Care costs set at £45,000?

[Huegatort]

Hi to all Carers

I noted this recently and don't know much about this as yet but I can tell you that this is totally unfair in every sense of the word; people will still have to sell their homes to pay for their care and this is so wrong!

They need NOT use the COVID crisis either; this will not wash with many people!!!!!

Care costs should be capped at £45,000 a year in England and more cash ploughed into provision for the poorest in society, according to Sir Andrew Dilnot, who has advised successive Conservative governments on reform.

If there is a thread for this subject would you kindly move it. I don't come here as often as I would like due to time, so do not always look through every board index.

Regards

[susieq]

There are actually quite a few topics regarding Sir Andrew Dulnot's original report going back as far as 2011.

If you use the Adv Search box at the top of the main index page and type in Dilnot you'll find all of them.

[Huegatort]

Thanks susieq

[Huegatort]

The latest report was written by Robert Booth, social affairs correspondent on the 14th of July 2020 in the GUARDIAN.

[butterfly68]

I remember the programme Can Gerry Robinson Fix the NHS years ago. If Gerry Robinson managed to sort out what took months that normally takes years, in ironing out finding savings there. He'd be best place in tackling the chaos of the Health & Social Care system, in organizing them in a productive integrated way. If his genius came into the mix, could potentially bypass Political interference.....one could only hope.

[Huegatort]

Hi butterfly68

I remember that well and one can but hope!

[Huegatort]

Hi Honeybadger

Your frustration comes across loud and clear!

I speak to many people who are disappointed by their Dr's and it would be more reassuring if we had a choice!

Going back to care homes, Its the privatisation end game. Quality of service is in the gutter while costs continue to rise, and they get away with this because there is not an alternative to using them. Much like while our health system suffers, unless we're blessed with some wealth, we can't simply decide not to use our gp, and so on.

I totally agree with this paragraph above and only wish that it could be changed!

Below is a recent reply from an MP concerning a few issues of concern.

Guaranteed say on trade deals with the EU

Thank you for getting in touch regarding the trade bill, which is being debated in Parliament today. I have scrutinised the bill closely and – as a member of the International Trade Select Committee – have listened to the professional opinions of a number of trade specialists.

I have three key concerns with the bill as it is currently written:

The NHS:
My first concern is that the bill does not go far enough in protecting the NHS. In the 2019 General Election, the Labour Party declared that we must ‘never let our health service be up for grabs in any trade negotiation’. I stand by this view. This is a position that is supported by the medical profession. The British Medical Association (BMA) have stated that the health and social care sectors must be excluded from the scope of all trade bills.

The Labour Party will therefore be supporting two amendments to the bill. The first amendment, NC 17, is supported by the Labour Party and contains a range of important provisions that safeguard our health service. The second amendment, NC 8, is sponsored by Stewart Hosie MP and would restrict market access to the NHS.

In my view, these amendments are absolutely essential to protecting the NHS in future trade deals.

Food Standards:
I am also deeply concerned that future trade agreements may undermine the UK’s high food and animal welfare standards.

I am therefore supporting two amendments, NC 11 and NC 7, which would only allow agricultural produce that meets or exceeds UK standards to be imported into the UK.

Democracy and Transparency:
MPs must be able to properly scrutinise the final text of trade agreements – both in the House of Commons and in committee. This is standard practice in countries across the world, from New Zealand to Germany. Unfortunately, this legislation categorically fails to provide for proper Parliamentary oversight of trade deals. I am also deeply concerned that the Government have failed to consult either with the devolved Governments or with industry stakeholders, trade unions, or civic groups like the Trade Justice Movement. Now, more than ever, the UK must be a world leader in democracy and transparency, and this should apply to the Government’s handling of trade deals.

I am therefore backing Jonathan Djanogly’s amendment, NC 4, which would ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of trade bills and oblige the Government to consult with devolved administrations.

This bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation to be debated by this Parliament and will shape the economy of the UK for years to come. We cannot allow this legislation to undermine our health service, food standards, or democracy. If any of the above amendments are rejected, I will vote against the bill today.

I hope this addresses some of your concerns and please do not hesitate to contact me again.

[Melly1]

Old thread locked, usual reasons.