Hasbeen;

The problems my grandmother suffered began in the late 1990s. It is too late to take action now; And my mother and I have other personal problems that are none of your business that make our lives very difficult just as it is. But when my grandmother was mistreated in a public hospital after a heart attack my mother intervened immediately, stopped the drugging and restraint; and we took her home as long as we could manage. they were about to put her in a home without any consultation with us as she was 'taking up a bed'.

But for poor and working class families there is only so much you can do. You simply cannot afford the 'top notch' places. When my grandma had to move from low intensity to high intensity care we were given about a week or two's notice.

The User Pays approach you suggest will mean poor quality care for poor and many working class families. It is a policy of selfishness, and is plainly inhumane.

I believe a massive difference could be made by directing 1% of GDP new social funding into Aged Care. Or do we have other priorities like Abbott's full-pay Parental Leave for women on $150,000 a year?

We have one of the smallest and narrow-focused welfare state and social wage in the world. Look to the Nordics, Holland, Denmark - We can do MUCH better. That is if we care enough.

Or do we think when we see someone suffering who's not family: "that's not my problem'.

Over-dependence on direct personal contributions means a flat, ultra-regressive tax on a masssive scale. Why would ordinary workers support this if they fully understood what it meant? Why not a compulsory national aged care insurance scheme to make certain no-one goes without -and everyone pays their way in proportion to what they can afford?

But improving the quality of care is the main issue - more so than the distributive justice issues even...

Hasbeen, I like your attitude. How about a bit of self reliance Tristan? If you don't like the way someone else looks after your mother, look after her yourself. People need to be providing for their own care in their old age. Not expecting the ever dwindling pool of taxpayers to do it for them.

I worked in the Aged Care industry for 10 years in WA up until a couple of years ago.
I agree that we should have a scheme to help provide more money for reidents in aged care facilities. We should use all medically trained staff instead of 'carers' who do a 6 week course at TAFE and are then let loose amongst our vulnerable aged residents.

The Government ensures each Nursing Home has a certain number of 'concessional beds', which are reserved for residents who were on an aged pension and did not have any assets like their own home. They paid 85% of their pension in fees.

The other residents needed to pay a bond that required them to sell their family home, as long as they had no spouse still living in it. When the resident passed away, their relatives got most of the bond back, depending on how long they were living there.

Nursing home medical staff were not in the business of 'prolonging' anyone's lives, unless they requested it. If some residents became ill with infections like pneumonia, their relatives often requested no treatment except for comfort reasons.
There are good and 'bad' nursing homes, but they must now have certain standards by law, and are regularly audited.

If some aged residents weren't visited by relatives or friends, it usually meant they had lost all those close to them over the years, or never had children. If they did have relatives, but no one visited, it was usually because the resident never treated them well over the years! People don't change their negative attitudes towards others simply because they are old and in care.

Rhys Jones -

You do not understand; many people reach the point where there is no choice but to go into high intensity care with 24 hour around the clock supervision. Many such aged Australians would rather not have to be washed by the closest loved ones every day either. And it takes qualified staff to know how to wash residents, and regularly turn and lift them to avoid bedsores. You are also neglecting the fact that the government is trying to extend the working age to 70 as well. So how can family thus effected provide care and work at the same time?

Finally I am arguing for a National Disability Insurance Scheme - where everyone pays on the basis of their CAPACITY TO PAY over their entire lives. Yes the money has to come from somewhere - but in the context of compulsory insurance payments levied in a progressive way. Even John Howard said he believed in progressive taxation... Yet nowadays it seems even many in the ALP are afraid to stand up for fear of the catchcry 'class warfare'. (which only seems to apply when the rich are asked to pay a fair share in solidarity with the poor and vulnerable; But it never used to described union-busting and austerity)

It appears there are some people here who lack in empathy and compassion, and have a warped sense of justice.

Hi Tristan. On the contrary I do understand. You want to provide nursing home residents with top quality care and you want it to be funded with a compulsory insurance, which of course is just another way of saying a tax. If you want to spend part of your income providing this top quality care then good for you. I, however, don't. I would rather choose how to spend the money I earn myself on the things that I prioritize. Imagine if you were forced to pay for the things that I place a high priority on.
You obviously agree with the recently introduced DIS. I'm sure all those suffering with disabilities will be very happy too. However, neither I nor any member of my family are in this category, yet my family will be $1,000 a year worse off because of it. That is a grand we cannot spend on the things we place a priority on. Now you suggest the government should take another $1,000 a year to provide top notch care to those who have had an entire life time in which to make provision for their old age.
I think the current system, though not perfect, is none the less perfectly adequate. Poor standards of care will be exception, not the rule. With our ageing population we need to find cheaper ways of looking after the elderly, not more expensive ones.

Obviously Tristan you expect to be a beneficiary under any increased age care spending. Your idea of each paying according to their means has been tried old mate. It was called Communism, & it failed dismally, killing millions along the way.

Equally you expect to be a beneficiary under a National Disability Insurance Scheme & sprout the same airy fairy tripe in favor of it. Do you know what is offering, & have you ever done the math on it.

A neighbor of mine has a mid 20 age son, with a mental age in single figures. I don't know what the politically correct name for him is. She has been told the NDIS will provide him with public housing, & 24/7 cares. There may even be his own car.

Can you imagine the cost of this? It would range between $400,0000 & $600,000 PA, just for this one bloke. That is the gross income of at least 8 checkout chicks. It is the tax take from 24 of them.

I would love you to justify how this is equitable, or possible. No welfare recipient should ever receive more than the lowest full time worker, more than that is just a rip off.

The welfare sector right now consumes almost the entire PAYE tax take of the government. Yes that's right, there is nothing left of all our taxes after paying for the dead weight this sector has grown to be. If this impost is increased, rather than reduced soon, expect a very serious backlash.

As things get tougher expect those under strain to get very resentful of keeping others in comfort as their own dreams & comfort go up in smoke. Time to get your demanding hand out of other peoples pocket, & start doing a bit more for your self. If you are too delicate to wash your loved ones, don't expect someone else's taxes to pay for your sensibilities. I admit to having the same problem originally myself, but I did it until my mother could no longer stand, then paid out of my savings.