6
Comment
does the government care enough for the elderly? Amelia Bundred
SOCIAL care for the elderly is a vital part of today’s health care system, and with a rising population, this area will continue to expand. There are currently over 10 million people in the UK who are over 65 years of age, and that number is expected to reach 19 million by 2050. With the strain being felt already, surely something future-proof needs to be put in place. Unlike the NHS, which is government funded, nursing care for the elderly is a private entity and thus a profiting industry. Recent speculation has deemed the current system as unfair, with annual figures showing 40,000 individuals being forced to sell their homes due to ruinous care costs. Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has announced plans to cap the amount the elderly will have to contribute at £75,000.
However, despite a tiny step in the right direction, this cap isn’t enough to mend the current social care crisis. The Government’s proposed reforms are inadequate. Although £10 billion a year is currently spent on social care for the elderly, this equates to only one tenth of the NHS budget. This minor contribution is worrying and leaves me questioning; when will more be done? Quite frankly, while still young, the state of the care system makes me fear old age, but funding is only part of the problem. Care work is an expanding industry, and while costs are often extremely high I can, as an ex care worker myself, vouch for the staggeringly low wages. Despite working extremely anti-social hours, anything from 6am to midnight, there is often no difference in hourly pay rates. In addition, at a
company I worked for, workrelated petrol allowances hadn’t been inflated alongside petrol prices in the last ten years, so I would lose money. The government needs to consider the high profits that care agencies accumulate, and legislate accordingly. The standard of care service workers, for one, needs to be vastly improved - better training, funding and support for staff would be a good place to start. I first entered the care industry feeling vulnerable myself, due to getting only two short days of training. Despite what some people think, most old people are mentally alert and can read your nerves from a mile off. My lack of confidence must have been unsettling for them too. In many cases, poor treatment and management of staff has resulted in a low standard of service. This also contributes
to what the BBC’s Health Correspondent referred to as a “revolving door of carers”. Unsatisfied staff soon leave and are replaced by other staff who leave and continue the cycle, which results in elderly residents constantly being introduced to new strangers
- surely a confusing and intimidating experience. The government, if they care, have to seriously question whether their proposed plans will do enough to improve the lives of the elderly. If not, we could have a crisis that affects every one of us.
teach us all how to get high fizzy tax is foolish Jodie Stringer
Kat Mawford AFTER 17-year-old Emily Bauer from Texas suffered strokes and was left paralysed after smoking synthetic marijuana, the discussion on drugs has hit a new level. Having purchased an easily available form of legal high, she became so dangerously ill that doctors were forced to induce a coma for her own safety. In the face of the debate over the legalisation of drugs, this is just one example of people seeking a legally permitted alternative. When this can be at least as dangerous as its illegal counterparts, you have to wonder what our governments’ priorities really are. People are taught from an early age that drugs are dangerous, lead to health risks and are above all illegal; a message which is constantly reinforced by the demonisation of drugs in the media. However,
if this approach is leading to the impression that only illegal substances are dangerous, and that these synthetic drugs are a safe, viable way of getting high, it’s time for a new message. It’s really no wonder that there is an appeal to taking drugs without the risk of facing a penalty, or having to meet a dodgy dealer in an alleyway. This appeal, combined with an under-awareness of the health risks, is probably their main danger: the public are not often educated about the implications of these synthetic drugs, which are obviously so easily available in shops. When a minute chemical alteration to an illegal substance can be enough to make it legal to sell, it makes succesful regulation very difficult, but this is how the system works in many countries. Legal or not, simply telling the public not to take drugs obviously isn’t enough.
Regardless of these warnings (and often in spite of them), there will always be people trying to find a new way of getting high, and therefore surely a better measure to protect people would be to give them adequate knowledge to make informed decisions. Whether you take the viewpoint that, in light of what we know about them, taking drugs is stupid and dangerous, or that the use of certain types should be legally regulated and controlled, with synthetic drugs out there causing harm the best solution would be simply to better educate people. The decision to take drugs or not is a personal one. While the influence of society and the media’s ‘you’d better not’ attitude probably won’t prevent a great proportion of people from using drugs, lives could be saved through better information.
MEDICAL officials are calling for a new tax of 20p per litre on all sugary drinks to be included in this year’s Budget, with more than sixty organisations backing the recommendation. Obesity levels in Britain are on the increase, and with programmes such as Embarrassing Bodies and Supersize vs. Superskinny shining light on the issue, we as a nation should be forced to do something about it. According to the Department of Health in 2010, “62.8% of adults (aged 16 or over) were overweight or obese” and “30.3% of children (aged 2-15) were overweight or obese”. As a form of solution, the charity Sustain has suggested that a way of slimming down the ever-increasing-figures, is to add 20p to every litre of soft drinks. Sustain claims that it would help save lives by reducing sugar in our diets. The money made from this will fund the charity to help obese people. It seems to have fallen short of the point of combating obesity. Surely it is a ridiculous prospect to aid a charity which relies on funding from the cause of the problem. In addition, why should the
consumers be the ones to pay? After all, it is the manufacturers that make the products and pay the media to thrust the products in the face of the consumers. It’s hardly a mystery why we all feel duty-bound to give in. The increase in price affects us all, even those without a weight issue, and tax already has a foothold as soft drinks are considered a luxury item - 10p from every 60p can of soft drink already goes to the government in tax. The expanding price forces everyone to feel the weight of guilt, as they are made to view what was once a treat as a catalyst for driving up obesity levels. Of course, the soft drinks industry disagrees with raising the tax. Shadow Health Scretary Andy Burnham said that concentrating on sugar and fat content in children’s food would be a better way forward. “This would help parents protect their children from foods which contain excessive levels of sugar, salt and fat in a way that a tax wouldn’t.” Over the past 10 years, obesity has increased by 15%, however the consumption of soft drinks with added sugar has decreased by 9%. It is doubtful that the added tax would actually solve anything.