O/T but interesti;ng piece by John Harris (who usually tries and succeeds in breaking out of the metropolitan bubble) - makes an interesting comparison with Leon's remarks the other day.
I spent the best part of a day travelling from the south English coast to Perth.....When I set out, on a branch-line train that rattled through such Sussex towns as....Eastbourne.... mask-wearers were in a small minority.....In Scotland, masks remain mandatory in most shared spaces
I hope you read some of the recommendations. You might find one or two nuggets that make you think a little differently about things. It's happened to you before - Brighton Uni etc - so this means you're the sort who is open to change. There's no reason why it can't happen again. And indeed again after that, at least one more time, bearing in mind you're only in middle age.
Prejudice, disadvantage and advantage happens in many forms and we should all be aware of biases and be empathetic. The idea of singling out one particular segmentation of society as "privileged" and people who need to be called out separately is deeply unpleasant. Especially when in many cases they perform worse than some of the "oppressed" racial groups.
I don't view it that way. I see it as an effort to counteract ingrained anti-white prejudice in the white dominated society of a country which was largely built on colonizing non-white peoples in non-white places. It's certainly no solution in itself, and I can see the pitfalls, and perhaps it doesn't have the net positive effect that I'd hope it would - maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, hard to measure - but regardless, even if it's counterproductive as some argue, I cannot feel angry or offended about it. To me, that is total snowflake. At the risk of setting bristles off, it's 'white fragility'. We rule the roost for centuries, then get all upset about even being asked to have a serious think about whether the legacy from this still endures.
The UK was not built on colonizing other places. The vast majority of its wealth came from its own internal developments, funded by investment from internal capital and based on selling to people in this country.
The ridiculous "we" in "rule the roost for centuries" is also based on some warped "the son inherits the sins of the father" bullshit. Your typical white Briton has not ruled the roost. And most of them didn't even have ancestors that did, given a small noble class did. Meanwhile there are non-white Britons that are descendants of Arab sheikhs and Nigerian oil barons, who have indeed ruled the roost in recent memory. Far more than some white kid growing up in poor parts of Cornwall or Glasgow.
So what you are doing is basically ignoring the actual practical, multifaceted nature of privilege, dismissing people's actual experiences but grouping them as members of their racial group with collective guilt. It is a deeply illiberal, tribal mindset and is reversing the great Enlightenment principles that made the West such a successful place.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
It's an understanding with no link to actual data.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
O/T but interesti;ng piece by John Harris (who usually tries and succeeds in breaking out of the metropolitan bubble) - makes an interesting comparison with Leon's remarks the other day.
I spent the best part of a day travelling from the south English coast to Perth.....When I set out, on a branch-line train that rattled through such Sussex towns as....Eastbourne.... mask-wearers were in a small minority.....In Scotland, masks remain mandatory in most shared spaces
Case rates: Eastbourne: 34 Perth: 458
Schools back earlier, too, though the impact of that remains unclear.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
It's an understanding with no link to actual data.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
Is there a distinction operating between residential and care homes somewhere, I wonder?
I hope you read some of the recommendations. You might find one or two nuggets that make you think a little differently about things. It's happened to you before - Brighton Uni etc - so this means you're the sort who is open to change. There's no reason why it can't happen again. And indeed again after that, at least one more time, bearing in mind you're only in middle age.
Prejudice, disadvantage and advantage happens in many forms and we should all be aware of biases and be empathetic. The idea of singling out one particular segmentation of society as "privileged" and people who need to be called out separately is deeply unpleasant. Especially when in many cases they perform worse than some of the "oppressed" racial groups.
I don't view it that way. I see it as an effort to counteract ingrained anti-white prejudice in the white dominated society of a country which was largely built on colonizing non-white peoples in non-white places. It's certainly no solution in itself, and I can see the pitfalls, and perhaps it doesn't have the net positive effect that I'd hope it would - maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, hard to measure - but regardless, even if it's counterproductive as some argue, I cannot feel angry or offended about it. To me, that is total snowflake. At the risk of setting bristles off, it's 'white fragility'. We rule the roost for centuries, then get all upset about even being asked to have a serious think about whether the legacy from this still endures.
"We rule the roost for centuries"?
At one time the left argued for class solidarity, but this kind of racial politics makes that impossible.
Blunkett on R4 suggesting Iraq unconnected to subsequent Islamic radicalisation. Wanker.
The doggedness with which some of these early century politicos cling to the notion that invading Iraq was a good idea is quite remarkable. It's as close to objective truth as these things can get that it wasn't. I'm oddly reminded of Seumus Milne and the Soviet Union.
Blunkett on R4 suggesting Iraq unconnected to subsequent Islamic radicalisation. Wanker.
The doggedness with which some of these early century politicos cling to the notion that invading Iraq was a good idea is quite remarkable. It's as close to objective truth as these things can get that it wasn't. I'm oddly reminded of Seumus Milne and the Soviet Union.
Many of the same people clung to the notion that circumventing the Brexit vote was a good idea....
Blunkett on R4 suggesting Iraq unconnected to subsequent Islamic radicalisation. Wanker.
The doggedness with which some of these early century politicos cling to the notion that invading Iraq was a good idea is quite remarkable. It's as close to objective truth as these things can get that it wasn't. I'm oddly reminded of Seumus Milne and the Soviet Union.
They’ll never admit otherwise though. It was a terrible decision and completely against public opinion but to,admit it was wrong would be to admit they were wrong.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
It's an understanding with no link to actual data.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
Is there a distinction operating between residential and care homes somewhere, I wonder?
There used to be; there were Nursing Homes, largely staffed by nurses, and with a nurse manager. People who went in generally didn’t live very long, because they had life-ending problems. Then there were Residential Homes, without nursing staff ….although they were often managed by nurses, where people went who couldn’t,or didn’t wish to manage for themselves. All changed in the mid 90’s.
I hope you read some of the recommendations. You might find one or two nuggets that make you think a little differently about things. It's happened to you before - Brighton Uni etc - so this means you're the sort who is open to change. There's no reason why it can't happen again. And indeed again after that, at least one more time, bearing in mind you're only in middle age.
Prejudice, disadvantage and advantage happens in many forms and we should all be aware of biases and be empathetic. The idea of singling out one particular segmentation of society as "privileged" and people who need to be called out separately is deeply unpleasant. Especially when in many cases they perform worse than some of the "oppressed" racial groups.
I don't view it that way. I see it as an effort to counteract ingrained anti-white prejudice in the white dominated society of a country which was largely built on colonizing non-white peoples in non-white places. It's certainly no solution in itself, and I can see the pitfalls, and perhaps it doesn't have the net positive effect that I'd hope it would - maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, hard to measure - but regardless, even if it's counterproductive as some argue, I cannot feel angry or offended about it. To me, that is total snowflake. At the risk of setting bristles off, it's 'white fragility'. We rule the roost for centuries, then get all upset about even being asked to have a serious think about whether the legacy from this still endures.
"We rule the roost for centuries"?
At one time the left argued for class solidarity, but this kind of racial politics makes that impossible.
It doesn't in my view. It's complementary. It's the right who seek to equate fighting racism with forgetting about class. A bit rich since the right are not known for being intolerant of gaping class inequality.
I hope you read some of the recommendations. You might find one or two nuggets that make you think a little differently about things. It's happened to you before - Brighton Uni etc - so this means you're the sort who is open to change. There's no reason why it can't happen again. And indeed again after that, at least one more time, bearing in mind you're only in middle age.
Prejudice, disadvantage and advantage happens in many forms and we should all be aware of biases and be empathetic. The idea of singling out one particular segmentation of society as "privileged" and people who need to be called out separately is deeply unpleasant. Especially when in many cases they perform worse than some of the "oppressed" racial groups.
I don't view it that way. I see it as an effort to counteract ingrained anti-white prejudice in the white dominated society of a country which was largely built on colonizing non-white peoples in non-white places. It's certainly no solution in itself, and I can see the pitfalls, and perhaps it doesn't have the net positive effect that I'd hope it would - maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, hard to measure - but regardless, even if it's counterproductive as some argue, I cannot feel angry or offended about it. To me, that is total snowflake. At the risk of setting bristles off, it's 'white fragility'. We rule the roost for centuries, then get all upset about even being asked to have a serious think about whether the legacy from this still endures.
"We rule the roost for centuries"?
At one time the left argued for class solidarity, but this kind of racial politics makes that impossible.
It doesn't in my view. It's complementary. It's the right who seek to equate fighting racism with forgetting about class. A bit rich since the right are not known for being intolerant of gaping class inequality.
You just conveniently ignore the fact that several racial groups are higher in socioeconomic class than white people.
Blunkett on R4 suggesting Iraq unconnected to subsequent Islamic radicalisation. Wanker.
The doggedness with which some of these early century politicos cling to the notion that invading Iraq was a good idea is quite remarkable. It's as close to objective truth as these things can get that it wasn't. I'm oddly reminded of Seumus Milne and the Soviet Union.
Yep, their every utterance on the subject is in Mandy Rice-Davies territory. I'd have more respect for them (from a standing start of zero) if they just said it straight that despite unforeseen and painful consequences they still thought that on balance it was a worthwhile cause. Of course they would than have to fall back on the explicit WMD justification which even they realise is an unpolishable turd.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
It's an understanding with no link to actual data.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
Is there a distinction operating between residential and care homes somewhere, I wonder?
There used to be; there were Nursing Homes, largely staffed by nurses, and with a nurse manager. People who went in generally didn’t live very long, because they had life-ending problems. Then there were Residential Homes, without nursing staff ….although they were often managed by nurses, where people went who couldn’t,or didn’t wish to manage for themselves. All changed in the mid 90’s.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
It's an understanding with no link to actual data.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
Is there a distinction operating between residential and care homes somewhere, I wonder?
There used to be; there were Nursing Homes, largely staffed by nurses, and with a nurse manager. People who went in generally didn’t live very long, because they had life-ending problems. Then there were Residential Homes, without nursing staff ….although they were often managed by nurses, where people went who couldn’t,or didn’t wish to manage for themselves. All changed in the mid 90’s.
Written in an annoying hectoring style, but in there is an excellent reading list, though best to stick to the UK ones as US issues are quite distinct, and perhaps a few real classics of post colonial thought like Fanon's writings from the 1960s.
Blunkett on R4 suggesting Iraq unconnected to subsequent Islamic radicalisation. Wanker.
The doggedness with which some of these early century politicos cling to the notion that invading Iraq was a good idea is quite remarkable. It's as close to objective truth as these things can get that it wasn't. I'm oddly reminded of Seumus Milne and the Soviet Union.
Many of the same people clung to the notion that circumventing the Brexit vote was a good idea....
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
It's an understanding with no link to actual data.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
Is there a distinction operating between residential and care homes somewhere, I wonder?
There used to be; there were Nursing Homes, largely staffed by nurses, and with a nurse manager. People who went in generally didn’t live very long, because they had life-ending problems. Then there were Residential Homes, without nursing staff ….although they were often managed by nurses, where people went who couldn’t,or didn’t wish to manage for themselves. All changed in the mid 90’s.
Thanks. Why? (the change I mean.)
Result of the NHS & Community Care Act 1990, as interpreted 1993.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
It's an understanding with no link to actual data.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
Blunkett on R4 suggesting Iraq unconnected to subsequent Islamic radicalisation. Wanker.
To be fair to someone from the Labour Party, he's entirely correct.
Islamic radicalism isn't subsequent to Iraq, it preceded it.
Islam is already a pretty violent religion historically even without anything modern as most medieval religions are and it never underwent an Enlightenment.
Then to make matters worse, the Saudis for many decades have been using billions in oil revenues to promote the very violent and regressive Wahabbism around the globe.
The notion that we in the West are behind Islam being radical is entirely fallacious and egocentric.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
Quite a high proportion are only a few months, but once people have settled they often go for years. So while 9 months may be median, it is a large range.
Worth noting that a lot of social care is not age related, I have read figures of 50%, depending on definition.
Blunkett on R4 suggesting Iraq unconnected to subsequent Islamic radicalisation. Wanker.
The doggedness with which some of these early century politicos cling to the notion that invading Iraq was a good idea is quite remarkable. It's as close to objective truth as these things can get that it wasn't. I'm oddly reminded of Seumus Milne and the Soviet Union.
Yep, their every utterance on the subject is in Mandy Rice-Davies territory. I'd have more respect for them (from a standing start of zero) if they just said it straight that despite unforeseen and painful consequences they still thought that on balance it was a worthwhile cause. Of course they would than have to fall back on the explicit WMD justification which even they realise is an unpolishable turd.
The big point I'm still on the fence about is whether they knew there were no WMDs. Was it an insidious process of spinning things in order to "tell the bosses what they want to hear" - which is so very common in life - or was it more of a bald lie? I'm inclined to the first but not by that much.
Written in an annoying hectoring style, but in there is an excellent reading list, though best to stick to the UK ones as US issues are quite distinct, and perhaps a few real classics of post colonial thought like Fanon's writings from the 1960s.
Did you follow the advice to buy from a "Black book shop"?
I hope you read some of the recommendations. You might find one or two nuggets that make you think a little differently about things. It's happened to you before - Brighton Uni etc - so this means you're the sort who is open to change. There's no reason why it can't happen again. And indeed again after that, at least one more time, bearing in mind you're only in middle age.
Prejudice, disadvantage and advantage happens in many forms and we should all be aware of biases and be empathetic. The idea of singling out one particular segmentation of society as "privileged" and people who need to be called out separately is deeply unpleasant. Especially when in many cases they perform worse than some of the "oppressed" racial groups.
I don't view it that way. I see it as an effort to counteract ingrained anti-white prejudice in the white dominated society of a country which was largely built on colonizing non-white peoples in non-white places. It's certainly no solution in itself, and I can see the pitfalls, and perhaps it doesn't have the net positive effect that I'd hope it would - maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, hard to measure - but regardless, even if it's counterproductive as some argue, I cannot feel angry or offended about it. To me, that is total snowflake. At the risk of setting bristles off, it's 'white fragility'. We rule the roost for centuries, then get all upset about even being asked to have a serious think about whether the legacy from this still endures.
"We rule the roost for centuries"?
At one time the left argued for class solidarity, but this kind of racial politics makes that impossible.
It doesn't in my view. It's complementary. It's the right who seek to equate fighting racism with forgetting about class. A bit rich since the right are not known for being intolerant of gaping class inequality.
Fighting racism is good.
Being racist in the name of fighting racism is bad.
I hope you read some of the recommendations. You might find one or two nuggets that make you think a little differently about things. It's happened to you before - Brighton Uni etc - so this means you're the sort who is open to change. There's no reason why it can't happen again. And indeed again after that, at least one more time, bearing in mind you're only in middle age.
Prejudice, disadvantage and advantage happens in many forms and we should all be aware of biases and be empathetic. The idea of singling out one particular segmentation of society as "privileged" and people who need to be called out separately is deeply unpleasant. Especially when in many cases they perform worse than some of the "oppressed" racial groups.
I don't view it that way. I see it as an effort to counteract ingrained anti-white prejudice in the white dominated society of a country which was largely built on colonizing non-white peoples in non-white places. It's certainly no solution in itself, and I can see the pitfalls, and perhaps it doesn't have the net positive effect that I'd hope it would - maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, hard to measure - but regardless, even if it's counterproductive as some argue, I cannot feel angry or offended about it. To me, that is total snowflake. At the risk of setting bristles off, it's 'white fragility'. We rule the roost for centuries, then get all upset about even being asked to have a serious think about whether the legacy from this still endures.
"We rule the roost for centuries"?
At one time the left argued for class solidarity, but this kind of racial politics makes that impossible.
It doesn't in my view. It's complementary. It's the right who seek to equate fighting racism with forgetting about class. A bit rich since the right are not known for being intolerant of gaping class inequality.
You just conveniently ignore the fact that several racial groups are higher in socioeconomic class than white people.
That's not relevant to my point of view. Thanks for your earlier and longer reply btw. I'll answer that in a minute if my battery holds up.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
It's an understanding with no link to actual data.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
Is there a distinction operating between residential and care homes somewhere, I wonder?
There used to be; there were Nursing Homes, largely staffed by nurses, and with a nurse manager. People who went in generally didn’t live very long, because they had life-ending problems. Then there were Residential Homes, without nursing staff ….although they were often managed by nurses, where people went who couldn’t,or didn’t wish to manage for themselves. All changed in the mid 90’s.
Thanks. Why? (the change I mean.)
Result of the NHS & Community Care Act 1990, as interpreted 1993.
We still have nursing and residential beds, as well as specialised housing places, so I don't know your point here.
I see Nadim Zahawi is coming under fire from incredulous journalists and anti-vaxxers for...checks notes... Outlining nearly 40 year old case law on Gillick Competence. Which is every day for teachers, social workers and health care. But appears to be a revelation to professional spouters.
I've always been impressed by him when he's on the tv.
Blunkett on R4 suggesting Iraq unconnected to subsequent Islamic radicalisation. Wanker.
To be fair to someone from the Labour Party, he's entirely correct.
Islamic radicalism isn't subsequent to Iraq, it preceded it.
Islam is already a pretty violent religion historically even without anything modern as most medieval religions are and it never underwent an Enlightenment.
Then to make matters worse, the Saudis for many decades have been using billions in oil revenues to promote the very violent and regressive Wahabbism around the globe.
The notion that we in the West are behind Islam being radical is entirely fallacious and egocentric.
In what form did radical Islam exist in Iraq pre 2001? What actions did the West take against the promotion of radical Islam by Saudi Arabia post 2001?
Blunkett on R4 suggesting Iraq unconnected to subsequent Islamic radicalisation. Wanker.
To be fair to someone from the Labour Party, he's entirely correct.
Islamic radicalism isn't subsequent to Iraq, it preceded it.
Islam is already a pretty violent religion historically even without anything modern as most medieval religions are and it never underwent an Enlightenment.
Then to make matters worse, the Saudis for many decades have been using billions in oil revenues to promote the very violent and regressive Wahabbism around the globe.
The notion that we in the West are behind Islam being radical is entirely fallacious and egocentric.
In what form did radical Islam exist in Iraq pre 2001? What actions did the West take against the promotion of radical Islam by Saudi Arabia post 2001?
Radical Islam existed in many forms around the globe pre 2001. Yes in Iraq it was largely suppressed by an evil dictatorial regime but that doesn't make it any less real around the globe.
We took no actions against Saudi Arabia in 2001 or onwards which was a mistake I have argued against for twenty years.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
Roughly agree in your time on care homes - residential is probably rather longer.
The number of multigenerational households has been increasing for quite a few years. Though there are boomerang kids as well as granny moving in.
If kids leave, Granny can fit in quite well into the space - the requirements are eventually either 2 decent reception rooms downstairs, or a convertible integral garage. Doable in most detached estate houses. Though in many areas of the country it is more about family living reasonably close together.
Dilnot estimated that 10% of elderly need the kind of long term residential care for years that gives the eye watering numbers that destroy any inheritance plans.
A cap would allow an insurance market but with no cap, as now, no insurer will touch the market as there is a possibility of huge sums being involved - maybe £400K or a lot more for say ten years of dementia care.
It is of course a total lottery whether one ends up being one of the 10%.
Indeed - which is why it needs to be done nationally.
Do any countries do it via insurance?
I had a feeling the Dutch do. When googling it i came across this. Seems the Dutch have a different model for at least some of the care work.
"The Buurtzorg model of care, developed by a social enterprise in the Netherlands in 2006, involves small teams of nursing staff providing a range of personal, social and clinical care to people in their own homes in a particular neighbourhood. There’s an emphasis on one or two staff working with each individual and their informal carers to access all the resources available in their social networks and neighbourhood to support them to be more independent."
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
It's an understanding with no link to actual data.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
Is there a distinction operating between residential and care homes somewhere, I wonder?
There used to be; there were Nursing Homes, largely staffed by nurses, and with a nurse manager. People who went in generally didn’t live very long, because they had life-ending problems. Then there were Residential Homes, without nursing staff ….although they were often managed by nurses, where people went who couldn’t,or didn’t wish to manage for themselves. All changed in the mid 90’s.
Thanks. Why? (the change I mean.)
Result of the NHS & Community Care Act 1990, as interpreted 1993.
We still have nursing and residential beds, as well as specialised housing places, so I don't know your point here.
Depends on the staff assigned to them. A nurse can look after a res. bed, but a care worker can’t. Grant you it gets complicated.
Blunkett on R4 suggesting Iraq unconnected to subsequent Islamic radicalisation. Wanker.
The doggedness with which some of these early century politicos cling to the notion that invading Iraq was a good idea is quite remarkable. It's as close to objective truth as these things can get that it wasn't. I'm oddly reminded of Seumus Milne and the Soviet Union.
Yep, their every utterance on the subject is in Mandy Rice-Davies territory. I'd have more respect for them (from a standing start of zero) if they just said it straight that despite unforeseen and painful consequences they still thought that on balance it was a worthwhile cause. Of course they would than have to fall back on the explicit WMD justification which even they realise is an unpolishable turd.
The big point I'm still on the fence about is whether they knew there were no WMDs. Was it an insidious process of spinning things in order to "tell the bosses what they want to hear" - which is so very common in life - or was it more of a bald lie? I'm inclined to the first but not by that much.
Of course it was a lie. Even the dossiers they published at the time to try and justify it did not to stand up to scrutiny.
Written in an annoying hectoring style, but in there is an excellent reading list, though best to stick to the UK ones as US issues are quite distinct, and perhaps a few real classics of post colonial thought like Fanon's writings from the 1960s.
Did you follow the advice to buy from a "Black book shop"?
Some yes. Indeed I find browsing bookshops in Africa and Caribbean quite interesting, as I run across some works there that we don't often see here, with very different perspectives. I have a small collection of atlases from these places too, with though provoking differences in focus and projections. I acquired my copy of "Lords of Poverty" and "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa" this way.
We used to have a very good radical bookshop in Leicester called Days of Hope (nicknamed Haze of Dope), but sadly gone now. On the other hand the Internet allows access to many radical writings.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
Roughly agree in your time on care homes - residential is probably rather longer.
The number of multigenerational households has been increasing for quite a few years. Though there are boomerang kids as well as granny moving in.
If kids leave, Granny can fit in quite well into the space - the requirements are eventually either 2 decent reception rooms downstairs, or a convertible integral garage. Doable in most detached estate houses. Though in many areas of the country it is more about family living reasonably close together.
Dilnot estimated that 10% of elderly need the kind of long term residential care for years that gives the eye watering numbers that destroy any inheritance plans.
A cap would allow an insurance market but with no cap, as now, no insurer will touch the market as there is a possibility of huge sums being involved - maybe £400K or a lot more for say ten years of dementia care.
It is of course a total lottery whether one ends up being one of the 10%.
Indeed - which is why it needs to be done nationally.
Do any countries do it via insurance?
I had a feeling the Dutch do. When googling it i came across this. Seems the Dutch have a different model for at least some of the care work.
"The Buurtzorg model of care, developed by a social enterprise in the Netherlands in 2006, involves small teams of nursing staff providing a range of personal, social and clinical care to people in their own homes in a particular neighbourhood. There’s an emphasis on one or two staff working with each individual and their informal carers to access all the resources available in their social networks and neighbourhood to support them to be more independent."
Of course the range of options the Dutch provides includes euthanasia. I've known a couple of former colleagues avail themselves of this after being diagnosed with different nasty and unpleasant diseases.
PB at it's finest, a bunch of middle aged white men explaining to a black woman how to write about racism properly.
If black people are being racist should that be called out or not?
Tell me about a time you've experienced racism.
Your post just now judging people by the colour of their skin. That's racist.
How did it make you feel?
It made me metaphorically roll my eyes.
I don't like racism or racists. It's a shame your so content to be a racist yourself.
Yes I thought you were using it as an opportunity to win an argument on the internet rather than it being a pervasive part of your life. Well done you.
Blunkett on R4 suggesting Iraq unconnected to subsequent Islamic radicalisation. Wanker.
The doggedness with which some of these early century politicos cling to the notion that invading Iraq was a good idea is quite remarkable. It's as close to objective truth as these things can get that it wasn't. I'm oddly reminded of Seumus Milne and the Soviet Union.
Yep, their every utterance on the subject is in Mandy Rice-Davies territory. I'd have more respect for them (from a standing start of zero) if they just said it straight that despite unforeseen and painful consequences they still thought that on balance it was a worthwhile cause. Of course they would than have to fall back on the explicit WMD justification which even they realise is an unpolishable turd.
The big point I'm still on the fence about is whether they knew there were no WMDs. Was it an insidious process of spinning things in order to "tell the bosses what they want to hear" - which is so very common in life - or was it more of a bald lie? I'm inclined to the first but not by that much.
No they didn't know and it was Saddam Hussein's fault.
He was deliberately uncooperative despite his legal obligations. He deliberately wanted what could be termed creative ambiguities.
He didn't want the west to have proof that he had the weapons, since that would be a Casus Belli. But not did he want his potential domestic and neighbouring enemies to know for certain he didn't have them, since that would make him weaker.
He created the uncertainty on purpose and it worked until it didn't.
PB at it's finest, a bunch of middle aged white men explaining to a black woman how to write about racism properly.
If black people are being racist should that be called out or not?
Tell me about a time you've experienced racism.
Your post just now judging people by the colour of their skin. That's racist.
How did it make you feel?
It made me metaphorically roll my eyes.
I don't like racism or racists. It's a shame your so content to be a racist yourself.
Yes I thought you were using it as an opportunity to win an argument on the internet rather than it being a pervasive part of your life. Well done you.
Mission accomplished.
Stop being racist and I won't have to call you out for being racist.
Blunkett on R4 suggesting Iraq unconnected to subsequent Islamic radicalisation. Wanker.
The doggedness with which some of these early century politicos cling to the notion that invading Iraq was a good idea is quite remarkable. It's as close to objective truth as these things can get that it wasn't. I'm oddly reminded of Seumus Milne and the Soviet Union.
Yep, their every utterance on the subject is in Mandy Rice-Davies territory. I'd have more respect for them (from a standing start of zero) if they just said it straight that despite unforeseen and painful consequences they still thought that on balance it was a worthwhile cause. Of course they would than have to fall back on the explicit WMD justification which even they realise is an unpolishable turd.
The big point I'm still on the fence about is whether they knew there were no WMDs. Was it an insidious process of spinning things in order to "tell the bosses what they want to hear" - which is so very common in life - or was it more of a bald lie? I'm inclined to the first but not by that much.
Of course it was a lie. Even the dossiers they published at the time to try and justify it did not to stand up to scrutiny.
Who is "they"? Tony Blair seems to have believed Saddam had WMDs but then so did the late and possibly murdered Dr David Kelly, and the Americans. Part of the confusion was due to Iraq playing two simultaneous but opposing games of political poker. To the West and the UN, we have no WMDs, but to Iran, we have lots of WMDs and will wipe out Tehran if attacked. It was Kelly's allegation that the 45 minute claim was false, and the report had been "sexed up" by its inclusion (by who, is another kettle of fish). At least, that is my memory of it without checking the Chilcot inquiry. So far as I know, Tony Blair still believes invading Iraq to topple Saddam was the right thing, irrespective of WMDs.
PB at it's finest, a bunch of middle aged white men explaining to a black woman how to write about racism properly.
If black people are being racist should that be called out or not?
Tell me about a time you've experienced racism.
Your post just now judging people by the colour of their skin. That's racist.
How did it make you feel?
It made me metaphorically roll my eyes.
I don't like racism or racists. It's a shame your so content to be a racist yourself.
Yes I thought you were using it as an opportunity to win an argument on the internet rather than it being a pervasive part of your life. Well done you.
Mission accomplished.
Stop being racist and I won't have to call you out for being racist.
I'm sure we'll all sleep easier knowing Philip Thompson is on the case.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
It's an understanding with no link to actual data.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
Is there a distinction operating between residential and care homes somewhere, I wonder?
There used to be; there were Nursing Homes, largely staffed by nurses, and with a nurse manager. People who went in generally didn’t live very long, because they had life-ending problems. Then there were Residential Homes, without nursing staff ….although they were often managed by nurses, where people went who couldn’t,or didn’t wish to manage for themselves. All changed in the mid 90’s.
Distinction still exists. Cost difference is around 25-30%.
What is the difference between a residential care home and a nursing home? Both nursing homes and residential care homes provide care and support 24 hours a day, however the main difference is that a nursing home is able to provide a higher level of care.
This also means that nursing homes can be significantly more expensive, depending on what type of care you need.
The average weekly cost of residential care across the UK is £704, whereas the average cost of living in a nursing home is £888.
These figures are only averages, and fees vary depending on where you live, with London being the most expensive, and what level of care you need.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
Roughly agree in your time on care homes - residential is probably rather longer.
The number of multigenerational households has been increasing for quite a few years. Though there are boomerang kids as well as granny moving in.
If kids leave, Granny can fit in quite well into the space - the requirements are eventually either 2 decent reception rooms downstairs, or a convertible integral garage. Doable in most detached estate houses. Though in many areas of the country it is more about family living reasonably close together.
Dilnot estimated that 10% of elderly need the kind of long term residential care for years that gives the eye watering numbers that destroy any inheritance plans.
A cap would allow an insurance market but with no cap, as now, no insurer will touch the market as there is a possibility of huge sums being involved - maybe £400K or a lot more for say ten years of dementia care.
It is of course a total lottery whether one ends up being one of the 10%.
Indeed - which is why it needs to be done nationally.
Do any countries do it via insurance?
I had a feeling the Dutch do. When googling it i came across this. Seems the Dutch have a different model for at least some of the care work.
"The Buurtzorg model of care, developed by a social enterprise in the Netherlands in 2006, involves small teams of nursing staff providing a range of personal, social and clinical care to people in their own homes in a particular neighbourhood. There’s an emphasis on one or two staff working with each individual and their informal carers to access all the resources available in their social networks and neighbourhood to support them to be more independent."
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
It's an understanding with no link to actual data.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
Is there a distinction operating between residential and care homes somewhere, I wonder?
There used to be; there were Nursing Homes, largely staffed by nurses, and with a nurse manager. People who went in generally didn’t live very long, because they had life-ending problems. Then there were Residential Homes, without nursing staff ….although they were often managed by nurses, where people went who couldn’t,or didn’t wish to manage for themselves. All changed in the mid 90’s.
Thanks. Why? (the change I mean.)
Result of the NHS & Community Care Act 1990, as interpreted 1993.
We still have nursing and residential beds, as well as specialised housing places, so I don't know your point here.
Depends on the staff assigned to them. A nurse can look after a res. bed, but a care worker can’t. Grant you it gets complicated.
I think a care worker can provide care services but not medical services, is the practical distinction.
That's even how it works in hospital. You don't need to be given breakfast or taken to the loo by a qualified nurse, but I expect that only nurses have a key to the drug cabinet.
In paying for a care home, there is a distinction between "hotel services" (ie living there) and medical services, which are on the NHS for normal people. It gets more complicated when you get into things like VAT on the supply side, as it depends on how the home is incorporated.
PB at it's finest, a bunch of middle aged white men explaining to a black woman how to write about racism properly.
Firstly, it shouldn't matter what type of people are discussing an issue. Secondly, I don't know how anyone knows what type of people are on here since we can't see them.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
It's an understanding with no link to actual data.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
Is there a distinction operating between residential and care homes somewhere, I wonder?
There used to be; there were Nursing Homes, largely staffed by nurses, and with a nurse manager. People who went in generally didn’t live very long, because they had life-ending problems. Then there were Residential Homes, without nursing staff ….although they were often managed by nurses, where people went who couldn’t,or didn’t wish to manage for themselves. All changed in the mid 90’s.
Distinction still exists. Cost difference is around 25-30%.
What is the difference between a residential care home and a nursing home? Both nursing homes and residential care homes provide care and support 24 hours a day, however the main difference is that a nursing home is able to provide a higher level of care.
This also means that nursing homes can be significantly more expensive, depending on what type of care you need.
The average weekly cost of residential care across the UK is £704, whereas the average cost of living in a nursing home is £888.
These figures are only averages, and fees vary depending on where you live, with London being the most expensive, and what level of care you need.
Date is August 2021, which is why I remarked earlier than £60k a year is a London / SE local / gold plating issue.
Also don't forget these are averages. Self funders paying for their own care will often pay much more than those for whom their care is paid for by the local authority. So £1,200 a week for a self funders in London is entirely plausible.
1. Nursing care, be that in your own home, in specially designed accommodation, in care homes, nursing homes, or hospital; 2. Social care; 3. Accommodation.
There are five general sources of funding:
1. NHS (DHSC) 2. Benefits (DWP) 3. Local authorities (DCHLG/local tax) 4. The individual. 5. Charity and voluntary sectors (inc. hospices)
The current system:
1. The NHS funds nursing care on a needs-based system.
2. The NHS also arranges and funds some social care for people with long-term complex health needs. We are generally speaking here about people with a non-age-related condition (although they may also have age-related conditions) such as those with severe learning disabilities. Generally speaking this care is delivered through specialist accommodation which may or may not also be funded by the NHS, DWP or LA.
3. Most social care however is delivered privately or via a LA. The NHS provides some central funding to LAs for social care and the extent of this central funding, compared to other local authority options for care, has been the most often discussed element of the overall funding landscape in the last few years in the age of austerity.
4. LA funding is means tested on a wealth basis and can be in your own home or in other accommodation. Many people who receive social care are also eligible for one or more benefits or pension, which are means tested to varying degrees (generally based on income not wealth) and can have a needs-based element.
5. If you receive care outside your own home, you should consider that your accommodation costs will be separate (so called "hotel" costs - that is, bed and board). This was discussed a lot in the 1990s because the emphasis on hospitals as a place for nursing care meant that nursing patients also received their accommodation for free.
6. My understanding is that the proposed cap will not cover hotel costs whereas a fully funded model of social care would, I assume, also cover this.
Therefore when you consider the costs which would be covered by the cap make sure you are not including hotel costs and recall that there will be types of accommodation for whom the social care aspect is really secondary and the main service is accommodation (inc. many retirement villages and similar).
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
It's an understanding with no link to actual data.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
Is there a distinction operating between residential and care homes somewhere, I wonder?
There used to be; there were Nursing Homes, largely staffed by nurses, and with a nurse manager. People who went in generally didn’t live very long, because they had life-ending problems. Then there were Residential Homes, without nursing staff ….although they were often managed by nurses, where people went who couldn’t,or didn’t wish to manage for themselves. All changed in the mid 90’s.
Distinction still exists. Cost difference is around 25-30%.
What is the difference between a residential care home and a nursing home? Both nursing homes and residential care homes provide care and support 24 hours a day, however the main difference is that a nursing home is able to provide a higher level of care.
This also means that nursing homes can be significantly more expensive, depending on what type of care you need.
The average weekly cost of residential care across the UK is £704, whereas the average cost of living in a nursing home is £888.
These figures are only averages, and fees vary depending on where you live, with London being the most expensive, and what level of care you need.
Date is August 2021, which is why I remarked earlier than £60k a year is a London / SE local / gold plated service issue.
Yes, that is the difference. In England there is a distinction between "personal care" which is paid for by the individual, unless down to the limit, and "nursing care" which may be paid by the state, following an assessment.
In Scotland "personal care" is funded independently of income, depending on a needs assessment.
We could do worse than copy our Scottish cousins, and it would be interesting to see how Scots feel about an NI rise, for something that they can get already.
Lizzy Truss has just secured a veg trade deal with the Ukraine . They apparently have an abundance of giant carrots and cabbage at a place called Chernobyl
You mean it's the nucleus of a good deal?
You mean you, of all people, missed her election winning slogan - In Lizzy We Trusst
Where is Labour, "sceptical" about the plans, great.
But where is their plan, ffs this is so easy.
Wealth tax => fund social care.
Still think your Labour lead this year is a winner?
I do.
FWIW as a Tory activist, I am pretty certain you'll win that bet but of course it won't mean anything about the result of the next election.
That would be true in the same way that the Tory lead in the polls in mid-1961 revealed very little re- the outcome of the 1964 election - or indeed that the big Tory lead at the beginning of 1989 did of the 1992 election. The huge continuing Labour lead in early 1999 also was way off the 2001 election result.
EdM’s Labour led Cammo’s Tories on VI for years
Indeed - but that lead was too early in the 2010 Parliament and fell away when UKIP gained momentum in 2013. It is when the governing party falls behind in years 3 and 4 of a Parliament that it tends to face problems recovering sufficiently to win re-election. In the 1959 Parliament the Tories led continuously until Autumn 1961 then fell well behind in 1962 and 1963. They recovered strongly over the summer of 1964 but still lost the election in October. In the 1987 Parliament the Tories were ahead until May 1989 but then slumped badly with Labour leads as high as 20% being recorded in 1990. They solved the problem by ditching Thatcher in November that year and were narrowly re-elected under the new leader in April 1992.
As the Tory vote leads grow, the fact is everything they do is vote winning. Labour get within six, shoot another Alpaca.
PB at it's finest, a bunch of middle aged white men explaining to a black woman how to write about racism properly.
Firstly, it shouldn't matter what type of people are discussing an issue. Secondly, I don't know how anyone knows what type of people are on here since we can't see them.
While I am sure they do exist, finding a non white person who wants to spend their Sunday afternoon putting forward the ‘won’t someone think of the white people’ angle in a online discussion about racism seems somewhat improbable.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
It's an understanding with no link to actual data.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
Is there a distinction operating between residential and care homes somewhere, I wonder?
There used to be; there were Nursing Homes, largely staffed by nurses, and with a nurse manager. People who went in generally didn’t live very long, because they had life-ending problems. Then there were Residential Homes, without nursing staff ….although they were often managed by nurses, where people went who couldn’t,or didn’t wish to manage for themselves. All changed in the mid 90’s.
Distinction still exists. Cost difference is around 25-30%.
What is the difference between a residential care home and a nursing home? Both nursing homes and residential care homes provide care and support 24 hours a day, however the main difference is that a nursing home is able to provide a higher level of care.
This also means that nursing homes can be significantly more expensive, depending on what type of care you need.
The average weekly cost of residential care across the UK is £704, whereas the average cost of living in a nursing home is £888.
These figures are only averages, and fees vary depending on where you live, with London being the most expensive, and what level of care you need.
Date is August 2021, which is why I remarked earlier than £60k a year is a London / SE local / gold plating issue.
Also don't forget these are averages. Self funders paying for their own care will often pay much more than those for whom their care is paid for by the local authority. So £1,200 a week for a self funders in London is entirely plausible.
You can request to have the care organised by the LA and thus benefit from their negotiated rates whilst still funding it yourself.
I personally think it's ridiculous that LAs deal with this sort of thing. It should be a health body - allowing the council to focus on actual council things.
I've heard two things about the NHS. I've heard offensive Wokeness like that, and I've also heard from a black friend of mine I used to work with that she thinks the NHS is racist - and they've never promoted her black husband.
Where is Labour, "sceptical" about the plans, great.
But where is their plan, ffs this is so easy.
Wealth tax => fund social care.
Still think your Labour lead this year is a winner?
I do.
FWIW as a Tory activist, I am pretty certain you'll win that bet but of course it won't mean anything about the result of the next election.
That would be true in the same way that the Tory lead in the polls in mid-1961 revealed very little re- the outcome of the 1964 election - or indeed that the big Tory lead at the beginning of 1989 did of the 1992 election. The huge continuing Labour lead in early 1999 also was way off the 2001 election result.
EdM’s Labour led Cammo’s Tories on VI for years
Indeed - but that lead was too early in the 2010 Parliament and fell away when UKIP gained momentum in 2013. It is when the governing party falls behind in years 3 and 4 of a Parliament that it tends to face problems recovering sufficiently to win re-election. In the 1959 Parliament the Tories led continuously until Autumn 1961 then fell well behind in 1962 and 1963. They recovered strongly over the summer of 1964 but still lost the election in October. In the 1987 Parliament the Tories were ahead until May 1989 but then slumped badly with Labour leads as high as 20% being recorded in 1990. They solved the problem by ditching Thatcher in November that year and were narrowly re-elected under the new leader in April 1992.
As the Tory vote leads grow, the fact is everything they do is vote winning. Labour get within six, shoot another Alpaca.
Labour was ahead for several months in late 2020 and the beginning of 2021. The Tory lead appears to have fallen back relative to a few months ago and we are seeing a few polls now pointing toa Hung Parliament.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
It's an understanding with no link to actual data.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
Is there a distinction operating between residential and care homes somewhere, I wonder?
There used to be; there were Nursing Homes, largely staffed by nurses, and with a nurse manager. People who went in generally didn’t live very long, because they had life-ending problems. Then there were Residential Homes, without nursing staff ….although they were often managed by nurses, where people went who couldn’t,or didn’t wish to manage for themselves. All changed in the mid 90’s.
Distinction still exists. Cost difference is around 25-30%.
What is the difference between a residential care home and a nursing home? Both nursing homes and residential care homes provide care and support 24 hours a day, however the main difference is that a nursing home is able to provide a higher level of care.
This also means that nursing homes can be significantly more expensive, depending on what type of care you need.
The average weekly cost of residential care across the UK is £704, whereas the average cost of living in a nursing home is £888.
These figures are only averages, and fees vary depending on where you live, with London being the most expensive, and what level of care you need.
Date is August 2021, which is why I remarked earlier than £60k a year is a London / SE local / gold plated service issue.
Yes, that is the difference. In England there is a distinction between "personal care" which is paid for by the individual, unless down to the limit, and "nursing care" which may be paid by the state, following an assessment.
In Scotland "personal care" is funded independently of income, depending on a needs assessment.
We could do worse than copy our Scottish cousins, and it would be interesting to see how Scots feel about an NI rise, for something that they can get already.
Care - you'll trigger our PBTories even more. But the point about NI rise is a good one. It should feed into the budget as a Barnett consequential anyway, so no doubt the Government can find other things to do with the money they'd previously spent on 'personal care', or just fill some more gaps.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
It's an understanding with no link to actual data.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
Is there a distinction operating between residential and care homes somewhere, I wonder?
There used to be; there were Nursing Homes, largely staffed by nurses, and with a nurse manager. People who went in generally didn’t live very long, because they had life-ending problems. Then there were Residential Homes, without nursing staff ….although they were often managed by nurses, where people went who couldn’t,or didn’t wish to manage for themselves. All changed in the mid 90’s.
Distinction still exists. Cost difference is around 25-30%.
What is the difference between a residential care home and a nursing home? Both nursing homes and residential care homes provide care and support 24 hours a day, however the main difference is that a nursing home is able to provide a higher level of care.
This also means that nursing homes can be significantly more expensive, depending on what type of care you need.
The average weekly cost of residential care across the UK is £704, whereas the average cost of living in a nursing home is £888.
These figures are only averages, and fees vary depending on where you live, with London being the most expensive, and what level of care you need.
Date is August 2021, which is why I remarked earlier than £60k a year is a London / SE local / gold plating issue.
Also don't forget these are averages. Self funders paying for their own care will often pay much more than those for whom their care is paid for by the local authority. So £1,200 a week for a self funders in London is entirely plausible.
You can request to have the care organised by the LA and thus benefit from their negotiated rates whilst still funding it yourself.
I personally think it's ridiculous that LAs deal with this sort of thing. It should be a health body - allowing the council to focus on actual council things.
Councils used to run workhouses, which included last resort places to put the elderly and incapable. I imagine it is a remnant of that thinking.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
It's an understanding with no link to actual data.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
Is there a distinction operating between residential and care homes somewhere, I wonder?
There used to be; there were Nursing Homes, largely staffed by nurses, and with a nurse manager. People who went in generally didn’t live very long, because they had life-ending problems. Then there were Residential Homes, without nursing staff ….although they were often managed by nurses, where people went who couldn’t,or didn’t wish to manage for themselves. All changed in the mid 90’s.
Distinction still exists. Cost difference is around 25-30%.
What is the difference between a residential care home and a nursing home? Both nursing homes and residential care homes provide care and support 24 hours a day, however the main difference is that a nursing home is able to provide a higher level of care.
This also means that nursing homes can be significantly more expensive, depending on what type of care you need.
The average weekly cost of residential care across the UK is £704, whereas the average cost of living in a nursing home is £888.
These figures are only averages, and fees vary depending on where you live, with London being the most expensive, and what level of care you need.
Date is August 2021, which is why I remarked earlier than £60k a year is a London / SE local / gold plating issue.
Also don't forget these are averages. Self funders paying for their own care will often pay much more than those for whom their care is paid for by the local authority. So £1,200 a week for a self funders in London is entirely plausible.
You can request to have the care organised by the LA and thus benefit from their negotiated rates whilst still funding it yourself.
I personally think it's ridiculous that LAs deal with this sort of thing. It should be a health body - allowing the council to focus on actual council things.
Councils used to run workhouses, which included last resort places to put the elderly and incapable. I imagine it is a remnant of that thinking.
I feel Council's should have their remit greatly reduced so they can focus on actually running localities effectively.
I hope you read some of the recommendations. You might find one or two nuggets that make you think a little differently about things. It's happened to you before - Brighton Uni etc - so this means you're the sort who is open to change. There's no reason why it can't happen again. And indeed again after that, at least one more time, bearing in mind you're only in middle age.
Prejudice, disadvantage and advantage happens in many forms and we should all be aware of biases and be empathetic. The idea of singling out one particular segmentation of society as "privileged" and people who need to be called out separately is deeply unpleasant. Especially when in many cases they perform worse than some of the "oppressed" racial groups.
I don't view it that way. I see it as an effort to counteract ingrained anti-white prejudice in the white dominated society of a country which was largely built on colonizing non-white peoples in non-white places. It's certainly no solution in itself, and I can see the pitfalls, and perhaps it doesn't have the net positive effect that I'd hope it would - maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, hard to measure - but regardless, even if it's counterproductive as some argue, I cannot feel angry or offended about it. To me, that is total snowflake. At the risk of setting bristles off, it's 'white fragility'. We rule the roost for centuries, then get all upset about even being asked to have a serious think about whether the legacy from this still endures.
The UK was not built on colonizing other places. The vast majority of its wealth came from its own internal developments, funded by investment from internal capital and based on selling to people in this country.
The ridiculous "we" in "rule the roost for centuries" is also based on some warped "the son inherits the sins of the father" bullshit. Your typical white Briton has not ruled the roost. And most of them didn't even have ancestors that did, given a small noble class did. Meanwhile there are non-white Britons that are descendants of Arab sheikhs and Nigerian oil barons, who have indeed ruled the roost in recent memory. Far more than some white kid growing up in poor parts of Cornwall or Glasgow.
So what you are doing is basically ignoring the actual practical, multifaceted nature of privilege, dismissing people's actual experiences but grouping them as members of their racial group with collective guilt. It is a deeply illiberal, tribal mindset and is reversing the great Enlightenment principles that made the West such a successful place.
Colonialist exploitation of other parts of the world is not the full story of Britain - it doesn't define us - but you're kidding yourself if you think it isn't a significant factor in the country as it is today, both culturally and financially. That our prosperity is to a large extent a consequence of it isn't really a political point, it's recognized by left and right.
The "we" meant white people, of which I'm one. Nothing ridiculous there, just a straightforward use of language. And no, I'm in no way inferring that people such as me, just because I'm white, should feel a searing sense of personal guilt about Britain's imperial past. That would be toxic. And yes of course, people are individuals and should be treated as such. I can't for the life of me see where I'm suggesting otherwise.
This for me is not about anything other than what I said it's about for me. I think we have a legacy of ingrained white supremacy in our society, from our history, and invitations for us to think about this, to stop and consider the matter, maybe see truth in it in some ways, maybe reject it in others, whatever, simply do not make me angry or offend me. On the contrary, it's where I think some effort should be focused. The law is largely done. Discrimination and hate speech is illegal.
None of this is to deny or ignore other things. For example, it's obviously true that there are white people in Britain who are dirt poor and shat upon, just as there are non-white people who live a life of power and luxury. So what. It's not relevant to the issue as I'm seeing and framing it. It certainly doesn't contradict 'white privilege'. White privilege doesn't mean all white people live lives of privilege cradle to grave. Or that all white people are better off than all non-white people. It means white people here do not, by and large, have to worry about being discriminated against on the basis of ethnicity.
I'm not trying to explain the world here, Aslan. I just think racism is NOT sorted, far from it, and that this so-called "woke" thinking is, on balance and for all the friction it generates, mainly imo in people who wish to avoid the problem, or pretend there isn't one, I think it's a positive thing. I don't get pissed off with it, don't laugh at it, don't use it as a vehicle for cheap as chips jokes, I welcome it.
I've heard two things about the NHS. I've heard offensive Wokeness like that, and I've also heard from a black friend of mine I used to work with that she thinks the NHS is racist - and they've never promoted her black husband.
I bet it's the same people doing both.
I ma quite convinced that Constable Savage is alive and well, having passed all his consciousness raising courses.
He is now arresting black people for order their coffee... black.
How many more times can they kick social care policy announcement into touch? The current policy of Blair’s already out there is Dementia Tax don’t forget. The vote loser is do nothing.
Has HY commented whether he can sell this on the doorstep?
HY has time now to get out on the doorstep. I wonder if he will try to come back.
HY, welcome back, I have always read and learnt from your posts, 99% honest Joe answers, informed too.
What it harder sell on doorstep HY - extra money for NHS to clear COVID backlogs, and stop loved ones waiting years in pain, gall stones etc, as any tax rise will be sold, because of course when promises were made COVID and the chaos it’s caused to waiting for care was never imagined, to stick to out of date promise and leave people in pain for years and years is actually easier to sell?
Or is the do nothing yet again on Social Care, kick it in the long grass, leave the status quo with all its hideous faults the less damaging of the Key promises broken? Really?
PB at it's finest, a bunch of middle aged white men explaining to a black woman how to write about racism properly.
If black people are being racist should that be called out or not?
Tell me about a time you've experienced racism.
Your post just now judging people by the colour of their skin. That's racist.
How did it make you feel?
It made me metaphorically roll my eyes.
I don't like racism or racists. It's a shame your so content to be a racist yourself.
Yes I thought you were using it as an opportunity to win an argument on the internet rather than it being a pervasive part of your life. Well done you.
Mission accomplished.
Stop being racist and I won't have to call you out for being racist.
I'm sure we'll all sleep easier knowing Philip Thompson is on the case.
He's called you out, and you can't handle it.
I'm not impressed by posts like yours. They make me think you're trying to cover yourself, not that you have deep understanding and enlightened engagement with all the issues like you want people to think.
1. Nursing care, be that in your own home, in specially designed accommodation, in care homes, nursing homes, or hospital; 2. Social care; 3. Accommodation.
There are five general sources of funding:
1. NHS (DHSC) 2. Benefits (DWP) 3. Local authorities (DCHLG/local tax) 4. The individual. 5. Charity and voluntary sectors (inc. hospices)
The current system:
1. The NHS funds nursing care on a needs-based system.
This is a highly debatable statement. You are referring to NHS Continuing Care.
NHS Continuing Care is not an easy process to go through or to understand.
What is certainly true, is that many, many dementia patients are not assessed as eligible for NHS Continuing Care.
My experience on behalf of a family member is that you need skilful, educated and articulate people willing to argue repeatedly on your behalf, to prepare documents and appeals.
If you don't have family members on the spot to argue for you (eligibility is re-appraised yearly), then you have little or no chance.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
It's an understanding with no link to actual data.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
Is there a distinction operating between residential and care homes somewhere, I wonder?
There used to be; there were Nursing Homes, largely staffed by nurses, and with a nurse manager. People who went in generally didn’t live very long, because they had life-ending problems. Then there were Residential Homes, without nursing staff ….although they were often managed by nurses, where people went who couldn’t,or didn’t wish to manage for themselves. All changed in the mid 90’s.
Distinction still exists. Cost difference is around 25-30%.
What is the difference between a residential care home and a nursing home? Both nursing homes and residential care homes provide care and support 24 hours a day, however the main difference is that a nursing home is able to provide a higher level of care.
This also means that nursing homes can be significantly more expensive, depending on what type of care you need.
The average weekly cost of residential care across the UK is £704, whereas the average cost of living in a nursing home is £888.
These figures are only averages, and fees vary depending on where you live, with London being the most expensive, and what level of care you need.
Date is August 2021, which is why I remarked earlier than £60k a year is a London / SE local / gold plating issue.
Also don't forget these are averages. Self funders paying for their own care will often pay much more than those for whom their care is paid for by the local authority. So £1,200 a week for a self funders in London is entirely plausible.
You can request to have the care organised by the LA and thus benefit from their negotiated rates whilst still funding it yourself.
I personally think it's ridiculous that LAs deal with this sort of thing. It should be a health body - allowing the council to focus on actual council things.
Councils used to run workhouses, which included last resort places to put the elderly and incapable. I imagine it is a remnant of that thinking.
The earliest councils were set up in the pre-1800s to take over the poor law unions. This would be well before the NHS and other charity hospitals I think.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
It's an understanding with no link to actual data.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
Is there a distinction operating between residential and care homes somewhere, I wonder?
There used to be; there were Nursing Homes, largely staffed by nurses, and with a nurse manager. People who went in generally didn’t live very long, because they had life-ending problems. Then there were Residential Homes, without nursing staff ….although they were often managed by nurses, where people went who couldn’t,or didn’t wish to manage for themselves. All changed in the mid 90’s.
Distinction still exists. Cost difference is around 25-30%.
What is the difference between a residential care home and a nursing home? Both nursing homes and residential care homes provide care and support 24 hours a day, however the main difference is that a nursing home is able to provide a higher level of care.
This also means that nursing homes can be significantly more expensive, depending on what type of care you need.
The average weekly cost of residential care across the UK is £704, whereas the average cost of living in a nursing home is £888.
These figures are only averages, and fees vary depending on where you live, with London being the most expensive, and what level of care you need.
Date is August 2021, which is why I remarked earlier than £60k a year is a London / SE local / gold plating issue.
Also don't forget these are averages. Self funders paying for their own care will often pay much more than those for whom their care is paid for by the local authority. So £1,200 a week for a self funders in London is entirely plausible.
You can request to have the care organised by the LA and thus benefit from their negotiated rates whilst still funding it yourself.
I personally think it's ridiculous that LAs deal with this sort of thing. It should be a health body - allowing the council to focus on actual council things.
Councils used to run workhouses, which included last resort places to put the elderly and incapable. I imagine it is a remnant of that thinking.
I feel Council's should have their remit greatly reduced so they can focus on actually running localities effectively.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
It's an understanding with no link to actual data.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
Is there a distinction operating between residential and care homes somewhere, I wonder?
There used to be; there were Nursing Homes, largely staffed by nurses, and with a nurse manager. People who went in generally didn’t live very long, because they had life-ending problems. Then there were Residential Homes, without nursing staff ….although they were often managed by nurses, where people went who couldn’t,or didn’t wish to manage for themselves. All changed in the mid 90’s.
Distinction still exists. Cost difference is around 25-30%.
What is the difference between a residential care home and a nursing home? Both nursing homes and residential care homes provide care and support 24 hours a day, however the main difference is that a nursing home is able to provide a higher level of care.
This also means that nursing homes can be significantly more expensive, depending on what type of care you need.
The average weekly cost of residential care across the UK is £704, whereas the average cost of living in a nursing home is £888.
These figures are only averages, and fees vary depending on where you live, with London being the most expensive, and what level of care you need.
Date is August 2021, which is why I remarked earlier than £60k a year is a London / SE local / gold plated service issue.
Yes, that is the difference. In England there is a distinction between "personal care" which is paid for by the individual, unless down to the limit, and "nursing care" which may be paid by the state, following an assessment.
In Scotland "personal care" is funded independently of income, depending on a needs assessment.
We could do worse than copy our Scottish cousins, and it would be interesting to see how Scots feel about an NI rise, for something that they can get already.
This also reminds me that there has been an independent review of social care in Scotland which recommends reorganizing into a national rather than local gmt service. I have not been keeping an eye on this so cannot say anything useful about it (!).
PB at it's finest, a bunch of middle aged white men explaining to a black woman how to write about racism properly.
If black people are being racist should that be called out or not?
Tell me about a time you've experienced racism.
Your post just now judging people by the colour of their skin. That's racist.
How did it make you feel?
It made me metaphorically roll my eyes.
I don't like racism or racists. It's a shame your so content to be a racist yourself.
Yes I thought you were using it as an opportunity to win an argument on the internet rather than it being a pervasive part of your life. Well done you.
Mission accomplished.
Stop being racist and I won't have to call you out for being racist.
I'm sure we'll all sleep easier knowing Philip Thompson is on the case.
He's called you out, and you can't handle it.
I'm not impressed by posts like yours. They make me think you're trying to cover yourself, not that you have deep understanding and enlightened engagement with all the issues like you want people to think.
No-one cares what impresses you, you pompous narcissist.
1. Nursing care, be that in your own home, in specially designed accommodation, in care homes, nursing homes, or hospital; 2. Social care; 3. Accommodation.
There are five general sources of funding:
1. NHS (DHSC) 2. Benefits (DWP) 3. Local authorities (DCHLG/local tax) 4. The individual. 5. Charity and voluntary sectors (inc. hospices)
The current system:
1. The NHS funds nursing care on a needs-based system.
This is a highly debatable statement. You are referring to NHS Continuing Care.
NHS Continuing Care is not an easy process to go through or to understand.
What is certainly true, is that many, many dementia patients are not assessed as eligible for NHS Continuing Care.
My experience on behalf of a family member is that you need skilful, educated and articulate people willing to argue repeatedly on your behalf, to prepare documents and appeals.
If you don't have family members on the spot to argue for you (eligibility is re-appraised yearly), then you have little or no chance.
I don't know if you quoted the right bit, but NHS Continuing Healthcare is point 2, that is, people with complex needs where the NHS is being asked to fund something that isn't 'just' nursing care. The NHS funds nursing care in nursing homes directly to the accommodation provider.
None of this is to deny or ignore other things. For example, it's obviously true that there are white people in Britain who are dirt poor and shat upon, just as there are non-white people who live a life of power and luxury. So what. It's not relevant to the issue as I'm seeing and framing it. It certainly doesn't contradict 'white privilege'. White privilege doesn't mean all white people live lives of privilege cradle to grave. Or that all white people are better off than all non-white people. It means white people here do not, by and large, have to worry about being discriminated against on the basis of ethnicity.
How do you avoid this becoming an argument for segregated ethno-states? Otherwise you will inevitably have majorities who have 'privilege' under this definition.
Dear me. If this is going on in public sector under Tories imagine what it would be like under Labour.
Tip. If anyone recommends you should read Robin Diangelo, Afua Hirsch, Renni Eddo-Lodge, Akala, or June Sarpong your antenna should immediately go up. It's a massive warning sign.
Suggesting those texts should be the core curriculum to learn about race is like suggesting you should read Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, John Stuart Mill and Noam Chomsky as your core curriculum to learn about economics.
PB at it's finest, a bunch of middle aged white men explaining to a black woman how to write about racism properly.
If black people are being racist should that be called out or not?
Tell me about a time you've experienced racism.
Your post just now judging people by the colour of their skin. That's racist.
How did it make you feel?
It made me metaphorically roll my eyes.
I don't like racism or racists. It's a shame your so content to be a racist yourself.
Yes I thought you were using it as an opportunity to win an argument on the internet rather than it being a pervasive part of your life. Well done you.
Mission accomplished.
Stop being racist and I won't have to call you out for being racist.
I'm sure we'll all sleep easier knowing Philip Thompson is on the case.
He's called you out, and you can't handle it.
I'm not impressed by posts like yours. They make me think you're trying to cover yourself, not that you have deep understanding and enlightened engagement with all the issues like you want people to think.
No-one cares what impresses you, you pompous narcissist.
None of this is to deny or ignore other things. For example, it's obviously true that there are white people in Britain who are dirt poor and shat upon, just as there are non-white people who live a life of power and luxury. So what. It's not relevant to the issue as I'm seeing and framing it. It certainly doesn't contradict 'white privilege'. White privilege doesn't mean all white people live lives of privilege cradle to grave. Or that all white people are better off than all non-white people. It means white people here do not, by and large, have to worry about being discriminated against on the basis of ethnicity.
How do you avoid this becoming an argument for segregated ethno-states? Otherwise you will inevitably have majorities who have 'privilege' under this definition.
I don't see the inevitability. It doesn't follow that a majority grouping have that privilege. Indeed the point of recognizing it is to help eliminate it.
None of this is to deny or ignore other things. For example, it's obviously true that there are white people in Britain who are dirt poor and shat upon, just as there are non-white people who live a life of power and luxury. So what. It's not relevant to the issue as I'm seeing and framing it. It certainly doesn't contradict 'white privilege'. White privilege doesn't mean all white people live lives of privilege cradle to grave. Or that all white people are better off than all non-white people. It means white people here do not, by and large, have to worry about being discriminated against on the basis of ethnicity.
How do you avoid this becoming an argument for segregated ethno-states? Otherwise you will inevitably have majorities who have 'privilege' under this definition.
He hasn't thought it through; he's just a typical Woke north-London left-liberal for whom this sort of woolly dogma is a core part of his identity.
None of this is to deny or ignore other things. For example, it's obviously true that there are white people in Britain who are dirt poor and shat upon, just as there are non-white people who live a life of power and luxury. So what. It's not relevant to the issue as I'm seeing and framing it. It certainly doesn't contradict 'white privilege'. White privilege doesn't mean all white people live lives of privilege cradle to grave. Or that all white people are better off than all non-white people. It means white people here do not, by and large, have to worry about being discriminated against on the basis of ethnicity.
How do you avoid this becoming an argument for segregated ethno-states? Otherwise you will inevitably have majorities who have 'privilege' under this definition.
He hasn't thought it through; he's just a typical Woke north-London left-liberal for whom this sort of woolly dogma is a core part of his identity.
I have my demerits but "not thinking things through" isn't one of them. I wish, in fact. It'd make life easier.
Mr. (Ms?) Moonshine, more than half of households have an Amazon Prime subscription? If true, that's an astonishing stat.
Shows how gullible the fools are. I wonder how many of them even know they've got one. Amazon pulls out all the stops to get buyers to give them a contract for Prime, including by encouraging the less wary and literate to think it's a way to get "free" shipping. The button saying "No thanks, I want to forgo all the benefits of Prime and I might get free shipping this way too but everyone in the world will think I'm a pauper or else very mean" is usually very grey and not at all colourful. Think of how a six-month old baby decides what baby books they prefer.
You cretinous halfwit , they pay for it and you have to physically purchase it.
You accidentally hit the wrong button when buying something and boom you're on the trial (which then will be billed if not cancelled).
You can cancel any time , you can return almost anything you purchase free of charge etc. Never had an issue and have returned many things. For me at £80 it is a bargain.
Yeah, easy to cancel. But that wasnt YoungTurk's point. They were saying it's very easy to accidentally sign up for it while ordering something.
I don't agree , it is very obvious and you can cancel Prime with one button press at any time, same as any regular order etc. YoungTurk is obviously not very bright or disingenious. I have had Prime since it came out and think it is very simple and find that if there are any mistakes or I don't like what I ordered , they take it back and pick it up free of charge as well. I may be lucky but doubt it.
It isn't very obvious, the button to continue without a prime trial is deliberately smaller and less prominent.
Comments
Case rates:
Eastbourne: 34
Perth: 458
The ridiculous "we" in "rule the roost for centuries" is also based on some warped "the son inherits the sins of the father" bullshit. Your typical white Briton has not ruled the roost. And most of them didn't even have ancestors that did, given a small noble class did. Meanwhile there are non-white Britons that are descendants of Arab sheikhs and Nigerian oil barons, who have indeed ruled the roost in recent memory. Far more than some white kid growing up in poor parts of Cornwall or Glasgow.
So what you are doing is basically ignoring the actual practical, multifaceted nature of privilege, dismissing people's actual experiences but grouping them as members of their racial group with collective guilt. It is a deeply illiberal, tribal mindset and is reversing the great Enlightenment principles that made the West such a successful place.
I seem to remember it's closer to 19 months but as I don't have the source of that to hand I was nt rushing to posf it.
At one time the left argued for class solidarity, but this kind of racial politics makes that impossible.
I'd have more respect for them (from a standing start of zero) if they just said it straight that despite unforeseen and painful consequences they still thought that on balance it was a worthwhile cause. Of course they would than have to fall back on the explicit WMD justification which even they realise is an unpolishable turd.
You can see it is a very biased distribution whereby the median nursing home resident spends 418 days but the mean average is 762 days.
The equivalent for residential, i.e. care, homes, is 665 and 981.
The paper is a little old but I don't expect them to have changed that much (although there may be a compositional effect).
Islamic radicalism isn't subsequent to Iraq, it preceded it.
Islam is already a pretty violent religion historically even without anything modern as most medieval religions are and it never underwent an Enlightenment.
Then to make matters worse, the Saudis for many decades have been using billions in oil revenues to promote the very violent and regressive Wahabbism around the globe.
The notion that we in the West are behind Islam being radical is entirely fallacious and egocentric.
Worth noting that a lot of social care is not age related, I have read figures of 50%, depending on definition.
Being racist in the name of fighting racism is bad.
We took no actions against Saudi Arabia in 2001 or onwards which was a mistake I have argued against for twenty years.
"The Buurtzorg model of care, developed by a social enterprise in the Netherlands in 2006, involves small teams of nursing staff providing a range of personal, social and clinical care to people in their own homes in a particular neighbourhood. There’s an emphasis on one or two staff working with each individual and their informal carers to access all the resources available in their social networks and neighbourhood to support them to be more independent."
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2019/09/buurtzorg-model-of-care
Grant you it gets complicated.
I don't like racism or racists. It's a shame your so content to be a racist yourself.
We used to have a very good radical bookshop in Leicester called Days of Hope (nicknamed Haze of Dope), but sadly gone now. On the other hand the Internet allows access to many radical writings.
He was deliberately uncooperative despite his legal obligations. He deliberately wanted what could be termed creative ambiguities.
He didn't want the west to have proof that he had the weapons, since that would be a Casus Belli. But not did he want his potential domestic and neighbouring enemies to know for certain he didn't have them, since that would make him weaker.
He created the uncertainty on purpose and it worked until it didn't.
Stop being racist and I won't have to call you out for being racist.
It is racist to judge people by the colour of their skin.
ETA @Philip_Thompson said it better and faster.
What is the difference between a residential care home and a nursing home?
Both nursing homes and residential care homes provide care and support 24 hours a day, however the main difference is that a nursing home is able to provide a higher level of care.
This also means that nursing homes can be significantly more expensive, depending on what type of care you need.
The average weekly cost of residential care across the UK is £704, whereas the average cost of living in a nursing home is £888.
These figures are only averages, and fees vary depending on where you live, with London being the most expensive, and what level of care you need.
As outlined above, nursing homes have qualified nurses on-site around the clock to provide medical care as needed whereas residential homes help people with personal care and support them to engage in physical activity
https://www.carehome.co.uk/advice/what-is-the-difference-between-a-care-home-and-a-nursing-home#:~:text=Sometimes, what people refer to,as a residential care home.&text=The main difference is that,site to provide medical care.
Date is August 2021, which is why I remarked earlier than £60k a year is a London / SE local / gold plated service issue.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/11/the-dutch-village-where-everyone-has-dementia/382195/
There is a 10 minute TED talk on it here:
https://youtu.be/YSZhrxOkBZI
That's even how it works in hospital. You don't need to be given breakfast or taken to the loo by a qualified nurse, but I expect that only nurses have a key to the drug cabinet.
In paying for a care home, there is a distinction between "hotel services" (ie living there) and medical services, which are on the NHS for normal people. It gets more complicated when you get into things like VAT on the supply side, as it depends on how the home is incorporated.
People receive three kinds of services:
1. Nursing care, be that in your own home, in specially designed accommodation, in care homes, nursing homes, or hospital;
2. Social care;
3. Accommodation.
There are five general sources of funding:
1. NHS (DHSC)
2. Benefits (DWP)
3. Local authorities (DCHLG/local tax)
4. The individual.
5. Charity and voluntary sectors (inc. hospices)
The current system:
1. The NHS funds nursing care on a needs-based system.
2. The NHS also arranges and funds some social care for people with long-term complex health needs. We are generally speaking here about people with a non-age-related condition (although they may also have age-related conditions) such as those with severe learning disabilities. Generally speaking this care is delivered through specialist accommodation which may or may not also be funded by the NHS, DWP or LA.
3. Most social care however is delivered privately or via a LA. The NHS provides some central funding to LAs for social care and the extent of this central funding, compared to other local authority options for care, has been the most often discussed element of the overall funding landscape in the last few years in the age of austerity.
4. LA funding is means tested on a wealth basis and can be in your own home or in other accommodation. Many people who receive social care are also eligible for one or more benefits or pension, which are means tested to varying degrees (generally based on income not wealth) and can have a needs-based element.
5. If you receive care outside your own home, you should consider that your accommodation costs will be separate (so called "hotel" costs - that is, bed and board). This was discussed a lot in the 1990s because the emphasis on hospitals as a place for nursing care meant that nursing patients also received their accommodation for free.
6. My understanding is that the proposed cap will not cover hotel costs whereas a fully funded model of social care would, I assume, also cover this.
Therefore when you consider the costs which would be covered by the cap make sure you are not including hotel costs and recall that there will be types of accommodation for whom the social care aspect is really secondary and the main service is accommodation (inc. many retirement villages and similar).
In Scotland "personal care" is funded independently of income, depending on a needs assessment.
https://www.mygov.scot/personal-nursing-care
We could do worse than copy our Scottish cousins, and it would be interesting to see how Scots feel about an NI rise, for something that they can get already.
I personally think it's ridiculous that LAs deal with this sort of thing. It should be a health body - allowing the council to focus on actual council things.
I bet it's the same people doing both.
F1: thankfully, not Monaco.
The "we" meant white people, of which I'm one. Nothing ridiculous there, just a straightforward use of language. And no, I'm in no way inferring that people such as me, just because I'm white, should feel a searing sense of personal guilt about Britain's imperial past. That would be toxic. And yes of course, people are individuals and should be treated as such. I can't for the life of me see where I'm suggesting otherwise.
This for me is not about anything other than what I said it's about for me. I think we have a legacy of ingrained white supremacy in our society, from our history, and invitations for us to think about this, to stop and consider the matter, maybe see truth in it in some ways, maybe reject it in others, whatever, simply do not make me angry or offend me. On the contrary, it's where I think some effort should be focused. The law is largely done. Discrimination and hate speech is illegal.
None of this is to deny or ignore other things. For example, it's obviously true that there are white people in Britain who are dirt poor and shat upon, just as there are non-white people who live a life of power and luxury. So what. It's not relevant to the issue as I'm seeing and framing it. It certainly doesn't contradict 'white privilege'. White privilege doesn't mean all white people live lives of privilege cradle to grave. Or that all white people are better off than all non-white people. It means white people here do not, by and large, have to worry about being discriminated against on the basis of ethnicity.
I'm not trying to explain the world here, Aslan. I just think racism is NOT sorted, far from it, and that this so-called "woke" thinking is, on balance and for all the friction it generates, mainly imo in people who wish to avoid the problem, or pretend there isn't one, I think it's a positive thing. I don't get pissed off with it, don't laugh at it, don't use it as a vehicle for cheap as chips jokes, I welcome it.
He is now arresting black people for order their coffee... black.
What it harder sell on doorstep HY - extra money for NHS to clear COVID backlogs, and stop loved ones waiting years in pain, gall stones etc, as any tax rise will be sold, because of course when promises were made COVID and the chaos it’s caused to waiting for care was never imagined, to stick to out of date promise and leave people in pain for years and years is actually easier to sell?
Or is the do nothing yet again on Social Care, kick it in the long grass, leave the status quo with all its hideous faults the less damaging of the Key promises broken? Really?
I'm not impressed by posts like yours. They make me think you're trying to cover yourself, not that you have deep understanding and enlightened engagement with all the issues like you want people to think.
NHS Continuing Care is not an easy process to go through or to understand.
What is certainly true, is that many, many dementia patients are not assessed as eligible for NHS Continuing Care.
My experience on behalf of a family member is that you need skilful, educated and articulate people willing to argue repeatedly on your behalf, to prepare documents and appeals.
If you don't have family members on the spot to argue for you (eligibility is re-appraised yearly), then you have little or no chance.
An omen for tonight when England face the might of *checks notes* Andorra.
The others are just the core Juche of CRT.
https://www.gov.scot/groups/independent-review-of-adult-social-care/
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2021/09/netherlands-post-race-analysis.html
2 James
6 Mings
5 Coady
3 Trippier
7 Bellingham
8 Henderson
4 Alexander-Arnold
10 Lingard
9 Bamford
11 Saka
BBC think TAA will play in midfield.
What I think about him is you are never 100% sure what his take will be on something.
NEW THREAD
Suggesting those texts should be the core curriculum to learn about race is like suggesting you should read Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, John Stuart Mill and Noam Chomsky as your core curriculum to learn about economics.