On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:38:44 -0800 (PST), Ste
wrote:

But realistically, that is likely to mean the elderly being moved to a
place away from their families, communities, and culture. The fact
that you could suggest the idea as being a "pragmatic" solution to the
problem, fails to appreciate that part of the problem with 'care' is
that is has a psychological component that is quite distinct from
catering to biological needs.

Realistically, we could hook the elderly up to a machine, by inserting
a feeding tube and urethral and rectal catheters, with an overhead
nozzle providing occasional showers of soapy water and disinfectant,
and on the face of it this would be high-quality and effficient
biological care, and yet there seems to be something missing...



Lots of people have difficult problems to overcome, and I do
not accept that the only solution available is to take more and more
money from the taxpayers.

Indeed, but potentially that means more radical and fundamental
reorganisations of society.

It is more an attitude of mind and expectations than a reorganisation
of society. A married couple in the UK are perfectly prepared to
sacrifice their life to some extent in order to raise children. In
other countries thare is *exactly* the same attitude and expectation
regarding the care of parents in their old age. A couple will marry
and sacrifice much of their time to caring for their children.
Following that, an elderly relative will move in and they will devote
more time to caring for that relative. And finally they will
themselves become old and frail, and move in with a son or daughter.
It is something that is taken as a given and normal sequence of events
in any average life. Sending a parent to a care home is as unusual as
it is to send a child to a care home in the UK.

It is my strong belief that the change in attitude has arisen
*because* the state decided to step in and take over responsibility
for that care. I have said before and I say it again - countries that
have little or no social benefits system have far closer-knit and
caring communities, which in turn means less anti-social behaviour at
all levels. State handouts, unless carefully restricted to only those
very few who genuinely have no other recourse, create a huge social
problem by taking away individual responsibility (and therefore making
people irresposible).

One reform that sounds very drastic, but which I feel would end up
with many benefits in the long run would be to disallow any benefits
whatsoever to people who have a close family member who would be
capable of supporting them, and to make it *obligitory* for people
with the means to support any close relation who is currently in
receipt of state benefits. Not only will it ease the tax burden, but
anyone being forced to live with and be supported by a
brother/sister/uncle is likely to be far more motivated to become
independent than someone being housed and fed by the government. They
are certainly unlikely to get away with lazing about all day and
squandering money on booze!

--
Cynic