Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

[MrJonno]

How many pensioners require residential nursing homecare? You make it sound like an epidemic among the elderly.

There is who else is going to look after them, their families don't make me laugh. As the population gets older and older its going to be getting worse

According to
http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/s ... e-lowdown/

The Government estimates that when all these changes come in, about 1 in 6 of all the older people who need care, or about 100,000 individuals, will benefit to at least some extent from them by 2025.

Which I make to be 600 000 people in residential care by 2025

The Conservative government is actually moving in the right directions if you have assets of less than £118k you can basically get the state to pay for it, which is going to be no one who has a house.

If you do have a house there will be a lifetime cap on charges of £72000 which means if you want to keep your house you are going to have to have savings of somewhere around this and not just pour everything into house. If you don't have savings you are going to have to sell your underused 3 bedroom house to hopefully a family who actually needs it.

Not a big fan of the tories but in this I think they are actually making people think about their future and not their adult children

[Cormac]

The young are paying for the old pensions and medical care (even in the US). The elderly certainly haven't covered their own costs and that's while trying to survive on low wages in insecure jobs while paying a fortune to pay the rent/mortgage something the old never had to do

1. That is a remarkable assertion. Have you done the calculations that would ground it? Including the impact of inflation, the time value of money, and the opportunity cost to the state of not having had the benefit of their taxes over 45 years?

2. The elderly performed their end of the bargain with the state. They are entitled to expect the state to do the same.

3. Every generation faces multiple crises. If you think the elderly sailed through a comfortable existence, you are either very young and naive, or you are very ignorant.

1) You would have had to paid an awful lot of taxes cover what can easily be £100k+ to cover residential care, which simply hasnt happened. It's one thing sharing costs in something you can't plan for like ill health (no one can save enough to cover a heart attack or cancer) its another to expect the state to pay out for what is going to be inevitable ie going into a home

2) the elderly get a pension which I don't have a problem with, I do have an issue with them expecting care that costs magnitudes greater than that

3) People who grew up in the 40's and 50's had it easy, no wars to fight in (no Vietnam here), permanent work, piss cheap education and housing and we are all paying for it now. House prices are still 8-10 times average wages compared to 3 times through most of last century. They are that high because these people are objected to every possible attempt to building more houses as it would reduce the value of their own

1. Do you know how much a worker would pay in tax over a working life? Do you understand the effect of inflation over time? Do you understand the concept of time value of money?

2. Do you object to a national health service where healthcare is free at the point of need?

3. World War 2. Northern Ireland. Various colonial adventures. The union driven collapse of British Industry. The collapse of British steel and coal due to the rise of developing economies. Strikes, unemployment, and so on. Yep. They had it easy.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but didn't World War 2 happen in the 1940s?

Also, you have not yet explained why anyone would buy a house in your dystopia, if the government could take it anytime it liked.

Neither have you addressed the consequences of the rampant inflation that would ensue if everyone spent every spare penny immediately, not to mention the terrible instability the absence of savings would create.

[Cormac]

How many pensioners require residential nursing homecare? You make it sound like an epidemic among the elderly.

There is who else is going to look after them, their families don't make me laugh. As the population gets older and older its going to be getting worse

According to
http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/s ... e-lowdown/

The Government estimates that when all these changes come in, about 1 in 6 of all the older people who need care, or about 100,000 individuals, will benefit to at least some extent from them by 2025.

Which I make to be 600 000 people in residential care by 2025

The Conservative government is actually moving in the right directions if you have assets of less than £118k you can basically get the state to pay for it, which is going to be no one who has a house.

If you do have a house there will be a lifetime cap on charges of £72000 which means if you want to keep your house you are going to have to have savings of somewhere around this and not just pour everything into house. If you don't have savings you are going to have to sell your underused 3 bedroom house to hopefully a family who actually needs it.

Not a big fan of the tories but in this I think they are actually making people think about their future and not their adult children

Interesting how you've abandoned the principle of free universal healthcare, or is it just that you think old people shouldn't be included in "Universal"?

Maybe we should exclude smokers too.

I'm sure we could come up with other people who've paid taxes that we could exclude...

[MrJonno]

How many adults are still alive in fought in WW2, not an awful lot, if you were 18 in 1945 you are now 86 and mostly male. How many pensioners are this age?

I never said the government should take your house, I said they shouldn't give you large amounts of money if you own one. The consequence is you may well have to sell it on economic grounds but that's hardly at gun point

May have noticed the only inflation of any consequences is house prices (something that doesn't get included in most official figures). Getting people to spend is exactly what the economy needs even if there is a risk of inflation

[MrJonno]

Universal care : its a shared risk so I support universal care it. Someone people will need very little someone will need more than any individual could afford

Ending up in a residential home is in the end going to be certainty very different matter

[Jason]

I never said the government should take your house, I said they shouldn't give you large amounts of money if you own one. The consequence is you may well have to sell it on economic grounds but that's hardly at gun point

Yes, you do keep saying that. So are you claiming that these pensioners, whom you complain about, receive more money from the government than the other 5/6ths of all pensioners?

[Rum]

How many adults are still alive in fought in WW2, not an awful lot, if you were 18 in 1945 you are now 86 and mostly male. How many pensioners are this age?

I never said the government should take your house, I said they shouldn't give you large amounts of money if you own one. The consequence is you may well have to sell it on economic grounds but that's hardly at gun point

May have noticed the only inflation of any consequences is house prices (something that doesn't get included in most official figures). Getting people to spend is exactly what the economy needs even if there is a risk of inflation

My dad - the final embers.

[Jason]

Universal care : its a shared risk so I support universal care it. Someone people will need very little someone will need more than any individual could afford

Ending up in a residential home is in the end going to be certainty very different matter

What about those on paliative care? Are they also a 'very different matter'?

[Cormac]

How many adults are still alive in fought in WW2, not an awful lot, if you were 18 in 1945 you are now 86 and mostly male. How many pensioners are this age?

I never said the government should take your house, I said they shouldn't give you large amounts of money if you own one. The consequence is you may well have to sell it on economic grounds but that's hardly at gun point

May have noticed the only inflation of any consequences is house prices (something that doesn't get included in most official figures). Getting people to spend is exactly what the economy needs even if there is a risk of inflation

I didn't bring up the 40s, you did.

If they are that few what are you worrying about.

While the economy needs a boost now, and additional spending would be a useful boost, in the medium to long term, unrestrained spending is as damaging as none at all.

[Cormac]

Universal care : its a shared risk so I support universal care it. Someone people will need very little someone will need more than any individual could afford

Ending up in a residential home is in the end going to be certainty very different matter

So, what you mean by universal care is, well, not universal care, but care for all physical illnesses, EXCEPT those associated with old age...

[Cormac]

Universal care : its a shared risk so I support universal care it. Someone people will need very little someone will need more than any individual could afford

Ending up in a residential home is in the end going to be certainty very different matter

What about those on paliative care? Are they also a 'very different matter'?

Well, if they insist on not going to carousel, and refuse to volunteer at the Soylent Green factory, what other way could we look at it?

[MrJonno]

Universal care : its a shared risk so I support universal care it. Someone people will need very little someone will need more than any individual could afford

Ending up in a residential home is in the end going to be certainty very different matter

So, what you mean by universal care is, well, not universal care, but care for all physical illnesses, EXCEPT those associated with old age...

General frailty, feeding and cleaning is not covered by the NHS. If you think it should be fine but that's going to take a radical overhaul of the tax system

[Seth]

Universal care : its a shared risk so I support universal care it. Someone people will need very little someone will need more than any individual could afford

Exactly the problem. Five percent of people consume 50 percent of our health care resources.

Why do I owe that 5 percent my labor and property? And please don't post another fallacious appeal to common practice, which is what you always do by stating "you live in society so you owe." That's a ridiculous fallacy that can be used to justify literally anything government does, including murdering people wholesale. Hitler did exactly that to the Jews.

Try some rational argumentation this time if you have it in you.

Let me reverse it: Since I'm now going to be a dependent-class Socialist leech who takes according to his need and gives nothing at all, why should YOU pay for MY increasingly expensive medical care? And how much should you be required to labor and sacrifice on my behalf. You sound very much like you object to paying for oldsters for no particular reason other than you don't want to pay for them, and yet you consistently argue that other people should be obliged to uncomplainingly pay for YOUR needs.

Why is that?

Can you say....hypocrisy?

[Seth]

There it is. Absolute incontrovertible proof that Jonno is a Marxist.

Thats about as much as insult as saying you think you are independent

Depends on how much the reader values liberty over slavery.

[Seth]

Which points,

The elderly are demanding residential care at £30-£35k a year AND want to keep their houses. Fact

They paid for their houses and they were promised residential care by the Marxist fuckwits. Why shouldn't they demand that fuckwit Marxists live up to their promises?

They have not paid enough taxes to even remotely cover that Fact

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Nothing at all about "getting only what you paid for."

The pension is not the issue, they have paid for that its not a great deal but fairs fairs
Very few pensioners are veterans ( I have a lot more sympathy for those who are)
The baby boomers grew up in conditions of steady work and low housing costs fact

Tax payers money should go to those who need not deserve, if someone is ill or hungry they have a clear need. Deserve is an entirely subject matter

And people don't "need" a place to live when they retire, right?

Any other points

Other than the one on the top of your head? Nope. You've amply demonstrated how foolish your dogma is.