Like all journalists Hinscliff can be a tad ‘Gaby’, especially about things the history of which she may be a tad too young to know. Writing in the Guardian she has an article headlined: Do-it-yourself social care only works for the very rich.
We all must be aware that the original idea of the creator of the health service in this country, Aneurin Bevan, had the vision of a health service which cared for you ‘from cradle to grave’. Initially it was believed by him that demand would decline as illnesses were cured. Unfortunately the opposite happened with an ageing population and expensive new technology and drugs creating new financial pressures (something which has continued to the present day); coupled with the perception that the service was ‘free’ no doubt exacerbated demand still further.
Politicians have known for decades that there is an ageing population and have done what, exactly, to tackle the problem than raise taxation in one form or another, in their attempts to ‘cure’ the problem of cost?
Ms. HIncliff maintains that do-it-yourself social care only works for the rich. Let me tell this know-all journalist that her statement is not true. In the 1950s my grandmother approached the end of her life and her elder daughter and her husband made the decision that they would care for her in her last days. With the small equity my grandparents had in their house, my Aunt and her husband (not by any means ‘rich’ – he ran the apprentice school for a firm of shipwrights in King George V Docks and she was a stay-at-home housewife – bought a larger property – the small equity covering the difference twixt the sale of their house and the price of the new – and the ensuring care that my grandmother required, they funded aided by my Aunt’s two sisters; one of whom was my mother (together with my father) ‘chipping in’.
Unfortunately it is now a fact that we still believe in an NHS that cares for us from ‘cradle to grave’ – and whose fault is this but that of politicians who still believe in an outmoded idea? That outmoded idea was not helped by our politicians ceding their responsibilities to a supranational body and then, subsequently, opening our nation’s borders to ‘all and sundry’ (without our agreement and it is alleged for political gain), which in turn brought an even an greater burden on an already over-stretched ‘service’ – not forgetting the increased burden on the services of housing and schooling.
I would suggest the current problem with social care can be laid squarely at the door of our politicians. Is it not a fact they have have shut their eyes to an obvious growing problem; is it not a fact they have maintained the image that the state will take care of us, regardless of cost to themselves, thus maintaining that the NHS is a ‘sacred cow’; is it not a fact that not one of them has dared to question Bevan’s original idea because they believe it might cost them votes (and thus the continuation of their ‘career’)?
Is it not a fact that we are governed by spineless, unthinking, self-centred politicians, aided and abetted by journalists of similar intellectual inability, who can generate hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of words to cover up their own personal deficiencies? Is it not a fact that, due to the foregoing, the people have forgotten their personal – nay family – responsibilities? Is it not a fact that we have been misled by those who are supposed to care for us due to personal career aspirations – both in the political and media worlds? Is it not a fact that the people of our nation appear unable to see beyond the ends of their noses? The reasons for which can only be laid at the door of the door of the system of democratised dictatorship that passes as representative democracy.
Since moving to the North East it has become apparent that there is a strong belief in ‘family’ and ‘family responsibilities’; so perhaps, from a region that justifiably feels it has been ignored, lessons could be learned?