This is a dismal justification for a National Care Service
We are unimpressed:
It’s an important discussion. But what if government didn’t just look at how to care for people in their later years and instead spent real political capital on policies to help people live longer independently, and in good health? The data isn’t pretty on this. While the trend over the past half-century in almost all countries has been for people to live longer, healthy life expectancy has been consistently falling.
The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in 2022-24, healthy life expectancy at birth was just 60.7 years for men (77% of life) and 60.9 years for women (73%) across the UK, despite life expectancy being 79.1 years for men and 83.0 years for women. In Scotland it is even worse: for 2022-24, healthy life expectancy at birth was 59.1 for men and 59.4 for women, numbers that continue to decline.
We do not believe those numbers in the slightest. For they are self-reported numbers. From ONS: “…based on how individuals perceive their general health.” This is not an objective measure. As the country gets richer, as what medicine can deal with expands, then what is considered to be less than tip-top health changes. We would, and do, insist that this is what is happening here. Our standards are changing, not our health. What used to be the grumbles of old age are now being defined as ill-health. Which might even be a perfectly sensible redefinition but it’s not that objective evidence of some decline in good health now, is it?
As to what those measures are going to be:
The success of an ageing society should be measured not only on how it collectively shoulders the burden of dependency, but also on how well it extends the years in which people can live independently and well. If Burnham is serious about the social care agenda, that is the long-term question we should be asking now: not simply how we will care for people when they become dependent, but how we will create the conditions that allow more people to remain healthy for longer.
We have our suspicions about what’s going to be involved here:
'Thirty to forty group!' yapped a piercing female voice. 'Thirty to forty group! Take your places, please. Thirties to forties!'
Winston sprang to attention in front of the telescreen, upon which the image of a youngish woman, scrawny but muscular, dressed in tunic and gym-shoes, had already appeared.
'Arms bending and stretching!' she rapped out. 'Take your time by me. One, two, three, four! One, two, three, four! Come on, comrades, put a bit of life into it! One, two, three, four! One, two, three, four! ...'
We’ve always found it amazing how many take that all as a guide rather than a warning.
Tim Worstall