To bring the system completely under the State would obviously involve enormous costs, yet the alternative problems of a privately run,' for profit' system are there for all to see. That's not to say that the State is capable of running a flexible and localised system of care, whether it wants to or not.
Should care of the vulnerable, irrespective of age, come under the cloak of the State? Should we all pay, as part of our taxes, to receive that service...after all we all get old and many of us will need some form of additional care which families are either unable, or reluctant to provide.
Are not to profit organisations the answer? They might be, but there are arguments which suggest they will only work in certain situations and even then we have to defined what we mean by 'not for profit'.
MPs will be away from the House of Commons for weeks on end over the summer and in the autumn will start looking in earnest at the Dilnot recommendations. An ideal time, perhaps, for reflection of what we as individual think might be the answer.
The link to the following Guardian article may provide some further food for thought -
