Aged Care

noirua said:

Transient ischaemic attack (TIA)

A transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or "mini stroke" is caused by a temporary disruption in the blood supply to part of the brain.

The disruption in blood supply results in a lack of oxygen to the brain.

This can cause sudden symptoms similar to a stroke, such as speech and visual disturbance, and numbness or weakness in the face, arms and legs.

But a TIA does not last as long as a stroke. The effects last a few minutes to a few hours and fully resolve within 24 hours.

---

A TIA is a warning sign that you may be at risk of having a full stroke in the near future, and an assessment can help doctors determine the best way to reduce the chances of that happening.

Click to expand...

Get to a hospital. Have a scan. Convince the duty staff it's happening. Time is of the essence,. Ischemic can be reversed. CT scan can help. Plan to have your stroke between 9 and 5 from Mon to Friday for a better intervention. Avoid long weekends. Hemorrhagic (15%) is a different story.

change is afoot... (cont.)

Dona Ferentes said:

change is afoot... (cont.)

https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-03/final-report-of-the-aged-care-taskforce_0.pdf

Click to expand...

Yes got to save the kids from paying for their parents old age, by taking the money money off the parents, before they give it to the kids.

It's all in the way you sell it.

Slowly, slowly catch the monkey, very clever and low key, plus will be super popular with the middle class.

But needs to happen soon, before the middle class property becomes too valuable, in Sydney and Melbourne.


Under the proposal, it's not clear who will be asked to pay more, but it's likely to be wealthy aging baby boomers who have large super funds and valuable property. They would be asked to pay higher fees for accommodation and everyday living expenses to help fund the entire system.

This, the report says, would translate into improved care and attract more investment to the market which needs to prepare for an aging population.
This did lower the shock threshold though:

If the government adopts the task force recommendation to charge more, it will be the most radical shake-up since John Howard effectively privatised the sector in 1997 when he gave nursing homes the right to charge accommodation bonds and subsequently removed the requirement for registered nurses to be on duty.

When Labor took power in 2022, it reinstated the requirement for a registered nurse to be on duty 24/7 but if it adopts one of the task force's major proposals, it would radically change the rules around accommodation bonds and further entrench the Howard-era reform.
But then you get into the meat of it:

At present, accommodation bonds, now called Refundable Accommodation Deposits (RADs), are returned to the family once their loved one dies. That money is effectively an interest-free loan for aged care providers, allowing them to invest, build, and expand.

But under the proposed changes, providers would be able to keep 3 per cent of the deposit every year for a maximum of five years as an additional payment for accommodation costs.

Most elderly Australians must sell their house to pay their RAD – which, on average, is about $500,000. If the government accepts this proposal, they'd be paying an extra $70,000 in accommodation fees. In the capital cities where property prices are higher, families often pay $1 million and more in RADs, translating to an extra payment of $140,000 over five years for their accommodation.

Right now, RADs paid by elderly residents total $32 billion. If providers keep 3 per cent a year, that would reap aged care providers an extra $900 million annually.

Retaining part of the deposit is not the only extra payment being proposed either.
The task force said providers could also charge for "everyday living costs" and for "extra services", like a choice of meals and pay TV. Those "extras" are a feature of many for-profit providers already and add tens of thousands of dollars to someone's bill.

Likewise, the almost 150,000 people who receive a home care package would also be asked to contribute more to their care through co-contributions.

That's unlikely to go down well when the highest package barely funds 12 hours of care a week because of high hourly rates (which aren't always reflected in the wages paid to workers) plus administration and management fees.

You are probably missing an important point. As I said in the superannuation cash cow thread earlier this evening, the decisions made on this now will impact other generations as they age. The oldest Gen X will be 60 yo next year. It will not be all that long before aged care will be required for them. Focusing only on Baby Boomers is misleading at best.

Belli said:

You are probably missing an important point. As I said in the superannuation cash cow thread earlier this evening, the decisions made on this now will impact other generations as they age. The oldest Gen X will be 60 yo next year. It will not be all that long before aged care will be required for them. Focusing only on Baby Boomers is misleading at best.

Click to expand...

I think it is designed as they planned, IMO this is a very small step along the path they want to go, NDIS an unfunded nightmare, aged care a poorly funded nightmare, prime residence an untaxed cash cow, intergenerational wealth transfer into a workforce that has low productivity.
Hmmmm there are a lot of problems that could be given a quick fix if the PPR was taxed, directly or indirectly, especially now with the inflation and population sugar hit to prices.
I don't think it is focused on the Baby Boomers at all, they are just the Trojan horse, it's the next generation and the following one that worries them.