On 20/05/2022 10:44 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/05/2022 8:19 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 20/05/2022 7:53 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> I'm sorry but I can't see how any of this is the fault of the
>>> government.
>>
>>
>> **Asked and answered.
>> * Nurses on duty 24/7
>> * Mandatory carer to resident ratios
>> * Decent, nutritious food
>
> Yep, and there is nothing stopping a *single* facility from ever
> supplying these things.

**Yes, there is: Greed. It is up to the government to control their
greed. Again: Taxpayers fund these bastards. It is up to the government
to exert proper controls over them.

>
>> Whilst the government refuses to mandate such things, aged care
>> providers will cut costs, staff and food quality.
>
> And yet you see the negligent actions of unscrupulous facility owners as
> the fault of the government.

**It is the fault of the facility owners and negligence on the part of
the government to continue to fail to manage taxpayer funds.

>
>> You should hope that you don't end up in aged care under a COALition
>> government.
>
> I've already made arrangements with my wife that if the day comes where
> I ever reach the point where I need to be admitted to such a facility
> then she's free to lace my dinner with Ratsak and sell my body to the
> highest bidder.
>
> Of course, having granted her such licence, I need to be especially
> careful whenever we have an argument in the mean time :)

**Yeah, I've heard that before. When the time comes, you may not take
the same approach.

>
>>>> **Correct. The COALition has refused to specify decent minimum
>>>> standards for aged care. They just don't care.
>>>
>>> "Decent" being the subjective term in this context.
>>
>> **It's not fucking subjective to provide nurses for frail people, or
>> adequate staffing levels or decent quality food. NONE of that is
>> subjective.
>
> It is *precisely* subjective Trevor. Your idea of "quality care" is not
> everyone else's. Everyone's needs are different.

**You're wrong. Those things are FUNDAMENTAL to quality care.

>
>> It's all measurable and achievable. Sadly the owners of the aged care
>> facilities may have to settle for a low end Ferrari.
>
> Again, you're sticking it to the wrong people. Those you *should* be
> blaming are the unscrupulous care facility owners who treat their
> clients like a meal ticket, and to be absolutely frank letting them off
> the hook because you think the government doesn't provide adequate
> funding is an absolute nonsense.

**Of course I blame the owners of the facilities. I also blame the
government for not mandating proper care.

>
> It's like GP's claiming they can't afford to bulk bill patients because
> they're only making 170 bucks an hour to write out scripts.
>
>>   Some probably think
>>> the current minimum standard is decent enough,
>>
>> **Nope. No one does.
>
> Right. So you've conducted a poll and found that everyone thinks that way?

**Tell you what: YOU find someone who thinks that the minimum standards
are good enough and I'll pay attention.

>
>>   while others such as
>>> yourself disagree.
>>
>> **The only ones who think it's good enough are:
>>
>> * The COALition government
>> * The owners of most aged care facilities.
>>
>> EVERYONE else knows there are problems. Unless, like you, they have
>> their heads in the sand.
>
> Actually Trev, you should be praising the current government, as they're
> the only ones that I can recall in a very long time who has launched an
> inquiry into the aged care system, despite the system having been a mess
> for *decades* at the hands of many governments from either side of the
> political fence.

**They launched an inquiry, then ignored the recommendations.

>
>> Still, none of this changes the fact that the company
>>> who runs the facility has the freedom to provide the level of care
>>> they see fit.
>>
>> **Which needs to be adequately specified by the government, since
>> taxpayers foot a large chunk of the bill.
>
> So the government should not only foot the lion's share of the bill, but
> tell them how they have to run their business?

**Abso-fucking-lutely. The ones that can meet decent standards can be
left alone. I will say once more: The government gives these arseholes
BILLIONS of taxpayer Dollars every year. The government SHOULD have a
huge say in how the business is run. If the facilities don't want
government interference, then let them forego the free money.

>
> Why don't we just dispense with the middle man and have the Government
> do it all themselves?

**That would be ideal. Government run facilities are vastly more
efficient. No shareholders to pay.

>
>>> A line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere, and no matter where you
>>> draw it you'll never please everyone.
>>
>> **Get real. Shit food, inadequate staffing levels and no medical
>> professionals is the minimum that any reasonable person can expect.
>> Unless you happen to not give a shit.
>
> You understand that you're free to pick and choose where you want to go,
> and no one is *forced* into any particular facility, right? There are
> better options available that offer better services, but then you'll
> have to pay more for those services.

**No. I already explained to you that my sister and mother were in a
facility with excellent levels of care and food (which, BTW, I'd be
happy to pay for in a decent cafe), yet the profit for the owner was
respectable. I examined facilities that were double the price, yet
didn't offer the same level of care. Money doesn't buy better care.
You'd think it would, but it doesn't. It MIGHT buy you a better view, or
a nice coffee machine in common areas, but it won't, necessarily get you
24/7 nursing staff.

>
> What you generally don't get, and this is usually true with everything,
> is the best service at the cheapest price.

**Wrong. I explained to you before that the facility my mother and
sister were in was a low cost one. Not the cheapest I checked out, but
petty damned close.

>
>>   Like the current argument about
>>> medicare rebates for example. A lot of doctors are arguing that the
>>> rebate doesn't pay them enough and unless it's raised they will
>>> either have to cut back on services or stop bulk billing.
>>
>> **I note your attempt to change the topic.
>
> Note whatever you like, but the point is that fault of the aged care
> industry likes squarely at the feet of the people who run it, and that
> is *not* the government.
>
>>   No amount of government interference would
>>> ever change that, and if you're unhappy with the service on offer
>>> then you have the right to pack up and leave.
>>
>> **Spoken like someone who has no experience with the system. It ain't
>> that easy.
>
> Well, yeah, it is.
>
> You pay for X, but you want Y. But you're not prepared to pay for Y so
> you have to settle for X. That's pretty much how it works. The aged care
> business is a business like any other.

**Read what I wrote. Money doesn't buy better care. It just buys more
expensive furniture. Furniture is cheap. Nurses are not.

>
>>> Just out of curiosity, if your sister wasn't happy with where she
>>> was, why didn't she move?
>>
>> **My sister was non-communicative. She was totally reliant on her
>> carers, who failed her miserably. Due to COVID restrictions, my
>> brother-in-law was unable to visit her.
>
> I think a great many people suffered the same fate.

**She died from complications arising from bed sores. One was 160mm
across and bone was visible. It was horrific and the direct result of
the lack of care from the facility.

>
>> And, for the record: When she was admitted to the palliative care
>> section of the local hospital, we had a discussion about moving her to
>> a dedicated palliative care facility. Her doctors determined that she
>> was so weak, that the 5km trip would have killed her. My sister was
>> extremely ill. She looked worse than those people who spent their days
>> in Nazi concentration camps.
>>
>> If the COALition had bothered to implement the changes promised by
>> Labor, my sister may still be alive today.
>
> There's no possible way you can know that, and as sad as it is given the
> comments of the doctors that you've mentioned here it probably wouldn't
> have made any difference to her where she was.

**Read my words, VERY CAREFULLY.

>
>> I'll say again: Avoid entering aged care while the COALition is
>> running things. The COALition acts to protect the companies that run
>> aged care facilities. They do not act for residents.
>
> I can understand you being upset, but rubbish like this here isn't doing
> you any favours.

**It's fact, not rubbish.