Living Longer - a cost to the Council Tax Payer?
The Commission for Social Care Report on elderly care report will tell us what we all know:
1. That people are living longer
2. That this is an increasing cost pressure to Council's, who are in response rationing care more through tighter eligibilty criteria.
For all the press coverage, I suspect this issue will go away over the next 20 years, as the current concern will be expressed by the very responsible war-time generation.
As we move down the generations, increasingly hedonistic baby boomers will sensibly blow the capitial they have before they get too infirm thus transferring the presure back to the state. That will be the new challenge, which will inevitably require the taxes of newer migrant comunities to pay for it.
Even further on, by the time people of my age get to that stage, we won't recognise the issue as many of us will be living much of our dotage as 20 to 30 somethings in synthetic worlds like Second Life, which in 30 to 40 years will be much more realistic than they currently are. I joined last month and I certainly think it will be an expanding part of the consciousness of people younger than me as it becomes more mainstream. In years to come people with disabilities and the elderly will probably use the world to live lives where they are perceived in completely different ways to their first life. Generational differences will evolve as you will become less clear of the age of the people you are communicating with.
A sensible Council will be thinking ahead to new challenges that an Over 80, technology literate generation will throw of up in 30 to 40 years. Even more interesting in that timeframe there will be the expanding minority of over 80 "early adopters" whose mindset will not be hostile to the latest fad of gadget, or the reality TV show equivalent. They will be the ones who see early adoption as key to a supple mind in later life.
So instead of the usual debate on the isue of the future of the elderly, I think a bit of forward thinking is required.
1. That people are living longer
2. That this is an increasing cost pressure to Council's, who are in response rationing care more through tighter eligibilty criteria.
For all the press coverage, I suspect this issue will go away over the next 20 years, as the current concern will be expressed by the very responsible war-time generation.
As we move down the generations, increasingly hedonistic baby boomers will sensibly blow the capitial they have before they get too infirm thus transferring the presure back to the state. That will be the new challenge, which will inevitably require the taxes of newer migrant comunities to pay for it.
Even further on, by the time people of my age get to that stage, we won't recognise the issue as many of us will be living much of our dotage as 20 to 30 somethings in synthetic worlds like Second Life, which in 30 to 40 years will be much more realistic than they currently are. I joined last month and I certainly think it will be an expanding part of the consciousness of people younger than me as it becomes more mainstream. In years to come people with disabilities and the elderly will probably use the world to live lives where they are perceived in completely different ways to their first life. Generational differences will evolve as you will become less clear of the age of the people you are communicating with.
A sensible Council will be thinking ahead to new challenges that an Over 80, technology literate generation will throw of up in 30 to 40 years. Even more interesting in that timeframe there will be the expanding minority of over 80 "early adopters" whose mindset will not be hostile to the latest fad of gadget, or the reality TV show equivalent. They will be the ones who see early adoption as key to a supple mind in later life.
So instead of the usual debate on the isue of the future of the elderly, I think a bit of forward thinking is required.
posted by Charlie Mansell at 10:11 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home