[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
Debate on the Care and Support Green Paper - Carers UK Forum

Debate on the Care and Support Green Paper

Share information, support and advice on all aspects of caring.
62 posts
Topic locked [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
This thread is to canvas your reactions and opinions to today's Green paper which is being launched this afternoon.

This thread is to different to the one in Carers in the news, as that thread is gathering together the press coverage. In this thread we want to know what you think of the government's proposals.

I'll post links and summaries of it here as soon as I have them. Watch this space! Image
The Green paper is now available at

http://careandsupport.direct.gov.uk/greenpaper/

You can read and add your comments

Read Carers UK's verdict on the Green paper.
http://www.carersuk.org/Newsandcampaign ... 1247580246
Carers UK today (Tuesday 14 July 2009) welcomes the publication of Shaping the Future of Care Together – the long awaited care and support green paper – stating that it sends a bold strong statement that Government is ready to face up to the debate needed to solve the crisis in care funding. The Green Paper sets out options for a radical overhaul that includes clear national entitlements – a National Care Service – helping to do away with the postcode lottery of care.

The paper sets out five options for change –
the first that everyone should pay for their care which Government has already ruled out.

The second is a partnership model where costs are clearly set out, the state pays for part and the individual pays a proportion – similar to the proposals issued by the Kings Fund.

The third proposal they call insurance where everyone has an entitlement to have a share of their care costs met – but the extra costs are through private insurance or a state insurance scheme and if people pay into this scheme they receive all their basic care and support free. They say that they can pay it in instalments, lump sum on retirement or after death if preferred – and this is only for people over retirement age.

The fourth proposal is comprehensive and compulsory where everyone over retirement age will be required to pay into an insurance scheme and is varied according to what people can afford.

The final and fifth proposal is that it is fully funded by taxation which is ruled out by Government.
We would very much like to hear your views on it.
Also from our press release

[quote]Some of the options of the Green Paper live up to several of Carers UK’s tests but not others. One of the proposals suggests shifting money spent on the cash benefit – Attendance Allowance – into the care system. This could have serious consequences for many families.

Carers UK tests for the green paper are that]
it delivers a solution that lifts families who care out of poverty
Haven't read the Green Paper yet but my immediate reaction to what you've posted above is that several of the suggested options put forward by govt mention paying after retirement age..so how do younger people needing care fit into those proposals and secondly re CUK's tests]it delivers a solution that lifts families who care out of poverty [/quote]That doesn't exclude means testing does it..?

Also what level of income does CUK consider to be below'poverty' level?

Right I'll be quiet now till i've read it....might be gone a long time lol
Having read rather rapidly through the green paper I would suggest the one thing that it does not contain is joined up thinking. Yes, it is true to say that there will be more people living longer in the future but given the government's own figures, a higher percentage of those will be fit and vigorous and still working. It therefore does not automatically follow that they will be a drain on the state. In fact, they should be net contributors. Secondly there is reference to simplifying the system. If this for instance, involved having one government department responsible for all carers then it follows using good business sense that there would be reduction in cost. Looking at the methods of raising the necessary funding for care provision it would appear that several of them involve the private sector. The private sector will of course require a profit something that in theory, the government does not require, that is leading directly to an increased overall cost of the care package. The simplest solution given that the infrastructure is already in place would be to have one body responsible for caring provision. And one method of funding, the cheapest method of funding already in place, would either be direct taxation or national insurance. Unfortunately, one of the knock-on effects of simplifying the system and thus reducing its cost, would probably be a large reduction in the number of civil servants needed to administer it. given that most of the drafting of the green paper was the responsibility of civil servants and not elected MPs you can draw your own conclusions as to why national insurance and direct taxation was not considered.
Image I did watch the debate, On a personal note as yet my Wife is a part of the Health Care System, not social care. Although as a carer I am, in that I give chemo via injection 3 times a week.Although I am sure there will be others more qualified than I in this forum to speak on that side.

I think one point to remember, it is only a green paper i.e. a consultative document.There is a General election looming and judging by the Shadow secretarys comments in the debate it does not have x party support. My first question would be if there is a change in Government what happens then?

Unless I missed it the Sec of State did not say how there Government would fund there side of it? This is something that must be nailed down in the early stages. Carers UK must lobby on this point. Attendance Allowance was mentioned more than once but not expanded upon why?. On a positive note Image (under protest) I agree with the Sec of State the selling of property to fund care must end and end quickly.
On which of the three choices I would have, it is I think to early to say
Those are just my first thoughts
As you say its only a green paper therefore we tell them 100 state funding through tax and a simplified system
it delivers a solution that lifts families who care out of poverty
That doesn't exclude means testing does it..?

Also what level of income does CUK consider to be below'poverty' level?

Right I'll be quiet now till i've read it....might be gone a long time lol
Whatever we think of it, means testing seems to be a political reality now, so we would accept that some level of it will exist. I'm not a policy brain so I'm afraid I don;t know what Carers UK classes as 'poverty' but I would imagine we wouldn't reinvent the wheel, so we probably use whatever definition is used within the sector, for example groups like the Child Poverty Action Group.

Over the next couple of weeks we'll be reading it carefully, thinking about the issues and forumulating a more considered response. Your comments and thoughts on here will help us greatly, so please keep them coming. Awkward questions, glaring ommissions etc etc are all more than welcome!
Yuoui could start with this model Matt Image
http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/time ... me-poverty
Matt said:
I would imagine we wouldn't reinvent the wheel, so we probably use whatever definition is used within the sector, for example groups like the Child Poverty Action Group.
If I remember correctly, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has come up with some costings which give the true cost of living, including quality-of-life costs, these may be a good starting point rather than costs of living which do not allow for the items which make life pleasurable rather than simply sustainable.
62 posts