No, the elderly are not entitled to free long-term care because of legislation passed by the government in 2005 following a Supreme Court ruling that it was illegal to charge them for their care. Up to then, the elderly were entitled, under the 1970 Health Act, to free inpatient care, including long-term residential care, but were being charged for the care illegally by the state.

The government is currently reimbursing those who were illegally charged for care. Since July 2005, people in public care pay 80% of their pension towards their care. Those in private care pay most or all of the cost, depending on the level of state subvention.

So what is Mary Harney proposing?

As of January 2008, any elderly person assessed as needing long-term care will be required to pay 80% of their disposable income towards the cost of care. If a person's disposable income is less than the cost of care, 5% of the market value of their house will be sought for a maximum of three years.

The average income of over 65s is 235 a week. Nursing home care can cost up to 1,000 a week. Up to 15% of the value of their home will be payable after death by residents of both private and pubic nursing homes. If a person is part of a couple and only one of them goes into care, then the charge on the property will be halved.

An elderly person will only be considered suitable for long-term care if they have high dependency needs. Anyone deemed appropriate for nursing home care will be means tested.

It is unclear what will happen if a person is assessed as not needing long-term care but the person themselves and the family think they do. In this instance, it would appear that the older person and their family would have to pay the full costs of care.

Should elderly people or their families have to contribute to the cost of their nursing home care?

The answer to this question depends on your view of health and social care . . .

whether it is a service to which all are entitled, for which society should pay collectively through tax or insurance, or whether it is a commodity, for which those who are unfortunate enough to need it should pay during or after their time of need.

Most people pay taxes, including social insurance, throughout their adult lives.

These taxes pay for public services and act as 'insurance' for times of need. For example, if a person has a heart attack or is diagnosed with cancer, all services from emergency through to treatment and care are provided for by the state on the principle of need, with a maximum charge of 600 a year for inpatient care.

No questions are asked, and no repayments are sought in the future, no matter what one's means.

So why should a different principle apply to nursing home care?

There is nothing different about nursing home care. It could also be paid for through taxation in the form of social insurance, so it is a political choice not to do so.

In 2002, the government commissioned and published a 'Study to Examine the Future Financing of Long-Term Care in Ireland'. Known as the Mercer Report, it clearly recommends the financing of long-term care for the elderly through social insurance. The National Council for Ageing and Older People, the state agency that advises the government on older people, also advocates that social insurance should be the primary model of financing for long term care for older people.

Is there enough public money to pay for long-term care for the elderly?

Of course there is. There has never been so much money in the state coffers. And contrary to popular belief, while older people live longer, they also live healthier and fitter lives. Fewer elderly people are in need of long-term residential care than before. Less than 5% of those over 65 will be in residential long-term care at any one time.

It is impossible to predict who will be in that 5%, and therefore everybody's social insurance should cover the costs of the needs of this very small and vulnerable group.

Would there need to be higher taxes to pay for this long-term care?

There may need to be higher taxes to cover these costs in the future as the population ages. In the budget, the government reduced the highest tax band by 1%. Instead of reducing taxes paid by the better off, there could have been a public and political debate about how we want to collectively fund long-term care for the people who need it.

The British Royal Commission on Long- Term Care found that the costs of publicly providing for nursing home care for an older and healthier population can be met within the parameters of all reasonable forecasts of economic growth.

Ireland's economic growth has far surpassed Britain's in the last decade.

What happens between now and January 2008?

If a person is in a public home, the current situation remains . . . the patient contributes 80% of their pension and the state pays for the remainder of the cost of care. Those in private care currently either pay the full amount, or pay most of the costs, and the state pays a subvention.

At the moment, the cap on subvention is 190.50 a week. This will go up to 300 a week between now and January 2008.

What happens if a person is not considered suitable for long-term care?

All elderly people who are not assessed as 'high dependency' will be supported in their own homes. While the government is significantly increasing the number of home-care packages, it is not clear whether there will be sufficient government finance for home-care packages to meet the needs of all elderly people in the community.

Take the experience of mental health.

Many people living in psychiatric institutions were 'released' to the community under the community care scheme but not adequately provided for.

There now needs to be a public and political debate about how we want to fund services for older people.