Social Care


Registered User
Mar 2, 2016
South Northwest
Politicians are, generally, practical folk. They steered clear of this issue before, on the whole, because we couldn't afford a solution. The more you spend on medical care, the longer people live, the more you have to spend on social care for folk who tend to need more medical care. The more you spend, the more you have to spend.

At the moment the economy's in Cinderella mode, stumbling around in an awkward dance to the rhythmic sound of the magic money tree being beaten like a pecuniary piñata. But the clock's going to strike midnight soon. Glass slippers are going to get smashed, not just left behind, and the economy's going to look like last year's pumpkin.

It's time to batten down the hatches and wait for the storm to hit, not get optimistic about anything getting solved. If things only stay as bad as they were before it will be a major, major achievement. Unless, of course, I'm doing the pessimist thing again and Rishi Sunak is a dab hand with the superglue and pumpkin soup recipes. I don't think Goldman Sachs train them for that kind of thing though.

Having said that, leeching money off the core economy is something the investment banks are great at, and we may have to turn back to blood-letting, trepanning and tying our teeth to the doorknob again to save the NHS money. So maybe they'll be able to teach politicians a few tricks?

The silver lining to all this is that so many folk will be underemployed that they'll have more time to help care for family members. That's the way the world works... the poorer the nation, the better the family care. Because there's no choice.

I now choose to forget I wrote this miserable post and will go sneak out into the garden and see if 'our' hedgehog's there again. Life goes on, whatever happens in the messy human world.


Registered User
Apr 27, 2020
I don't think anything will happen soon with social care.I think they will follow the equity route so the value of a home can be used to pay towards a care bill after the death of somebody that has received care,if that is the case those companies will do very well as they only pay a small percentage of the actual value of a home, and children that were hoping to inherit may be in for a surprise as there may be nothing left.
I can't see insurance schemes being an alternative as people will say,why should I pay in when I might not even need to receive care when I'm older?Mind you people insure their homes in case they have a fire and in a lifetime probably never make a claim
Last edited by a moderator: