Hasbeen; Many of those people would require the support of family; And support for Carers' would cost much less than $500,000 annually. But if these peoples' loved ones die the state needs to step in and provide the best quality care - even if indirectly through support for NGOs. What else would you suggest?

Divergence, You seem to suggest that we have two choices. Compulsory insurance or people starving on the street.
I don't have a mentally retarded son and if I did I would care for him myself, not leave him to starve on the streets or be cared for by other members of society. I also would not allow my mother to starve on the streets. I view it as my responsibility to care for my family. Not the responsibility of the rest of society. Under the current system I have not noticed any retarded or senile people starving on the street.
Tristan says "the state needs to step in and provide the best quality care". Why does it have to be the best quality care? Why not adequate and humane care that is within the means of the taxpayer to provide? Remember, there is no return on this investment. Unlike education and health care for relatively young folk, which enables them to contribute to society, aged care and disability care provides nothing in return to the society that pays for it. No matter how well you look after a person with Alzheimers, they are never going to be a productive member of society again. To the contrary, they are likely to live much longer, increasing the burden on the taxpayer still more.
Likewise with the mentally retarded.
The money would be better spent rehabilitating people with injuries so they can return to work, or on ex-prisoners so they may be transformed into productive citizens. On on better infrastructure so we can do business and thrive. The more we thrive the better able we will be to care for our elderly and disabled. Not the other way around.

Rhys; So human beings and humanity are not seen to be innately valuable in themselves - but only insofar as they "provide a return on investment". And they say there's nothing wrong with capitalism as we know it....

Family is an important societal support structure. But sometimes the majority of people are better off providing and consuming welfare and social services collectively. It's called 'social solidarity' and it is a sign of a civilized society. Call it socialism if you like - though social Christianity and liberalism have maintained the same principles. It's also sometimes more efficient in terms of the labour required. (eg: as in the case with child care)

The alternative to leaving all care to family neglects the fact that not all families have the wealth, spare time or financial security themselves to do a proper job. And some families simply neglect their dependent members.

And again most crucially: You have failed to address the fact that there are SKILLS involved in caring for the aged and the disabled. That in of itself means a need for socialisation of care - with minimum standards in terms of skills.

You say 'the best possible care' is not necessary. Well it depends on your standards. If at the moment up to 50% of high intensity residents are suffering malnutrition doesn't that suggest something is wrong? And if the problem is at least partly staffing - doesn't that suggest an increase in funding is needed to improve skills and staffing numbers? Ditto: provision of doctors and dentists visits, heating and cooling, standards for recreation and social interaction.

The point is that many of our aged are suffering so intensely that only a dramatic improvement in the standard of care is acceptable.

Rhys,

What happens to your relatives if you die and the money runs out? Not everyone is lavishly paid. No one is suggesting that elderly and disabled people be kept in luxury at the taxpayers expense, but it is clear that there have been horrific abuses, which may have been ignored by government because of what adequate, humane care would cost. Under my suggestion, most people would pay for their care themselves, unless they are extremely unlucky.

Look after your own aged people, why push everything on to welfare to come to the party. Every one is going to go through it. What i've seen of those places is it's not for me. Who wants to sit in a chair and rock back and forth all day. You are best to do that in familiar surroundings.

Tristan, I do believe that human beings are valuable in themselves. However, that does not mean we need to spend millions of dollars on keeping the the very old and frail in pristine conditions.
That is not capitalism. That is about opportunity cost. Obviously you value the health of those at the end of their life above the health of those at the beginning or middle of their life. I do not. I believe funds need to be spent in the manner which is most beneficial to the individual and to society as a whole. As far as tax payer dollars are concerned we need to get value for money.
That fact that half of high intensity residents have malnutrition says nothing about the care they receive. What it says is that these people are very old and very sick. Whilst we could perhaps relieve that malnutrition via nasogastric tubes or peg feeds, the likely result would be to simply extend that persons life and suffering still further at enormous cost to the tax payer and with little benefit to the individual concerned. I can think of many better ways for that money to be spent that would benefit individuals and society as a whole rather than simply act as a huge drain.
You say caring for the elderly requires special skills. Unless you are intent on extending their lives then it does not require special skills. We have been looking after our elderly, the same as we have been looking after our children ever since we became human and probably long before that time. Nothing has changed, except the expectation from people like yourself that dying of old age should somehow look pretty and be enjoyable for all concerned. I have worked in nursing homes and I can assure it is neither pretty, nor enjoyable. Not because of a lack of care, but because dying of old age is filled with pain and suffering, both mental and physical.