[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 585: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 641: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Right care right deal - new campaign - Carers UK Forum

Right care right deal - new campaign

Discuss news stories and political issues that affect carers.
Carers UK has teamed up with Help the Aged and Counsel and Care to launch a joint campaign Right Care right deal. We're launching with a survey that shows two thirds of people won't save for their old age and expect to be cared for by family.

http://www.carersuk.org/Newsandcampaign ... 1201111408

With this campaign and our other work with social care, we're trying to make this into an issue of public concern. Social care is in crisis, as you all know, but the public don't seem to know about this issue. The demographics show us it isn't going away, in fact it will get worse, so we have to address it as a society.

From Imelda Redmond's quote in the press release....
"Our present social care system is simply not fit for purpose, it relies heavily on carers without properly recognising or supporting them."

The campaign website is at www.rightcare.org.uk and you can sign up to get email updates.

Matt
The campaign immediately stumbles into a seriously confused message. Is this a UK campaign, or an English one? I cant believe that once again Carers UK has fallen into this trap, following the dodgy calculations used to estimate the value of Carers contribution across the UK being compared with and quoted in the same breath as the cost of the NHS in England.

[quote]Notes to Editor]
The campaign immediately stumbles into a seriously confused message. Is this a UK campaign, or an English one? I cant believe that once again Carers UK has fallen into this trap, following the dodgy calculations used to estimate the value of Carers contribution across the UK being compared with and quoted in the same breath as the cost of the NHS in England.
Notes to Editor]
makes you wonder who exactly writes these things and who is reponsible for sending them out, a contradiction of terms if there ever was any.
makes you wonder who exactly writes these things and who is reponsible for sending them out, a contradiction of terms if there ever was any.
Well, exactly. I'm not asking for rigorous academic peer-reviewed research here, and the overall intentions of the campaign appear admirable, but for gods sake, can we please appoint at least one senior person at C-UK who understands the difference between populist tabloid bubble-quote campaigns and ten minutes of halfway critical thought..... in my view as a huge fan and almost lifelong member of C-UK this is very mediocre and merits a sharp rap across the knuckles for whoever is responsible. It's not even as if there aren't plenty of people out here in carer-land who could have spotted this a mile off in draft format and corrected the error.....isn't that what the forum is for?
My reaction on reading this was to ask why the respondents to the survey have no plans to save to fund care they may need in the future. Can they simply not be bothered assuming that friends and family will care for them when the time comes, have they never thought about the possibility or are they unable to save due to low income, high housing/living costs etc.

Without knowing the answer to this question the response of the public to the research will be very different: if the respondents could but don't intend to save assuming that they can simply pass responsibility for their welfare to someone else which is what the press release implies, I would suggest that it fails in its intent, i.e. to gain public sympathy for people in need of and providing care and to support and sign up to "Right care Right deal". If people aren't saving for future care costs because they don't have the means the implications are very different and the likelihood of public support greater.

I personally feel that both the research and the press release are flawed. I most certainly wouldn't have used the lack of planning for future care costs as the first paragraph, it's become primary message which I'm sure wasn't intended, surely the primary issue is the current lack of support for older people and their carers, future demands on the care system due to demographic changes and the need to urgently address the problem and these should have been the first and primary message? Better to have highlighted the current crisis in funding for care of the elderly and that the research showed that this crisis will be even greater in the future unless action is taken now?


Wouldn't something along the lines of the following be better:

"New Deal for Social Care Needed to Avert Crisis in Care of the Elderly

Reasearch carried out for ... has shown that radical changes to the social care system in England are urgently needed to avert a crisis in care of the elderly. Cuts in services and demographic changes... . Launching the "Right care Right deal" campaign... "

or:

"Urgent Changes in Social Care Needed to Avert Crisis", etc.

Let's face it the crisis already exists and many of us are picking up the pieces.
I agree, Ann.

There's too high a possibility of "if they can't be bothered to look after themselves it's not MY responsibility." Hardly the response we need.
most certainly wouldn't have used the lack of planning for future care costs as the first paragraph, it's become primary message which I'm sure wasn't intended
Very good point.
Are we all supposed to plan for care in old age? If so - lets look at the practicalities of it.
Only a third or so of us will need any form of institutional social care in old age, and the average length of stay in care before death has been reducing to around seven or eight months in most areas.

What are the care costs, and how would we plan for them? Clearly some form of insurance would be sensible - and we don't want to let the private sector make a killing, so the state should have a form of insurance scheme. But hey - it already does, it's called National Insurance, and I'm old enough to remember when you had a wee card with a stamp on it every week you worked.

Now, if we pay all our life for that stamp, then surely the State has a clear responsibility to provide for us in the event that we need that extra care...doesnt it?

And if the government isnt raising enough money from your NI contribs, then surely they should be requiring us all to pay a little bit more....shouldnt they?

So I don't know about where you live, but I have paid and saved all my life, and I will expect the government to honour that with high quality personal care if I need it...and at least in Scotland I think they will. Which is why the survey was misguided talking about the UK as a whole....its a key weakness.
This interesting debate still leaves a question unanswered - why do people have children? I certainly did not reproduce in order to have someone on hand to give up their life to caring for me in my old age.

Do I have this all wrong? Should my child do what I have done to care for my elderly parent? Should I expect this child to devote the middle-aged years to my care and lose money and health?

My personal opinion is NO.

What are the care costs, and how would we plan for them? Clearly some form of insurance would be sensible - and we don't want to let the private sector make a killing, so the state should have a form of insurance scheme. But hey - it already does, it's called National Insurance, and I'm old enough to remember when you had a wee card with a stamp on it every week you worked.

Now, if we pay all our life for that stamp, then surely the State has a clear responsibility to provide for us in the event that we need that extra care...doesnt it?

And if the government isnt raising enough money from your NI contribs, then surely they should be requiring us all to pay a little bit more....shouldnt they?

So I don't know about where you live, but I have paid and saved all my life, and I will expect the government to honour that with high quality personal care if I need it...and at least in Scotland I think they will. Which is why the survey was misguided talking about the UK as a whole....its a key weakness.
Interesting that you've raised the issue of NI contributions because I was commenting earlier to my husband on Purnell's statement quoted in the government press release announcing his appointment where he says]"My aspirations are to ensure that everyone has the chance to be self-reliant in old age, ... "[/i].

My point was that income tax and NI contributions are not individually invested for our benefit when we need them but used to pay for the education, healthcare, social care, pensions, etc. of those currently accessing them. This means that my parent's (and husband's) generation paid for my generation's education, healthcare etc. and for pensions, social care for older people while they were working; my generation has paid for subsequent generations through our contributions and so on and so on. It's the essence of the welfare state, a contract between citizens and the state which requires those who are able to to hand over a part of their income for the benefit of future generations and to care for those in need, including those whose past contributions have benefited us.

Purnell talks of "self-reliance" in old age which presumably, in the context of the Department of Work and Pensions, denotes an increasing reliance on occupational and private, nonstate-funded, pensions, perhaps eventually the abolition of the state (tax/NI-funded) retirement pension and, in the context of care services, the reduction (south of the border fewer older people are qualifying for LA social care services and those who are are already having to pay increasing charges for essential care services or do without) and eventual abolition of state-funded care provision. This leaves one wondering if the intention is for the contract that has existed for 60 years between the citizen and the state is to be broken, albeit piecemeal and over time, and which generation is going to be told: "Thank you for contributing for the welfare of other generations but you're now on your own, you can't expect the state to pick up the tab for your needs".

So, in answer to your question whether having paid all our lives the State has a clear moral responsibility to provide for us in the event that we need extra care, the answer of course is yes but that's assuming that the State sees the contract it entered into with my parent's and subsequent generations as binding and based on current government policy direction I rather suspect that it doesn't. And should people be paying more to ensure that contract isn't diluted? Again the answer is yes but, as this would be a politically unpopular demand, I would suggest it's unlikely to happen.