Anyone who read the sad story of former county council chief Clifford Smith and his struggle to pay for care for his wife, June, cannot fail to have been moved.
But the fact is that his plight - and that of hundreds of thousands of families across the country - is the result of 12 years of inaction and buck-passing by the government.
Mr Smith has to spend all his pension income - the state pension and his county council pension - and his wife's pension to pay the £62,000 a year it costs for her to live in a care home.
He is having to live a frugal life in a small flat - and is worried about what might happen if he has to move into a care home himself in the future.
His savings are being eroded - and he fears he will have nothing to leave his family.
What makes it so sad is that he and his wife did everything expected of them during a long and distinguished career - saving for the future so they could enjoy a comfortable retirement.
Mr Smith's plight prompted Ipswich MP Tom Hunt to say he felt there should be a cap on what people should be expected to pay.
He's absolutely right - and the government commissioned a report from economist Andrew Dilnot which said precisely that in 2010.
It was published in 2011 - but the findings have been totally ignored and the cost of care still has to be met by families.
To be honest I find the hand-wringing of government MPs a bit rich. Their government has been in power ever since the report was published but it's been too cowardly to do anything about it.
We've now got an explosion in dementia cases expected over the next 25 years as more baby-boomers reach extreme old age.
The Alzheimer's Society estimates the number of cases is going to increase from 850,000 in 2020 to 1.6m by 2050.
Not all will require residential care. Some will undoubtedly be cared for by their families and some people will die before they reach the care home - but whatever way you look like it there is going to be a need for much more support.
And while the government makes sympathetic noises, it is actually doing very little to set up the care needed.
That's because care costs money and if you've got more people wanting that care then the cost is going to rise significantly.
Politicians know that to pay for this, more money will have to come from somewhere - but it's not considered "sexy" in a way that a new hospital, aircraft carrier, or motorway is.
People may have to pay more tax as an insurance to ensure there is a strong enough safety net.
But as more people live beyond the age of 90, it is worth remembering that one in five 90-year-olds suffer from some form of dementia.
Politicians and the community as a whole need to make a decision on how to cope. In some societies it is expected that families will look after their extremely old residents.
Are we ready to tell people in their 50s and 60s that they have to give up good jobs to care for their frail parents?
Do we have to accept that the long-established hope of many people to leave an inheritance for their children is no longer a feasible aim?
Or is some politician somewhere prepared to dust off the Dilnot Report, take another look at its sensible and well-costed proposals and be prepared to grasp the nettle?
I'm not sure any of them have the courage to do that!
Share