Aged-care reform raises questions for Labor and Libs

Labor’s aged-care reform is an economically and socially destructive proposal (“PM’s sunset clause: age at home”, 13/9). I find it hard to believe it is embraced by the Liberal Party, which once, in John Howard’s day, believed in encouraging lifters rather than leaners. The Australian government once again intends to punish productive and thrifty members of society and reward the indolent and wasteful.

In the long term this is the road to poverty and social decay. The consequences will be worsened by the flawed financial model in which the provision of service is separated from the financing. This means the attention of service providers is focused on their paymaster rather than their customers, a system that has already come close to destroying the NDIS. As a carer for my wife in her final years I found the system was cumbersome, frustrating and unreliable. If we want to have an efficient aged-care service, we need to create a direct provider/consumer relationship in which the consumers have the power of the purse. That is the rule in every other service industry. It would restore the sovereignty aged people should have in the management of their lives. Self-funded retirees do not object to additional funds being provided to cases of special need, but do object to discriminatory funding based on income. In the long term the funding will have to come from future generations. The politicians are deluding themselves if they believe those generations will pay more taxes to fund such a wasteful, discriminatory and expensive system.

Frederick Bennet, Bonner, ACT

So, the once-in-a-generation aged-care reforms now being championed by our political class are sold to the masses as a means-tested product that will provide better care outcomes to our most vulnerable seniors. While the road to better aged care is paved with good intentions, government initiatives with societal concern at their heart always mistakenly believe that placing a large pot of money on the table is the panacea.

But as we’ve seen time and time again, it is only guaranteed to lure unscrupulous sharks. We’ve seen this with the massive rorting in childcare and NDIS schemes. If anyone thinks aged care will be any different, they are patently naive as operator administration charges, shareholder expectations and executive remuneration will rise exponentially, swallowing the bulk of additional funding, leaving aged-care residents in the same precarious position they are now in.

Mal Brown, Redwood Park, SA

Many retirement villages that were advertised for “over-55s” when they were being built some 50 years ago are now targeted towards “over-75s” and more recently “over-85s”. Comfortably built for an older population who can afford to purchase them, and pay the fees to enjoy their facilities. The dilemma of an ageing population must be addressed and be adapted to meet the needs of those who require a greater degree of support than retirement villages usually provide. Individuals who are in a position at their own expense to have carers visit them in their homes are in a very fortunate position.

It seems the government’s intention, to keep the elderly in their own homes, carries significant expense increases if the disaster of the NDIS is anything to go by. The demand for fully qualified nursing staff is already stretched, and aged care is not seen as attractive or fulfilling. The future for the elderly does not look rosy, but it must be addressed realistically, with vigour and without delay.

Stephanie Summers, North Turramurra, NSW

A rare but welcome example of bipartisan co-operation has resulted in a thoughtful policy for elderly care. More than 20 years ago, my 94-year-old mother was able to stay at home until her final weeks. Though it involved some personal expense, she received daily visits from a nurse, while meals were delivered at subsidised rates by a non-profit organisation. The new policy would have covered her more intensive medical needs during those last weeks. While requiring some elderly individuals to contribute more based on their assets and income may cause dissatisfaction, embracing a “stay at home” model appears to be a cost-effective way to address the looming shortage of aged-care beds, as much of the expense in aged care comes from building and maintaining fully staffed physical facilities.

John Kempler, Rose Bay, NSW