Today's headline on the bbcnews.com health page is this,

Many 'excluded from social care'

Elderly and disabled people are increasingly relying on family and friends to care for them, inspectors have warned.
Councils in England are restricting access to social services such as home care, day services and respite care.
Commission chairman Dame Denise Platt said services for those who qualified for care were actually improving.
But she said many people were being left to make their own arrangements because access to services was being tightened to include only those deemed to be in the most serious need.
She said: "In some cases people rely on family and friends, in others they pay for their own care.

When resources (and public money) are limited, does it not make perfect sense to let those who can get by on their own, to do just that? They should take a lesson or two from Singapore. See, public health policy back home is aimed at reducing people's dependence on social services and at the same time promoting very Confucious-inspired family values. There is nothing wrong or disastrous in letting the elderly depend on their family to take care of them. If you are a financial burden to your family, fine, we'll dole out handouts or tax rebates or whatever else works. But the state should not assume the moral responsibility of a family to take care of their elder relatives, social services should only be a resort when there is no other alternative.

Ok that's my two cents worth on this. But I shan't impose my values on other people. I can imagine puan and nina going "err okay tam thanks for sharing...". haha.


tam