Daily View: Plans for elderly care
Commentators consider the merits of the government plans for a compulsory levy to create a universal system of social care for adults in England.
Michelle Mitchell in the Independent says costs are unclear but calls the announcement a milestone and urges all parties to look at how they would tackle care for the elderly:
"All the parties are preparing the battlegrounds on which they want to fight for votes. As part of that, we look forward to all of them setting out positive pitches on the future of care. But they also need to avoid boxing themselves in by rejecting sound proposals, just to draw political dividing lines."
David Lipsey argues in the Times that the new policy would be unfair:
"This will hit the less well-off who at present get care for free. The exclusive beneficiaries will be the better-off, or rather their heirs, who will no longer see their inheritance run down to pay for their parents' care. A strange policy for a Labour government this, a subsidy to inheritance that robs poor Peter to pay better-off Paul."
The Times editorial says the government doesn't explain how it will fund more elderly care:
"In the end, the feasibility of the plan depends on the money. Britain spends just over 8 per cent of its national income on health; the USA spends more than twice as much. We could cut elsewhere in order to choose to spend more. Or, we could reallocate the health budget to reflect the central importance of social care. For this all-important question the Health Secretary has no answer."
Yvonne Roberts in the Guardian thinks creating a national anything is tough and can cost a political career but should be worth it:
"Sometimes a politician, if he or she has a vision - and a national care service with standards that matches its name - needs to say to the electorate: this is what we need, this is how we will pay for it; this is why I believe it's right. And then risk his or her political future on the response. That's how history is made - and that's how so called 'Broken Britain' can step a little closer to becoming a compassionate society."
In the Channel 4 News Fact Check blog Cathy Newman warns to beware politicians bearing gifts for the elderly:
"But the small print reveals a catch or two. Does the reduction in the attendance allowance lead to cut in disabilities benefits? And should the PM have been quite so keen to trumpet "free care" when accommodation charges can be quite so hefty.
Clearly, so close to a general election, it's hard to get anything like plain-speaking - let alone a political consensus - on something as controversial and challenging as care for the elderly."
Links in full
Independent | Social care needs a rational and fair system of fundingMichelle Mitchell | Independent | Whoever wins election, care must come first
David Lipsey | Times | The vulnerable old deserve better than thisTimes | Duty of Care 
Guardian | National Care Service: Death tax RIPYvonne Roberts | Guardian | Ringfence funds from a 'care tax'
Cathy Newman | Channel 4 | Social care for all but do the sums add up?
