Growing need for greater respite care
The article in the Addy, July 8, “Ageing want waiting slashed” raised an issue on the lack of respite and short-term beds in Bendigo that offered ageing or dementia residents a place to go if their primary care became unwell or required hospitalisation.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Firstly, the staff involved in the provision of home care by the City of Greater Bendigo are to be congratulated for the work they are doing to ensure the change over from HACC to CHSP occurs efficiently.
Do our city councillors still consider that there has been a steady growth in the number of “specialised home care service providers”, including not-for-profit and; that these providers are capable of catering for the city’s growing and ageing population and the demand that this will create in the coming years?
City councillors must ensure the quality and extent of those services are transparent and not compromised by cuts to staff or services. Residents expectations for transparency and delivery of those services will grow under the Commonwealth Home Services Provisions.
There is a growing need for the city to provide greater respite care (short-term) for those cares who provide home care for their loved ones. Homes are cheaper than hospitals, and community care is cheaper than homes. Those carers at home are a success both in the provision of quality and finances for governments and council.
As a carer for my wife the real fear is that if I get sick or need hospitalisation, who cares for my wife? The issue raised by Ruth Hosking is very relevant to a lot of residents in Bendigo.
Bill Collier, Golden Square
Let’s talk Budget repair
Following the UK Chilcot report concluding the Iraq war case was not justified we are reminded that governments don’t always “get it right”. Australia’s involvement in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars continues to be very costly and tragic.
Total defence funding for 2016-17 is $32.4 billion which includes the planned building of 12 submarines at a cost of $150 billion (includes maintenance costs) over the next 30 years.
Many argue diesel fueled submarines are ineffective for Australia’s future needs and will be technically obsolete at the time of commissioning. Better, they say, to focus more on ships, aircraft, and drones.
Malcolm Turnbull calls for urgent “Budget repair” both for political reasons and because of the possible downgrading of our AAA credit rating by Standard & Poor’s.
Whilst the Liberal government has made a number of attempts to slash spending on Medicare and education there seems to be little allowed public debate on our increasing defence expenditure and our defence strategy. Have we got it wrong again, as we did with our involvement in Iraq?
We all recognise that a growing budget deficit is a serious issue, yet it is difficult for voters to reconcile a $5 billion expenditure each year, over 30 years for 12 submarines.
Mr Turnbull; with a current deficit of $39.9 billion we recognise the need for “Budget repair” yet why should voters accept such questionable, exorbitant expenditure on 12 submarines? And why does this huge fund allocation have precedence over health and education considerations?
Yep, let’s talk “Budget repair” where we reassess our defence spending and also adopt a bipartisan approach to “health” and “education”. Removing questionable submarine expenditure from the budget equation with instead, a focus on ships, planes and drones would make budget repair virtually complete and simultaneously secure our AAA rating.
Now that is Budget repair!
