But why should the state subsidise "social care" for those who can afford to pay for it?

I accept there is a clear distinction here between health care and "home help" social type stuff and there is a debate to be had around illnesses such as dementia and which side of the fence they fall but we cannot afford to cover it all and there is a substantial elderly population who are requiring more and more help, many of whom (not all I accept) have substantial assets due to property value growth over their lifetimes as well as more generous pension packages. Both my grandads required home help after falls/operations late in their life. This hospital treatment was obviously free as was the post op recovery care and they then got the occasional routine visit from health visitors but they also needed someone checking on them twice a day, helping with meals etc. I don't see why we should expect the state to pick up that tab just because they chose to stay in their own homes rather than go into a home.

Posted By: Jim, May 18, 20:07:55