Funding Social Care

[ecuk268]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Only it’s not a tax to “fund” social care. It’s a tax that transfers  the cost  of social care from relatively well off individuals, to the state. The poor already have their social care paid for. 

Trouble is that it's not going to fund social care. It'll be used to reduce the increasingly long NHS waiting times. Social care has to limp on for another 3 years and what will they do then?  Can't see then taking money out of the NHS to give to social care so it'll probably be an increase in the levy, which is an increase in income tax by another name.

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, ecuk268 said:

Trouble is that it's not going to fund social care. It'll be used to reduce the increasingly long NHS waiting times. Social care has to limp on for another 3 years and what will they do then?  Can't see then taking money out of the NHS to give to social care so it'll probably be an increase in the levy, which is an increase in income tax by another name.

 

This is not about funding social care, it’s already funded. Not a penny more will go into social care, this is about replacing private funding with public money. If this was about giving people decent care and dignity, and not having to live in shit conditions with minimum wage people caring for them, I’d be all for it. It’s  not,. The manifesto pledge to “sort social care” didn’t mean making it better or radically changing it, it meant ensuring people could pass more inheritance onto their kids. Paid for my everyone else. 

Edited 8 September, 2021 by Lord Duckhunter

[Jeremy Corbyn]

13 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

This is not about funding social care, it’s already funded. Not a penny more will go into social care, this is about replacing private funding with public money. If this was about giving people decent care and dignity, and not having to live in shit conditions with minimum wage people caring for them, I’d be all for it. It’s  not,. The manifesto pledge to “sort social care” didn’t mean making it better or radically changing it, it meant ensuring people could pass more inheritance onto their kids. Paid for my everyone else. 

So why are people not more angry about it?  It's disgraceful and yet people don't seem to care.  Do people in this country just not care about others as long as they're ok?

[Warriorsaint]

17 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

This is not about funding social care, it’s already funded. Not a penny more will go into social care, this is about replacing private funding with public money. If this was about giving people decent care and dignity, and not having to live in shit conditions with minimum wage people caring for them, I’d be all for it. It’s  not,. The manifesto pledge to “sort social care” didn’t mean making it better or radically changing it, it meant ensuring people could pass more inheritance onto their kids. Paid for my everyone else. 

Almost sounding like  a lefty there. Hard to imagine you could ever be a tory.

[Warriorsaint]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

So why are people not more angry about it?  It's disgraceful and yet people don't seem to care.  Do people in this country just not care about others as long as they're ok?

There is no more compliant nation. The people have been ground down by centre right govts for decades. The media props up the tory class establishment and puts all the countries woes down to immigrants, the Eu and benefits scroungers when those in power keep the status quo

[buctootim]

22 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

This is not about funding social care, it’s already funded. Not a penny more will go into social care, this is about replacing private funding with public money. If this was about giving people decent care and dignity, and not having to live in shit conditions with minimum wage people caring for them, I’d be all for it. It’s  not,. The manifesto pledge to “sort social care” didn’t mean making it better or radically changing it, it meant ensuring people could pass more inheritance onto their kids. Paid for my everyone else. 

There are some billionaires who believe passing your wealth down through generations kills social mobility. Arguably 'real' Tories would be opposed to inherited wealth because it rewards being lucky and impedes (by driving up asset prices) those who are hard working and entrepreneurial. The current Government seem to believe more in a self perpetuating oligarchy than anything else  

Edited 9 September, 2021 by buctootim

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, Warriorsaint said:

Almost sounding like  a lefty there. Hard to imagine you could ever be a tory.

I’m not a Tory, I’ve voted for them for specific reasons, but I’ve no love for the band of pinkos that call themselves Tories these days. I’m a small state conservative and as such oppose this measure. You can’t  want a smaller state, until it comes to protecting your own money and you suddenly want a bigger state. I’m against this despite being a beneficiary of it. Morally, it’s wrong, it also won’t work. Until there’s a radical reform of the NHS & Social care nothing will change 

[Warriorsaint]

On 09/09/2021 at 17:55, Lord Duckhunter said:

Morally, it’s wrong

Disagree, Morally it’s right. Also I think the Altright dismantling the NHS will fail. British people don’t want the American shitshow of a health system.

 

[AlexLaw76]

3 hours ago, Warriorsaint said:

Disagree, Morally it’s right. Also I think the Altright dismantling the NHS will fail. British people don’t want the American shitshow of a health system.

 

you are aware that changing the NHS does not automatically equate the US model?