You're right, it shouldn't be a private facility. It should be public owned. She's paid over 90 years of taxes, I'm sure she's paid enough to cover rent etc.

[+] CableMonster@lemmy.ml -17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thats not how taxes work... and since she cant afford her current place odds are she was given more in benefits than she paid in taxes already.

[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

odds are she was given more in benefits than she paid in taxes already.

Then all the more reason it should be state funded now.

[+] CableMonster@lemmy.ml -14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And then you just swapped to a different argument. The problem is that the state cant just fund everyone on everything, but I dont think you are going to understand anything I would say.

[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I did indeed.

Yes, I understand that the state can't fund everyone on everything. However it should fund everyone (or if you want to be tight some people) on somethings. I'm not really sure why you jumped to the conclusion that I think the state should fund everyone on everything.

Even if we just go with means testing for state funding (rather than fully state run facilities) someone who can't afford private care should receive state assistance.

This is especially true if they've been on benefits all their lives. Care homes cost in excess of £1500 a week, how can you expect someone who's been on benefits most of their life to have saved enough to cover even a few months of that kind of expense?

[–] Omodi@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And then you just swapped to a different argument. The problem is that the state cant just fund everyone on everything, but I dont think you are going to understand anything I would say.

The state is paying to house her. I would not insult other peoples intelligence if I were you.