[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
SOCIAL CARE , WHO CARES ? - Carers UK Forum

SOCIAL CARE , WHO CARES ?

Discuss news stories and political issues that affect carers.
I have very mixed views on social care for one i dont want to use it and if we did the cost for us is so high (£18 per hour last time i looked ) we dont even own a home or have savings . the head of social care in Lewisham last night said that 82% of residents in care who needed social care did not own a home , one lady in London had been in residential care for 30 years and had spent over 1 million £`s on her care ( not sure if that was for just social care or also accommodation) another said "if i continue to pay for my care i will be able to leave just £23-000 to the family". If we had a cap on the cost of social care she would be able to leave £100-000 to the family is it right that the tax payer should pay for social care just to allow the elderly with savings or those who own a home to be able to leave £100-000 to the children ? many people save for a rainy day, sad things is when you get old and disabled the rainy day arrives but you dont want to spend your hard earned money and who can blame them, social care is part of the overal package for care if resident within care home system the accommodation still has to be paid for ..Dilnot also said a cap on the rent /accommodation should be set at about £200 per week -this was not part of his brief re social care but he thought it worthy of inclusion in his report such a cap would benefit those without savings /home owners but would benefit those with good pensions .such a cap would present the state with a massive bill well over and above the 2 billion just for a rise in the cap on social care .
For me the best way to fund social care is not to remove universal benefits from the "wealthy " who ever they are or to remove all disability benefits from the over 65`s to fund a universal social care system for all ( 10 minutes a day ) but we should look again at the so called death tax ..on death if the estate is over a set figure of £150-000 , £200-000 or even higher the state will take a social care tax from the estate @ 1% , 2% i`m sure someone will come up with a figure this social care tax will be ring fenced and used for social care both residential and at home ..the poor pay zero the wealthy ( whoever they are ) pay the most ..

The governments LEAK MACHINE is in full working order today and they have said a decision on social care may not be taken before the next election , that is after the next spending review ( so whats new) ...we have a good system of social care within the home at the moment and about 500-000 + may be lucky enough to have this 24/7 care and it costs the state just £58 per week ..we as cares can and do provide good quality care at home why cant the social care and care in general be built around the family carer ? not all families will be able to provide care but for those that do they should be supported with a decent allowance and respite care provided FREE after all we workers need a holiday
Yet again the media boys and girls ..get it wrong ..

social care does not include the accommodation within a residential care home ..

if the TOTAL AMOUNT an elderly person has to pay for SOCIAL CARE is set at say £100-000 the costs for the accommadation will continue we also need a TOTAL AMOUNT for the elderly to pay re accommodation ( or do we ) or they receive free accommodation when their savings assets reach ??? £23-000 or £100-000 what a shambles it all is ...

we could have an elderly person with a basic state pension but with assets of £100-000 entitled to free "social care " on the other hand we could have someone with very good pensions private ,occupational or war related with no savings / assets at all yet they may have to pay as they have a good income ....

i wish the likes of the carer / elderly charities could get this very important point over to the media some M.P`s and members of the house of Lords- that social care is not for the accommodation within the residential care home system social care can be for someone within their own home be it rented or owned ..it is for those who need extra help with the likes of feeding , toileting , dressing & personal hygiene
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/ ... form-delay

clip from above...
• There should be a rise from £23,250 to £100,000 in the threshold of savings and assets above which the state stops offering help with CARE COSTS.

• A cap of £35,000 should be imposed on the amount any individual would have to pay towards their own CARE COSTS during their lifetime.

they talk of CARE COSTS is that for SOCIAL CARE or does this include the accommodation ..confused dot com ...

again clip from above...
The move by the government appeared to trigger a crisis in the cross-party talks on SOCIAL CARE. Labour took exception to a letter by Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, to the independent chairman of the talks. Lansley told Sir Hugh Taylor, the chairman of the Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, that he would publish a government report, rather than a cross-party progress report.

they now talk of SOCIAL CARE does that include the accommodation still confused dot com..

clip from above ...
• This article was amended on 7 July 2012. The original referred to "reforms to the system for long-term CARE for the elderly in England and Wales".

long term CARE ..should that not be LONG TERM SOCIAL CARE ...to sum up who gives a ****
I have to say with all the fire the government is aiming at the elderly recently, I do fear getting old.
If it's this bad now what's it going to be like in 40 years time Image
Well we'll find out on Wednesday when thw White Paper is released, although there are already signs that the government are still dithering about what to do and how to pay for it. They can issue as much paper and reports as they like, but actually doing something in practice seems to be beyond them. They are after all just boring men in suits justifying there own jobs and lifestyles.

I suspect that the whole social care reforms will be kicked into the long grass once again and no fair system will be in place before 2015. To late for many of our older people.

On the ..how do you pay for all this...topic. Well it has to be paid for somwhere along the line. I don't see why the actual people receiving the care, should bear the full brunt of the expense. Surely as a civilised caring society we should all pay a bit more in taxes to pay for it. We will all be old one day...thats a law!!! I don't see why people who assuming they have worked hard all their lives and payed their taxes, should then be asked to pay 100% for their care. What's fair about that?

Anyway assuming that people get free care exactly what standard and amount of care do they get? I's all provided by private companies anyway who employ kids on minimum wage. The standards are appalingly low. The councils are also restricting the amount anyone receives as well. 30 minutes three or four times a day if your lucky. Yet another lie by the men in suits, who assure us that extra millions have been given for social care provision and that front-line services will not be affected. Meanwhile in the real world...this money has never been ring-fenced and is automatically swallowd up into the councils budget on other things.

No I'm afraid that carers and our piglets will continue to be kicked in the teeth for a good while yet. Let's face it we should be grateful to receive the £58 per week to keep the ship afloat and save them the bother of making any decisions at all. Image
one problem raised was, if the elderly will be entitled to free social care (either at home or in residential care) when the savings / assets are down to £100-000 and the total bill for accommodation care is set at £35-000 ..the local authority will be very reluctant to place "fit and healthy" elderly pensioners in residential care, the costs will be greater if the elderly pensioner lives longer, could we see a system when the elderly disabled are placed within the residential care home system for just the last few years / months of their lives ? i am sure the local authority will try and provide social care for them within their own home as the cost may well be lower ...

are they going to present a white paper on wednesday ? or will it be a statement of intent ...

CAMERON is to provide 200 million quid to build disabled friendly homes for the elderly / disabled --when--- and who will care for them within the new disabled friendly homes ....if you have an elderly /disabled tenant in social housing in a 3 bed home they will be first choice for the new one bed disabled friendly home...
You are so right herschel. Much of it comes down to money rather than a genuine care from Cameron and the government.(or Mr Slippery as he's often called in the Mail). I care full time for my disabled Mum and she would much rather stay at home than be carted off into some shoddy council operated dump to end her days. These shoddy dumps still cost around £2,000 a month so god knows what a better quality private home would cost. Anyway I respect her wishes and had no hesitation in moving back in to care for her.However this has meant severe restrictions for me and stresses on my own health.

I think we understand that this is a very complex and difficult issue, but they have had 2 years since Dilnot made recommendations. How long do they want? That is their job after all, for which they are hansomly paid. Whichever system is put in place will be certainly driven by contracted out service to care suppliers who are not regulated or checked to any sort of decent standard. People who think we will return to the old system of home help and well trained nurses are kidding themselves. You cant necessarily blame the young kids that these firms employ. How dedicated are they expected to be for £6 an hour? Mr Slippery's get out clause on these matters is always to blame the front line staff for lack of dedication and thought for the patients. The real reason for poor care lies somewhat deeper than that and cutbacks to an already creaking system are wholly to blame.
If you were in charge, how would you deal with social care, not just funding but provision of care too?
for me social care should be funded by the DEATH TAX the government would have to front load the cash and then wait for the tax returns... on death the persons estate over a set amount of what could be as high as £200-000 would be taxed at 1%, 2%, 3% this tax would be ring fenced and spent only on social care / long term care ie accommodation, it would be controlled by an independent company with M.P`s on the board along with members of charities ...Strange as it may seem i still believe that the elderly should pay something towards their social care costs and accommodation , for me they should be able to recieve free social care and accommodation when their assets are at £200-000 or more ? ...and for those who dont own a home or have savings but have good private pensions over and above the state retirement pension they should make a contribution from their private pensions but they should be allowed to keep at least £1-600 per month this will be a fair system if those with savings /assets are to be rewarded then those with good pensions should also be rewarded ... universal benefits ..winter fuel allowance , bus pass , t.v licence should remain but paid from retirement age and not at 60 .....
What of us carers then ..for me if an elderly / disabled person has the benefit of a family member who is willing ,able and capable of providing good quality care within the elderly persons home they should be supported in doing so NOT ENCOURAGED to do so, care at home via a family member is by far the cheapest form of social care but should not be used to save the local authority cash ...and the carers allowance should be raised to reward those who have done the right thing "something for nothing" or will it remain "nothing for something " and lets remember we dont want minimum wage just a decent allowance ...when an elderly person needs care at home the local authority should work with the family and if the elderly person has a carer in place they should, as i have said be supported with respite care breaks (free) and a good allowance ....social care at home should be built around the carer , we are the solution not the problem...