The aged care sector is grappling with intensifying challenges as the population grows older. It's estimated that aged care costs will rise by $29 billion over the next decade alone.

But here’s the big question: who will foot the bill for improving standards of care? A federal government task force has recommended that wealthier seniors start contributing more.

This proposal suggests a shift in financial responsibility from the general taxpayer to those more financially capable.

The government currently allocates over $30 billion annually to assist senior citizens with aged care expenses. However, with the Parliamentary Budget Office anticipating a sharp rise in these costs, the task force recommended revising the means-testing for aged care services.

A federal government task force has recommended that wealthier seniors should contribute more to the aged care sector. Source: Shutterstock

The aim is to require wealthier individuals to shoulder a larger portion of the expenses, thus easing the fiscal strain on government resources.

The task force's report, expected to be published by the end of January, will likely recommend that consumers increase their contributions to maintain the high quality of services without overburdening taxpayers.

The federal government is expected to respond to these recommendations later in the year, possibly during the May budget.

One of the significant changes proposed is an increase in daily living fees for residential care residents, currently set at $61 a day. This could be lifted for those with greater wealth.

Ninety-six per cent of the total cost of residential aged care is covered by taxpayers, with only 4 per cent paid in consumer contributions. This is mostly due to existing means tests capping payments at $33,000 annually or $78,500 over a lifetime.

The task force also suggested changing how the family home contributes to means tests. The current system requires the home's maximum value to be below $198,000. This could also be set to change under the new recommendations.

Aged Care Minister Anika Wells had already hinted at such changes during a National Press Club speech in June, stating that aged care contributions would need to increase to keep up with quality improvements.

'You have to say that if we’re not prepared to accept that cinder-block, linoleum-floor, four-bedroom any more, then we need to work out how we’re going to pay for it,' she said.

‘Plenty of people have said: “I am prepared to pay for an innovative, excellent model of care—I just can’t find it”,’ Ms Wells added.

Ms Wells is expected to give a formal response to the task force report when it is published in a few weeks.

There were also intense discussions earlier on ways to improve aged care, particularly with the idea of imposing a levy on younger Australians.

Last year, Opposition health spokeswoman Anne Ruston said that the Coalition would consider ‘any sensible policy solutions put forward by the Aged Care Taskforce and the government in good faith’.

She stated: ‘Ensuring the sustainability of Australia’s aged-care sector is absolutely critical to ensuring future generations have access to the care they need and the care they deserve as they age.’

You can watch Sky News Australia’s report here:

​

The proposed changes have sparked mixed reactions from social media users. One commenter wrote: ‘Fair enough, we've done well. Didn't we say we were [saving] for retirement and now it's time for us to spend it and not be a burden?’

‘I have to agree. Aged care is very important but a lot of people are able to pay a little more to maintain the structure of the system,’ another said.

While another commented: ‘I thought having worked, paid taxes, raised tax paying children and generally making the country better was why we looked after elderly people. I must be wrong.’

‘If the national budget will not support the aged who have maintained the budget funding all their lives, then maybe everyone should stop paying into the national finances and fend for themselves,’ a fourth social media user suggested.

The aged care sector in Australia is facing numerous challenges, including a rapidly ageing population, increasing costs, and high expectations for quality care. The proposed changes are part of a broader effort to ensure the sustainability of the sector.

However, these changes also raise important questions about balancing individual and government responsibility for funding aged care. As the debate continues, it's clear that the future of aged care will be a key issue for both policymakers and the public.

Key Takeaways

• Wealthy seniors in Australia might be required to pay more for aged care due to government task force advice.
  
• The move aims to reduce taxpayer contributions to the country's aged care costs, which are expected to climb significantly over the next decade.
  
• The task force is set to recommend changes to means-testing, potentially increasing daily living fees and altering how the family home is valued in such tests.
  
• The federal government is expected to respond to the recommendations, which also suggest an increased consumer contribution later in the year, likely during the May budget.
  

What are your thoughts on these proposed changes, members? Do you believe wealthier individuals should contribute more to their aged care costs? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

 

[Gsr]

over the 15+ years I worked in aged care I noticed clients were living longer. I’m sure it is because they are put on more and more medications for every health issue they get. This results in them living longer, not necessarily better lives. Even people with dementia related conditions are medicated to keep them alive. Sometimes it is not the best outcome for the client or the family. I watched quite a lot who spent years lying in a bed not even being aware of anything, being tube fed, carers having to attend to their every need. Families in distress watching them, wishing for them to pass away as neither they or the family had any sort of life during this time. The sooner we get voluntary assisted dying available to everyone the better end of life options will be. Hopefully it will be legal in my state before I get to the stage I am no longer capable of making that choice. I have told hubby and kids that I don’t want to live with no quality of life for me or them and I don’t want to be medicated to keep me alive in that scenario. I have written this down as well and had my family witness it.

 

[Knell]

Now as soon as it is legislated that the richer people can contribute more to their aged care just watch them run off to the lawyers or financial gurus and offload a much as they can to their kids, grandkids etc. there needs to be at least a ten year back dated timeframe that their assets are counted towards their aged care contribution. When my mother in law was in aged care 85% of her pension went towards her accommodation, food, care costs. She had 15% left to pay for medications, which ate up most of it. Family had to help out with all clothes, haircuts, specialised medical costs, dental, personal care items, outings etc. Clients who don’t have families to help have to do without a lot of these extras, if they are lucky there will be clothes and new personal items left there by families of deceased clients they can have. When mother in law passed away we donated all her clothes that were still good, a good lot of personal care items, the haircuts we had paid for that weren’t used, we paid in advance for them for gifts for her, and a donation of $500 to be used for the clients with no family help to be spent on their needs and some outings for them. The facility kept us informed of what the money was used for and we were pleased that it was all used for the needs of several different disadvantaged clients.

I don't know anything about the aged care facilities, so I have been trying to search info. Does the Govt pay for aged care facilities even if the person earns the pension and their savings are capped at $58,500?

 

[Knell]

over the 15+ years I worked in aged care I noticed clients were living longer. I’m sure it is because they are put on more and more medications for every health issue they get. This results in them living longer, not necessarily better lives. Even people with dementia related conditions are medicated to keep them alive. Sometimes it is not the best outcome for the client or the family. I watched quite a lot who spent years lying in a bed not even being aware of anything, being tube fed, carers having to attend to their every need. Families in distress watching them, wishing for them to pass away as neither they or the family had any sort of life during this time. The sooner we get voluntary assisted dying available to everyone the better end of life options will be. Hopefully it will be legal in my state before I get to the stage I am no longer capable of making that choice. I have told hubby and kids that I don’t want to live with no quality of life for me or them and I don’t want to be medicated to keep me alive in that scenario. I have written this down as well and had my family witness it.

Agree. I would not want to live to 100 with no quality of life.

 

[Shane/#]

The aged care sector is grappling with intensifying challenges as the population grows older. It's estimated that aged care costs will rise by $29 billion over the next decade alone.

But here’s the big question: who will foot the bill for improving standards of care? A federal government task force has recommended that wealthier seniors start contributing more.

This proposal suggests a shift in financial responsibility from the general taxpayer to those more financially capable.

The government currently allocates over $30 billion annually to assist senior citizens with aged care expenses. However, with the Parliamentary Budget Office anticipating a sharp rise in these costs, the task force recommended revising the means-testing for aged care services.

View attachment 38611

A federal government task force has recommended that wealthier seniors should contribute more to the aged care sector. Source: Shutterstock

The aim is to require wealthier individuals to shoulder a larger portion of the expenses, thus easing the fiscal strain on government resources.

The task force's report, expected to be published by the end of January, will likely recommend that consumers increase their contributions to maintain the high quality of services without overburdening taxpayers.

The federal government is expected to respond to these recommendations later in the year, possibly during the May budget.

One of the significant changes proposed is an increase in daily living fees for residential care residents, currently set at $61 a day. This could be lifted for those with greater wealth.

Ninety-six per cent of the total cost of residential aged care is covered by taxpayers, with only 4 per cent paid in consumer contributions. This is mostly due to existing means tests capping payments at $33,000 annually or $78,500 over a lifetime.

The task force also suggested changing how the family home contributes to means tests. The current system requires the home's maximum value to be below $198,000. This could also be set to change under the new recommendations.

Aged Care Minister Anika Wells had already hinted at such changes during a National Press Club speech in June, stating that aged care contributions would need to increase to keep up with quality improvements.

'You have to say that if we’re not prepared to accept that cinder-block, linoleum-floor, four-bedroom any more, then we need to work out how we’re going to pay for it,' she said.

‘Plenty of people have said: “I am prepared to pay for an innovative, excellent model of care—I just can’t find it”,’ Ms Wells added.

Ms Wells is expected to give a formal response to the task force report when it is published in a few weeks.

There were also intense discussions earlier on ways to improve aged care, particularly with the idea of imposing a levy on younger Australians.

Last year, Opposition health spokeswoman Anne Ruston said that the Coalition would consider ‘any sensible policy solutions put forward by the Aged Care Taskforce and the government in good faith’.

She stated: ‘Ensuring the sustainability of Australia’s aged-care sector is absolutely critical to ensuring future generations have access to the care they need and the care they deserve as they age.’

You can watch Sky News Australia’s report here:

​

The proposed changes have sparked mixed reactions from social media users. One commenter wrote: ‘Fair enough, we've done well. Didn't we say we were [saving] for retirement and now it's time for us to spend it and not be a burden?’

‘I have to agree. Aged care is very important but a lot of people are able to pay a little more to maintain the structure of the system,’ another said.

While another commented: ‘I thought having worked, paid taxes, raised tax paying children and generally making the country better was why we looked after elderly people. I must be wrong.’

‘If the national budget will not support the aged who have maintained the budget funding all their lives, then maybe everyone should stop paying into the national finances and fend for themselves,’ a fourth social media user suggested.

The aged care sector in Australia is facing numerous challenges, including a rapidly ageing population, increasing costs, and high expectations for quality care. The proposed changes are part of a broader effort to ensure the sustainability of the sector.

However, these changes also raise important questions about balancing individual and government responsibility for funding aged care. As the debate continues, it's clear that the future of aged care will be a key issue for both policymakers and the public.

Key Takeaways

• Wealthy seniors in Australia might be required to pay more for aged care due to government task force advice.
• The move aims to reduce taxpayer contributions to the country's aged care costs, which are expected to climb significantly over the next decade.
• The task force is set to recommend changes to means-testing, potentially increasing daily living fees and altering how the family home is valued in such tests.
• The federal government is expected to respond to the recommendations, which also suggest an increased consumer contribution later in the year, likely during the May budget.

What are your thoughts on these proposed changes, members? Do you believe wealthier individuals should contribute more to their aged care costs? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

The government needs to tax the multinational companies that rape and pillage the country's minerals etc and pay no taxes and ship the fund's overseas to tax havens that would pay for aged-care and more

 

[Rob44]

The ones that fought 'the war' are the ones to take credit - baby boomers lived off this luxury. The war regenerated the economy. Funny how the Greatest Generation did the heavy lifting and a LOT less whinging entitlement!

"baby boomers lived off this luxury"

Really? This "baby-boomer" recalls the luxury of having to live with my parents three families to one house back in the UK, apart from in a caravan with outside long drop dunny until the 1960s. Yes; real luxury, but that was in the UK. At least the Pommie governments of the day until the late 1970s enabled a far better National Health Service than anything ever seen in Australia, decent public transport and fees-paid university teaching for those who had passed the entrance exams, unlike in Australia. (And a government-guaranteed Old Age Pension).

But I suppose life in Australia was indeed more luxurious, even during WW2.

 

[Knell]

"baby boomers lived off this luxury"

Really? This "baby-boomer" recalls the luxury of having to live with my parents three families to one house back in the UK, apart from in a caravan with outside long drop dunny until the 1960s. Yes; real luxury, but that was in the UK. At least the Pommie governments of the day until the late 1970s enabled a far better National Health Service than anything ever seen in Australia, decent public transport and fees-paid university teaching for those who had passed the entrance exams, unlike in Australia.

But I suppose life in Australia was indeed more luxurious, even during WW2.

I am only talking about here in Australia - if we had lost the war in PGN we would not be here to talk about it!

 

[Rob44]

I am only talking about here in Australia - if we had lost the war in PGN we would not be here to talk about it!

Due credit to those who stopped the Japanese Army on the Kokoda Track, and elsewhere in PNG, and to all the PNG carriers who enabled supply; I met one of them about 3 decades ago. Not a nice place to fight a war.

I understand that a Japanese Army's evaluation of Australia's capability, made in 1938, had led the Japanese military to consider that although they could invade Australia they would not be able to hold it, given Australia's industrial capabilities that had been built up deliberately since 1920. Reference; "Armed and Ready" a book detailing this issue; I don't recall the author but it is a thorough study. However, Australia was useful for saving General MacArthur from disgrace.

 

[gordon1940]

Is this really true? Thousands upon thousands of our elderly died during the COVID period. I would argue we have less elderly in our population than we have had in many, many years... Could this be another money grab from the grubberment?

Thousands upon thousands have little effect on millions upon millions.

 

[Rob44]

over the 15+ years I worked in aged care I noticed clients were living longer. I’m sure it is because they are put on more and more medications for every health issue they get. This results in them living longer, not necessarily better lives. Even people with dementia related conditions are medicated to keep them alive. Sometimes it is not the best outcome for the client or the family. I watched quite a lot who spent years lying in a bed not even being aware of anything, being tube fed, carers having to attend to their every need. Families in distress watching them, wishing for them to pass away as neither they or the family had any sort of life during this time. The sooner we get voluntary assisted dying available to everyone the better end of life options will be. Hopefully it will be legal in my state before I get to the stage I am no longer capable of making that choice. I have told hubby and kids that I don’t want to live with no quality of life for me or them and I don’t want to be medicated to keep me alive in that scenario. I have written this down as well and had my family witness it.

Voluntary Assisted Dying is legal in most States of Australia. However, there are cautions and restraints about how it should be made available. The information from State Governments is available if you search 'Voluntary Assisted Dying' via the internet.

 

[Rob44]

The aged care sector is grappling with intensifying challenges as the population grows older. It's estimated that aged care costs will rise by $29 billion over the next decade alone.

But here’s the big question: who will foot the bill for improving standards of care? A federal government task force has recommended that wealthier seniors start contributing more.

This proposal suggests a shift in financial responsibility from the general taxpayer to those more financially capable.

The government currently allocates over $30 billion annually to assist senior citizens with aged care expenses. However, with the Parliamentary Budget Office anticipating a sharp rise in these costs, the task force recommended revising the means-testing for aged care services.

View attachment 38611

A federal government task force has recommended that wealthier seniors should contribute more to the aged care sector. Source: Shutterstock

The aim is to require wealthier individuals to shoulder a larger portion of the expenses, thus easing the fiscal strain on government resources.

The task force's report, expected to be published by the end of January, will likely recommend that consumers increase their contributions to maintain the high quality of services without overburdening taxpayers.

The federal government is expected to respond to these recommendations later in the year, possibly during the May budget.

One of the significant changes proposed is an increase in daily living fees for residential care residents, currently set at $61 a day. This could be lifted for those with greater wealth.

Ninety-six per cent of the total cost of residential aged care is covered by taxpayers, with only 4 per cent paid in consumer contributions. This is mostly due to existing means tests capping payments at $33,000 annually or $78,500 over a lifetime.

The task force also suggested changing how the family home contributes to means tests. The current system requires the home's maximum value to be below $198,000. This could also be set to change under the new recommendations.

Aged Care Minister Anika Wells had already hinted at such changes during a National Press Club speech in June, stating that aged care contributions would need to increase to keep up with quality improvements.

'You have to say that if we’re not prepared to accept that cinder-block, linoleum-floor, four-bedroom any more, then we need to work out how we’re going to pay for it,' she said.

‘Plenty of people have said: “I am prepared to pay for an innovative, excellent model of care—I just can’t find it”,’ Ms Wells added.

Ms Wells is expected to give a formal response to the task force report when it is published in a few weeks.

There were also intense discussions earlier on ways to improve aged care, particularly with the idea of imposing a levy on younger Australians.

Last year, Opposition health spokeswoman Anne Ruston said that the Coalition would consider ‘any sensible policy solutions put forward by the Aged Care Taskforce and the government in good faith’.

She stated: ‘Ensuring the sustainability of Australia’s aged-care sector is absolutely critical to ensuring future generations have access to the care they need and the care they deserve as they age.’

You can watch Sky News Australia’s report here:

​

The proposed changes have sparked mixed reactions from social media users. One commenter wrote: ‘Fair enough, we've done well. Didn't we say we were [saving] for retirement and now it's time for us to spend it and not be a burden?’

‘I have to agree. Aged care is very important but a lot of people are able to pay a little more to maintain the structure of the system,’ another said.

While another commented: ‘I thought having worked, paid taxes, raised tax paying children and generally making the country better was why we looked after elderly people. I must be wrong.’

‘If the national budget will not support the aged who have maintained the budget funding all their lives, then maybe everyone should stop paying into the national finances and fend for themselves,’ a fourth social media user suggested.

The aged care sector in Australia is facing numerous challenges, including a rapidly ageing population, increasing costs, and high expectations for quality care. The proposed changes are part of a broader effort to ensure the sustainability of the sector.

However, these changes also raise important questions about balancing individual and government responsibility for funding aged care. As the debate continues, it's clear that the future of aged care will be a key issue for both policymakers and the public.

Key Takeaways

• Wealthy seniors in Australia might be required to pay more for aged care due to government task force advice.
• The move aims to reduce taxpayer contributions to the country's aged care costs, which are expected to climb significantly over the next decade.
• The task force is set to recommend changes to means-testing, potentially increasing daily living fees and altering how the family home is valued in such tests.
• The federal government is expected to respond to the recommendations, which also suggest an increased consumer contribution later in the year, likely during the May budget.

What are your thoughts on these proposed changes, members? Do you believe wealthier individuals should contribute more to their aged care costs? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

$29 billion during 10 years is $2.9 billion a year. But what price a few nuclear-powered submarines.......or a free footie stadium for the AFL costing us $750 million? $750 million is 1/4 of $3 billion.

 

[Jest]

Ain't life good? I have COPD, Type 1 and I have applied for aged home help. not care, help. I am prepared to pay towards this help if I get it. One I applied for but at age 84 I am too old. There is so much blame being bandied about from one to another and that is certainly not going to fix this problem. The problem is US, we are living too long. I intend to live a bit longer if possible to buggar up the system. Good luck everyone.

 

[Gsr]

Ain't life good? I have COPD, Type 1 and I have applied for aged home help. not care, help. I am prepared to pay towards this help if I get it. One I applied for but at age 84 I am too old. There is so much blame being bandied about from one to another and that is certainly not going to fix this problem. The problem is US, we are living too long. I intend to live a bit longer if possible to buggar up the system. Good luck everyone.

Go you, I like the way you think Jest.

 

[GillyH]

This is similar to anything that the Albuneasy Govt touches. It becomes unmanageable ! They gave large salary increases, so, of course costs went up. Has the quality of service gone up ?
They have NO REAL FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE. MOST OF THEM HAVE NOT EVEN HAD A REAL JOB, LET ALONE RUN A BUSINESS ! Bryan.

The previous government also have had large salary increases all of the Politicians really, for years. Pay them well, but don't give them a politician pension all the other perks as well. They earn enough that they build up decent superannuation.

 

[Gsr]

I don't know anything about the aged care facilities, so I have been trying to search info. Does the Govt pay for aged care facilities even if the person earns the pension and their savings are capped at $58,500?

When I worked in aged care people who were deemed able to afford it paid a bond, pensioners included. If you were part of a couple who owned a home while one of you still lived in the home it didn’t need to be sold, but if you were the last person living in the home and went into aged care unless you had the money for the bond the home had to be sold to pay it. The bond used to be $100,000 but I was recently told it is now $350,000 in these facilities. The bond is invested and the facility gets the interest, once the client passes away the bond money is returned to the family. If the client is only in for a short time the facility keeps a percentage of the bond money. I’m not sure of the timeframes and amounts that apply here now. Pensioners used to pay 85% of their pension towards their care, if they had over a certain amount of money, which a lot do after selling a home and paying a bond, they also have to pay a daily co contribution. this is based on what money they have. The government tops up the costs of these clients. People in the more wealthy bracket usually pay a bond and all of their daily costs for care, plus any extras. once clients are deemed to be high care, assessed by an aged care team and drs, then the cost of a lot of personal care items like incontinence aids, soap, toothpaste, podiatry are government funded for pensioners. Medications, clothes, dental, optical, haircuts, clothing, outings and activities always need to be self funded. This is how the system worked when I worked in aged care and when mother in law was a client, she passed away 6 years ago today. I don’t think the funding has changed, only the bonds and daily living costs would have sky rocketed.

 

[Knell]

When I worked in aged care people who were deemed able to afford it paid a bond, pensioners included. If you were part of a couple who owned a home while one of you still lived in the home it didn’t need to be sold, but if you were the last person living in the home and went into aged care unless you had the money for the bond the home had to be sold to pay it. The bond used to be $100,000 but I was recently told it is now $350,000 in these facilities. The bond is invested and the facility gets the interest, once the client passes away the bond money is returned to the family. If the client is only in for a short time the facility keeps a percentage of the bond money. I’m not sure of the timeframes and amounts that apply here now. Pensioners used to pay 85% of their pension towards their care, if they had over a certain amount of money, which a lot do after selling a home and paying a bond, they also have to pay a daily co contribution. this is based on what money they have. The government tops up the costs of these clients. People in the more wealthy bracket usually pay a bond and all of their daily costs for care, plus any extras. once clients are deemed to be high care, assessed by an aged care team and drs, then the cost of a lot of personal care items like incontinence aids, soap, toothpaste, podiatry are government funded for pensioners. Medications, clothes, dental, optical, haircuts, clothing, outings and activities always need to be self funded. This is how the system worked when I worked in aged care and when mother in law was a client, she passed away 6 years ago today. I don’t think the funding has changed, only the bonds and daily living costs would have sky rocketed.

Ah, ok, thank you for explaining this. I was confused on the issue - was just trying to interpret the comments. Cheers

 

[Knell]

"baby boomers lived off this luxury"

Really? This "baby-boomer" recalls the luxury of having to live with my parents three families to one house back in the UK, apart from in a caravan with outside long drop dunny until the 1960s. Yes; real luxury, but that was in the UK. At least the Pommie governments of the day until the late 1970s enabled a far better National Health Service than anything ever seen in Australia, decent public transport and fees-paid university teaching for those who had passed the entrance exams, unlike in Australia. (And a government-guaranteed Old Age Pension).

But I suppose life in Australia was indeed more luxurious, even during WW2.

No, we did not live in luxury as it is known by today's standards. War Service home, 6 ppl, 3 b/room, 1 bathroom - not paid off until he was 80 y/o - well after retirement as a tradesman working for State Works Dept. We never owned a car ever, never went on a holiday ever, did not have a telephone until I was a teenager. We walked a long distance to get groceries and walked them home again....so not luxury by our standards today for sure. But we never noticed such things, we had a roof, food (tripe often argh), Mum made most of our clothes, we walked a lot to catch bus/train...it was just normal and we were happy. The happy was a luxury! We have more expectations today I think.

 

[marni]

Now as soon as it is legislated that the richer people can contribute more to their aged care just watch them run off to the lawyers or financial gurus and offload a much as they can to their kids, grandkids etc. there needs to be at least a ten year back dated timeframe that their assets are counted towards their aged care contribution. When my mother in law was in aged care 85% of her pension went towards her accommodation, food, care costs. She had 15% left to pay for medications, which ate up most of it. Family had to help out with all clothes, haircuts, specialised medical costs, dental, personal care items, outings etc. Clients who don’t have families to help have to do without a lot of these extras, if they are lucky there will be clothes and new personal items left there by families of deceased clients they can have. When mother in law passed away we donated all her clothes that were still good, a good lot of personal care items, the haircuts we had paid for that weren’t used, we paid in advance for them for gifts for her, and a donation of $500 to be used for the clients with no family help to be spent on their needs and some outings for them. The facility kept us informed of what the money was used for and we were pleased that it was all used for the needs of several different disadvantaged clients.

Ok here is your gold star. Do you really dislike people having money set aside through hard work so they can give some help to future generations that much that you

Now as soon as it is legislated that the richer people can contribute more to their aged care just watch them run off to the lawyers or financial gurus and offload a much as they can to their kids, grandkids etc. there needs to be at least a ten year back dated timeframe that their assets are counted towards their aged care contribution. When my mother in law was in aged care 85% of her pension went towards her accommodation, food, care costs. She had 15% left to pay for medications, which ate up most of it. Family had to help out with all clothes, haircuts, specialised medical costs, dental, personal care items, outings etc. Clients who don’t have families to help have to do without a lot of these extras, if they are lucky there will be clothes and new personal items left there by families of deceased clients they can have. When mother in law passed away we donated all her clothes that were still good, a good lot of personal care items, the haircuts we had paid for that weren’t used, we paid in advance for them for gifts for her, and a donation of $500 to be used for the clients with no family help to be spent on their needs and some outings for them. The facility kept us informed of what the money was used for and we were pleased that it was all used for the needs of several different disadvantaged clients.

Here is your gold star. Me. I am happy to have laboured enough to help my grandchildren in their start to life.

 

[Knell]

Due credit to those who stopped the Japanese Army on the Kokoda Track, and elsewhere in PNG, and to all the PNG carriers who enabled supply; I met one of them about 3 decades ago. Not a nice place to fight a war.

I understand that a Japanese Army's evaluation of Australia's capability, made in 1938, had led the Japanese military to consider that although they could invade Australia they would not be able to hold it, given Australia's industrial capabilities that had been built up deliberately since 1920. Reference; "Armed and Ready" a book detailing this issue; I don't recall the author but it is a thorough study. However, Australia was useful for saving General MacArthur from disgrace.

*helpful, a better word that "useful'. Well, at least America came to help us. Hate to think that the loss of 34,000 Aussie Soldiers was useful!

 

[Lulu2019]

I think we have a whole generation of people coming into aged care Whom have never paid taxes, they get the same care as others who have worked very hard. This is the way it should be, but hard work is sometimes a choice and this should be considered. Also, assisted euthanasia should be consider as a precursor, if I develop dementia, have no quality of life and am a drain on all around me I would rather be helped along and think that should be a option……

 

[elaine41]

Voluntary Assisted Dying is legal in most States of Australia. However, there are cautions and restraints about how it should be made available. The information from State Governments is available if you search 'Voluntary Assisted Dying' via the internet.

There are ways around the law. My mother, who was really healthy but with some arthritis (in her 90s), when she complained about her hip one night the Dr ordered an injection of morphine from which she never regained consciousness. To my mind she was murdered (aka voluntary euthanasia) by this Dr but I could never have proved negligence or deliberated action on his part if I had taken it to court.
I believe that this happens more times than anyone knows to our aged living in nursing homes where they have little to no control over what happens to them.