but ensure all those with accountants who seek to 'lessen' their tax liabilities actually pay the full amount.

  • Comment number 70.

    Once,this society decided the civilized solution to this and similar problems was to pool our resources to ensure that everyone could expect base levels of care throughout their lives.That decision was taken at a time when we were much less wealthy (individually and communally)and in considerable debt (having fought two world wars in little more than 30 years).It is a mark of unalloyed greed (collective and individual)that this government can say the responsibility once again lies with the individual. Presumably Work Houses and 'going on the parish' will return as the safety net.And what of the rising number of lone households and childless couples: who will be their carers?

  • Comment number 71.

    "60. At 4:30pm on 16 Nov 2010, Nemesis wrote:
    Social care is already seen as everyone's responsibility. Everybody pays taxes into the public kitty, Social care is funded from that.

    What is this? Another example of doublespeak from the government maybe?

    Voluntary sector indeed. A clear example of government trying to find someone willing to take another citizen's employment away from them, by performing a task and not charging for it."

    ------------------

    You completely miss the point - the government don't 'save' any money by cutting jobs, or getting people to volunteer. The government has a set amount of tax money to spend on services (unless they increase the deficit) - if you want them to spend more, you'll have to pay more tax. It's pretty simple.

  • Comment number 72.

    MellorSJ writes:
    It is, in fact the responsibility of the individual and the fsmily to look after their own.

    Granted, there are situations where this is impossible. And, granted, there are situations where the individual involved is unable to pay. But these are the EXCEPTIONS, not the rule.

    There is NO SUCH THING as "social care." We're each responsible for our own families.
    ---------------------------
    Are you actually a real person, or a volunteer audience member from the Jeremy Kyle, hired to stir up arguements with stupid comments?

    Anyway, listen up, no one has control over what happens to them in the future. What happens when YOU become incapable to look after yourself (although most of your comments on all the HYS debates seem to show you depicting yourself as being the perfect citizens!), or perhaps you just assume your family will be there whenever you call. If you had no-one to look after you then you would require the states help! Which means you will be using other peoples state contributions, just like you do everytime you go the GP or hospital. Infact even public transport is still subsidised by the government, so remember next time you get on a train, you're using everyone elses state contributions for your self!

    Do us all a favour, show some respect and stick a sock in it!!!

  • Comment number 73.

    The state!!

  • Comment number 74.

    It should be paid for by taxes, with safeguards to make sure everyone who is entitled to it, gets it.
    Any "Big Society" solution will end up with terrible injustices. Some areas will et great support, others not. Some types of people will get good support, others not.

  • Comment number 75.

    Is not the coming Royal wedding to do with the family and less to do with the state? But it will be the state that pays lock stock and barrel for it while the people become homeless and children go to bed with no food and the old die of cold and what can those who rule do give us and over blown wedding which the media will make us all sick off it by the time it happens call me Dave has not a clue, give the job to the future King Billy

  • Comment number 76.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 77.

    Kuradi Vitukari

    Who should be responsible for social care?

    Not me.

    Are you another one of the jokers like MellorSJ......One who pays for everything themselves.

    You built your own roads, schools, hospitals, raised an army....entirely out of your pocket etc.

    Well I'm glad you not responsible......for ANYTHING...pl***er

  • Comment number 78.

    For the aged, we should have local sheltered housing & nursing homes, funded from a combination of state and people's assets. Labour & material sourced as far as possbile locally.

    This way, aged people retain their contacts with family, friends and activities.

    As for disabled, we should have similar local arrangement, but in addition, specialist built disabled villages & light industry. This would be the most efficient way of elping with disability.

  • Comment number 79.

    I have lived the last 30+ yrs of my life in Gulf Muslim Countries. My muslim friends find it very hard to believe that we dump our old people into homes etc when they have no fear whatsoever of old age.

    There are no old peoples homes in muslim countries. The old, the sick, the infirm and children from pre-birth up are cared for by family & extended family. Children are brought up to respect & look after their old people and they would not even think of sending them off elsewhere. They care for them until death.

    I can and have found many faults with muslim culture, but I can't argue with this. Perhaps we should all take another look at our way of life where we have no time for our own old family members because we are too busy making our own living. Don't forget we'll all be there someday!!

  • Comment number 80.

    79. At 5:52pm on 16 Nov 2010, ExpatKS wrote:

    I have lived the last 30+ yrs of my life in Gulf Muslim Countries. My muslim friends find it very hard to believe that we dump our old people into homes etc when they have no fear whatsoever of old age.

    There are no old peoples homes in muslim countries. The old, the sick, the infirm and children from pre-birth up are cared for by family & extended family. Children are brought up to respect & look after their old people and they would not even think of sending them off elsewhere. They care for them until death.

    I can and have found many faults with muslim culture, but I can't argue with this. Perhaps we should all take another look at our way of life where we have no time for our own old family members because we are too busy making our own living. Don't forget we'll all be there someday!!

    ---------------------

    Pray tell, as so many ardent Tories/Capitalists love to point out, who is going to generate the wealth for the country to move forward?

    It's a nice idea, but
    A) Not everyone has a family to do this for them.
    B) Not everyone has a family that cares about them.
    C) See above.

    Social case MUST be provided by the state. If it's getting expensive, raise taxes or cut other areas of Government spending which aren't necessary nor provide a tangible benefit to society, ala trident.

    Do not leave people to fend for themselves. How far do we want to turn back the clock? I thought we were maturing as a society...

  • Comment number 81.

    I am disgusted although not surprised to see all news coverage on this issue only mentioning the "elderly" as being entitled in some way to social care - yet again propogating the opinion that there are no such deserving individuals among the disabled community.

    When are the news agencies going to wake up to the fact that disability does not discriminate on age and so neither should they - when talking about social care why can they not just "say people who require" instead of insisting on "the elderly who require".

  • Comment number 82.

    This is an inevitable problem of people living longer. My father in law reminded me recently he has been retired 39 years and that is longer than he was working and I am sure he is not alone. It is a joke to say paying taxes all your life is going to be enough to pay for social care if we are spending so long in retirement.

    I personally would not like to spend my declining days in a care home so I am doing my best to stay as healthy as possible and hoping for voluntary euthanasia by the time I can no longer look after myself. My husband says the same and I fail to see why having scrimped to pay our mortgage all these years we should not get to pass on our home to our children rather than line the pockets of the care home industry especially if those who are less prudent and have not saved get it all paid for through taxes. We have saved into private pensions and even when we retire we will have to pay taxes on it even though we will not be a burden on the state which I think is really unfair.

    We help out elderly members of our families who live relatively near and would only approach the state if we were unable to cope. The problems come when family live in different parts of the country and of course work committments make it difficult but the first port of call for social care should be family if at all possible. After that it will be paying for private care or the government if they haven't given all our money away by then.

  • Comment number 83.

    Khuli

    Said

    You completely miss the point - the government don't 'save' any money by cutting jobs, or getting people to volunteer. The government has a set amount of tax money to spend on services (unless they increase the deficit) - if you want them to spend more, you'll have to pay more tax. It's pretty simple.

    You'll get a job in the Treasury..if you carry on this way .....

    If you cut jobs....that usually entails not having to pay salaries and other benefits....think you'll find most people regard that as savings, cost cutting.

    Similarly if people do paid work voluntarily i.e. for free, GUESS WHAT...some accountants would call it savings....no your kidding me, surely not!

    Is there another branch of ACCOUNTANCY, you know about - if so please share it with us.

    The Government has our taxes to spend, we should have a say in what are our priorities, they should budget and spend it more efficiently....

    It is well documented how even simple things like central purchasing and better negotiation could save billions...though you'll probably tell us these are not savings again.

    Tax avoidance if it were tackled by HMRC could also address some of the shortfall.

    Who is it missing the point?

  • Comment number 84.

    There is no doubt in my mind that means testing should be applied to the provision of social care.

    It is surely common sense that those who can afford to pay for it, should, but those who cannot should not be disadvantaged. It's the same old debate, should this be a universal benefit or one that is available to those who could not otherwise afford it and suffer without it.

    No argument, in my book.

  • Comment number 85.

    A civilized and dignified Nation would take pride in caring for its elderly. This should not be an issue of penny pinching. Protection of the old, sick and disabled is the duty of the rest of us, whether immediate family or no. It is tragically symptomatic of the UK's decline in moral standards since the Second World War that this sense of duty, so strong in wartime, is being shirked today. The existing laws, which for example protect the decrepit against euthanasia, are based on an understanding of human wickedness. Since the 1960s as a direct result of liberalism and the decline of marriage, we have become an increasingly selfish nation. If we do not cherish and support our weakest citizens, our country no longer deserves the name Great Britain.

  • Comment number 86.

    Capitalism is in deep trouble worldwide, so it is not surprising that the rich want to remove the social wage from the poor to try to restore their profits. Clearly, working people and their families have gained too much of the cake since 1945, and now it's time to turn the clock back to the 1930s.
    The job is to convince the poor that voluntary, unpaid work is a wonderful thing, except for bankers.

  • Comment number 87.

    #80# Loonyliberal wrote in reply to my #79#

    This constant push for growth, needing more & more people to generate more and more wealth will come to a sticky end. 70m in the UK in 20 yrs time just to keep the growth going upwards is nonsense. UK is all me me me, asking for the State to provide so much.

    OK - so tax everyone at 33p/£, a favourite figure when I was young and mortgage rates were at 15%, but Governments don't save, they spend taxes generated today - today. So high taxes mean less consumer sales, less jobs and the magical growth peters out. One day you'll grow up and see the writing on the wall. UK is downhill all the way from now on - so just get used to it.

  • Comment number 88.

    5 years of giving social care between the ages of 65 and 70 for
    your state pension. For perhaps 10 to 15 hrs a week might be a idea, a bit like national service for the older generation. Might be worth considering.

  • Comment number 89.

    By the time all these cuts come into force, what social care are we talking about? According to the Conservatives/Lib-Dem's - you are on your own.....state intervention and help will soon be a thing of the past.....while the jobless numbers, the homeless, the bancrupt charities are rising, the benefits are being cut while our beloved royal household has a wonderful party of a wedding to look forward to - so who cares about social care......well, or the lack of it come next year!

  • Comment number 90.

    Just as education is free for the young, social care for the elderly should also be free. The elderly have done their bit for the country by working, paying taxes, bringing up children, etc etc and the only ones I would exclude from free care would be those who have lived on benefits and not contributed in any way in the past.

  • Comment number 91.

    I have said this before,
    All disability premiums ,DLA,SDP,AA,DP etc, should cease and the money put into the hands of the social services to provide care for those that need it,old or young .
    the government should stop throwing money at those that need care and instead they should provide the care they need.

  • Comment number 92.

    National Insurance and taxes should be used to pay for this.

    They should not be used to pay for foreign wars, for guaranteeing arms exports abroad, for Prime Ministers personal photographers, for moat cleaning or any other expense that doesn't serve the people who pay it.

    Makes my blood boil to see what MPs consider as "small expenses" and yet how much they rip us off. We give £800billion to the banks but don't want to spend a tiny fraction of that on helping people who have served this country! Disgraceful.

  • Comment number 93.



    According to the news we have today in this so-called society of the UK, seven hundred thousand (700,000) CHILDREN providing social care for a parent.

    That is seven hundred thousand (700,000) CHILDREN, that have no childhood

    That is seven hundred thousand (700,000) CHILDREN, that have no guilt free schooling

    That is seven hundred thousand (700,000) CHILDREN that have no university education

    That is seven hundred thousand (700,000) CHILDREN that the state uses to provide social care

    Call ourselves a civilised country, I think not.

    Social care is the responsibility of us all, the responsibility of the community, the responsibility of the state. That is what the state is, the community the people of this country.

    It should be paid for out of taxation, not with the lives of children.




  • Comment number 94.

    Surely the Big Society (clues in the name) eh dave?

    Recommend Post 2.

  • Comment number 95.

    Having read a number of posts on this topic a number of common issues seem to run through them.
    1. Blame the government. Why?
    The government ought to have a ban on all childbirth after the the age of 35. Then the irresponsible parents having kids well into their 40s and 50s will not require themselves to be looked after in their old age by their teenage children or put into state care.
    2. Medical advances. We live in an age where medical advances keep us alive for longer but at the expense of loosing either physical or mental faculties. Possibly both and the lucky ones with neither are usually looking after themselves. The cost of the medical advances are very high, which have to be paid for somehow. Equipment and drugs are no longer cheap items.
    3. Life style choices. For many their lifestyle choice does not include looking after their extended family. Both parents (where there are both parents) work and when junior(s) are picked up after work there is not enough hours in the day to care for anyone else. Again people should not have kids after 35 because their kids will have their young kids to look after. Far better to have kids early then at least their grandkids will be quite grown up and more independent.

  • Comment number 96.

    An elderly member of my family has Dementia and needs 24 hour care. If I do my part for the 'Big Society' and give up work to care for her, who will provide for my children? I have already experienced judgemental attitudes from health professionals who clearly expect that I should be fulfilling the role of full time carer despite working full time and raising a family. Now the government are implying that it is 'socially irresponsible' to expect that this woman, who has worked and paid taxes her entire life, should be provided with basic services in her final years.

    They say social care is everyone's responsibility...what they mean is everyones responsibility but theirs.

  • Comment number 97.

    I think that all the latest immigrants should be Britains number one priority. Never mind the old, sick and lame. They should have organised their future needs years ago. These poor folk from poor countries really need ALL Brits to house them, feed them and give them a decent weekly income!
    NA! Just kidding!

  • Comment number 98.

    79. At 5:52pm on 16 Nov 2010, ExpatKS wrote:

    I have lived the last 30+ yrs of my life in Gulf Muslim Countries. My muslim friends find it very hard to believe that we dump our old people into homes etc when they have no fear whatsoever of old age.

    There are no old peoples homes in muslim countries. The old, the sick, the infirm and children from pre-birth up are cared for by family & extended family. Children are brought up to respect & look after their old people and they would not even think of sending them off elsewhere. They care for them until death.

    I can and have found many faults with muslim culture, but I can't argue with this. Perhaps we should all take another look at our way of life where we have no time for our own old family members because we are too busy making our own living. Don't forget we'll all be there someday!!
    ------------------------
    I agree this country stinks when it comes to looking after your own family.
    That imo is why we have so many dysfunctional families ,
    mothers who throw their children out because they are no longer dependants, as the mother would lose some benefits if the young adult remained in the home is just one example,

    we need to go back to the old day's where families stayed together and cared for each other,
    but hey there is no profit in that

  • Comment number 99.

    93. At 7:35pm on 16 Nov 2010, Big Al wrote:



    According to the news we have today in this so-called society of the UK, seven hundred thousand (700,000) CHILDREN providing social care for a parent.

    That is seven hundred thousand (700,000) CHILDREN, that have no childhood

    That is seven hundred thousand (700,000) CHILDREN, that have no guilt free schooling

    That is seven hundred thousand (700,000) CHILDREN that have no university education

    That is seven hundred thousand (700,000) CHILDREN that the state uses to provide social care

    Call ourselves a civilised country, I think not.

    Social care is the responsibility of us all, the responsibility of the community, the responsibility of the state. That is what the state is, the community the people of this country.

    It should be paid for out of taxation, not with the lives of children.
    -------------------------------------------------
    and the reason that the person uses their child to care for them is so they do not lose the severe disability premium that is only payable if you live on your own and/or with dependants and no-one claims carers allowance for them.
    selfish parents or what?
    don't be misguided by what you see on the news,the real fact is the parents give up their child's ,childhood and future just because of money,
    the selfish so and so's

  • Comment number 100.

    Does this mean I will be receiving a massive rebate of all the money I've had taken off me for over 40 years?
    Here's another example of an uncaring and cynical UK establishment. Take, but don't give is their motto.
    Scum.

 

Page 1 of 4

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.