If there is a good rational, as distinct from emotional, argument to explain why you should pay for my father's nursing home while he could pay for it himself, then I would certainly change my mind. Part of the reason the country is in the state it is in, is because we are not prepared to allow our politicians to make tough decisions in the interest of society as a whole. And we will savage anyone who dares to challenge the conventional view.
Can you make a rational un-emotional argument as to why the state should be providing nursing home care for any of its citizens?
A purely rational argument could be made that anyone who has gone into a nursing home with Dementia or Alzheimers and isn't coming out should just be euthanized. There is no purely rational argument that can be made against that without straying into the realm of emotions, values, morality, practicalities etc.
We could ask everybody at 40 to declare a living will. If you are in that situation do you want to (a) be euthanized so that you can pass on your inheritance or (b) do you want to place all your assets at the disposal of the state to take care of you until the end of your natural life?
I think we could have a lot of people opting for (a), especially those who think they will have significant assets to pass onto children.
There are reports that in Eskimo\Inuit cultures, that old people who felt they were becoming a burden walk out into the blizzard never to return; or the rest of the community decides for them and moves camp overnight leaving them behind. There's a word for it... Senicide.
What's the rational argument as to why that cultural mechanism is wrong???
Are the interests of that society rational?
Want to solve the housing crisis? Fine, bring in communal barrack style accomodation as long as it is safe, warm and hygenic.
There is no rational reason for people to be attached to the concept of having (either via owning it or renting) their own property, or bedroom for that matter. Once upon a time it was felt that one room was enough for a family; now more than 2 kids in a bedroom is forbidden and undignified. What changed? And was it rational?
So this argument doesn't come down to rationality. It comes down to values.
People place value on having their own space.
People place value on providing nursing home care so that those living out their end of days can do so in comfort and with dignity and without stress.
People on this thread have placed value on allowing people in nursing homes to retain control of their homes, to avoid a situation where they are left with nothing because of health issues - because they feel that that it would cause stress and be an affront to their dignity.
Unless we agree on the values we cannot have a rational argument about how to maximise the realisation of those values.
We can rationally work out the calculations for the person in this scenario as to whether the Fair Deal makes financial sense for them to sign up, because we agree on the value of money to them.
The challenge is not to convince people of the rationality of your proposal, but why they should assign a higher priority \ more importance to the values that you think it realises; than the alternatives.
I would further add that if people feel there is a trade off going on, or one value is overriding another, you will have to explain why this particular trade off is necessary \ essential. In this scenario they will point out that there are alternatives - compelling developers to build on zoned land, permitting bedsits, permitting taller buildings, reducing the number of people coming to RPZs - that have no trade offs or lesser tradeoffs, as far as they are concerned.
Why should we put people through X, when we can do Y instead?
