Just been listening to Andy Burnham on care ......

A huge problem when my partners mum was in and out of hospital ten years ago was bed blocking. She was often ready to go home but there was no care package in place.

Doodledog

petra

NotSpaghetti
Maybe the swedes are happy with what they pay because they don’t see corruption, waste, incompetence, stupidity, couldn’t care less attitude because it’s only the tax payers money.
Obviously forgetting that it’s their money as well.
I could go on but that will suffice 😂

But if they were paid for from tax, and LA managed, there would be checks and balances to ensure that corruption, waste and stupidity were stamped out.

DoodleDog
I envy you your optimism. But I’m afraid I can’t share it.
Having been close to too many people who worked at senior positions in our council i can’t see anything changing.
I really wish it wasn’t so.

It is interesting - I share some of the concerns about LA efficiency, but when I worked for adult services as a social worker (admittedly quite a while ago now) homes and care in the community were run in house. They really were streets better. The workers were paid properly and trained and supported and monitored in a way you simply do not see now.

And it was so simple to raise concerns or just communicate at all - you rang the right person ( or walked down the corridor and had a chat with them), said what you had to say and they just got on with it.

The money that the service received was spent on care and not on lining the pockets of billionaires. That has to be a big financial saving for a start. At the moment only part of the money contributed by LAs goes on care. We are using our taxes to prop up greed.

I think the level of care people who go into care homes need has increased in recent years. Most people want to stay in their own home as long as it’s possible, and they are often very elderly, and need a high level of physical care, and/or dementia care when they go into care.

Also there are significantly more people living into very old age, there are 625,000 over 90 now, compared with around 250,000 in 1990. I know from experience with my parents that keeping the very elderly in their own home is a feat, because most need a great deal of support, both from care services and their families or friends - but I do think care homes should be seen as a last resort because they aren’t what the majority of people want.

It is thought that around one in four people go into residential/nursing care before they die. Some others who do not have adult children who selflessly give up their jobs to look after their parents at home and suffer financially.

People have not always paid national insurance - but we all take that for granted now. I would not have objected at the beginning of my working life to have paid a larger amount to the government on the understanding that if I needed care later on the system would be there for me.
Or, I would not have minded being encouraged to take out my own insurance against that possibility - as with you do with life insurance/ critical illness/ accident cover.

Luckygirl3 thanks for friendly response.
Sorry you're having a rotten day.
Here's to a better tomorrow.
🤞

I commend AB for stating his intent to do something about the care system. It cant happen overnight, major change takes time and if it is going to last it needs cross party buy in so that it is not reversed by a new government. What he could do is abolish the £23k threshold at which individuals start to receive help with care home funding and raise it to at least £50k and preferably £100k. It would be a start. I also think that if someone has a formal diagnosis of dementia then they are ill and should be treated accordingly, in the same way that care home residents who are physically ill receive financial assistance.

NotSpaghetti

Luckygirl3 thanks for friendly response.
Sorry you're having a rotten day.
Here's to a better tomorrow.
🤞

Thanks

No it was rejected by last government.

As I see it, we already have a system where people feel angry because they work and pay tax to support people who don't work, whether that's because they are unemployed, disabled or older. They have been encouraged to think that the unemployed are scroungers, the disabled are exaggerating their problems, immigrants are responsible for all the ails of the world, and pensioners all had easy lives and paid little or nothing into the system but expect triple locked pensions and free social care.

In some cases all of those things will be true, but in most cases they absolutely won't. Either way, though, whoever is behind it, and for whatever reason, those messages are pushed at us all the time, and what used to be a cohesive society is now very divided.

Some people (including me) resent having to pay for care when others get it free, and others (also including me) would hate to see those with no money being denied it, and would like to see a fairer system of wages and rents.

Others seem to think that you are 'lucky' if you have a house and savings, as though they were gifts from above and not things you chose to prioritise over holidays, cars etc, and yet others genuinely had neither holidays and cars nor a chance to buy a house. It's a conundrum.

There will always be people who want to get out of the system, but don't want to give anything in return. Given that we can't have people with dementia or other frailties left alone, we have to find a way to make everyone (or all able-bodied adults) give something so that everyone who needs care gets it.

If any government is going to ask people for more money they have to find a way that pleases all of those people, which is very difficult to do. I don't think we can target particular groups and expect them to do more than others.

Some want to leave large sums to their children, and others see inheritance as perpetuating inequality.

Asking everyone to contribute is one way - but then there would be people saying they can't. And being fair, if someone is on minimum wage with high rent there isn't going to be anything spare.

Cutting benefits is another possibility, and that would be popular with some, but that would only increase the number of people in poverty, although it might be attractive to those on minimum wage who aren't eligible for benefits - the single, the childless, the working age people who have few qualifications. those people get a very raw deal, yet see people claiming UC for children they can't afford, claiming pensions without having worked, getting social housing whilst they are paying others' mortgages in rent and so on.

A hybrid system might work - additional NI from those who pay it (although that excuses those who don't, which is unfair) and a simultaneous levy on pensions. That way, older people are contributing to something which is going to benefit them before it will be needed by younger ones, and not expecting the young to pay for them.

A tax representing a small percentage (say 10%) of everyone's estate on death would mean that more would come in than under the present system where 4% of the population pay IHT, and would mean that people paid according to means. I think that seems a good idea, so long as there were ways of ensuring that cheats didn't offload their assets in time to avoid paying.

There will be other solutions, but I don't know what might be more popular, and none will be objectively 'fair', unless someone else has an idea I haven't considered?

Whatever is decided, the vocal moaners will, of course, complain about anything they are asked to give, but want to take as much as they can get.

But, and it's a big 'but', we have to do something. The current social care system is wrong on so many levels that a solution has to be found.

I would be interested to hear what those saying that AB is 'talking the talk' would like to see happen. Or are they just moaning the moan?

I thought it was about 4% (1 in 25) who go into residential care as frail/rlderly Emelie321?
Perhaps some go in temporarily as respite or as a halfway house between hospital and home which increases the percentage, but surely not 1 in 4 as you’ve written?

From what understand Burnham has said that Social Care will be on the Labour Manifesto at the next election.

In the interim they will be doing more research and gathering data.

Loosely translated that means it could still take years. And they have no ideas or answers.

They won't do anything that is controversial and would be much fairer for like means testing for some well off cared for in expensive nursing home.

You know the ones whose expensive homes are in leafy Cheshire and set up tenants in common and similar trusts and get away without paying anything for years.

I feel that if we can make some changes to improve the care system, this will benefit the NHS considerably.
I have seen the situation in A&E whereby people have been seen, but cannot be returned home because they require someone to receive them.
I have seen wards where those who are ready to return home, awaiting a care package to be established.
Some people require urgent care because they are not looking after themselves.
All of these issues are social care matters, but all impact on the Health Service.
And yes, I do know someone who leads a very comfortable life indeed, as owner of a couple of care homes..

Jaxjacky

MT62

I’ll wait with bated breath.
BTW, What happened to the cap on social care? was that removed by this government?

Cap of £86,000 cancelled by Rachel Reeves in 2004. It was originally mooted in 2011, the Tories kept putting it off, cancelled it, bought it back in again, then did nothing with it.

It was due to be implemented in October 2025.

Luckygirl3

*At long last a PM with a vision and a set of principles, reminded me somewhat of Maggie Thatcher in that respect.*

Indeed so to the first part but would debate the second! MT's principles were based on greed and propping up the rich; AB's are based on fairness and compassion.

Putting his principles into action will not be easy - but he knows this and is courageous enough not to duck below the parapet.

I was commenting on the fact that AB actually appears to have principles ( as did MT imo) with no intent to comment on what MT's principles were or whether I agreed or disagreed with them.

I agree that MT had vision and so does AB
So many politicians seem to blow with the wind that it’s a refreshing change.

I'm listening to AB's speech to Conference now. He has said that he will set up a National Care Service so that anyone needing care will get it free of charge.

He will pay for it by reducing the triple lock to a double lock, so purchasing power of pensions will hold, and pensioners will share in any growth of the economy. So pensions will rise by either 2.5% or the rate of inflation, whichever is higher.

That, in return for not having to spend tens of thousands if we need care, seems to me a good deal, but he acknowledges that some will disagree, and is looking for ways to get consensus from across the political spectrum.

Oh, and it won't happen until April 2030.

I don’t know what will happen to me in situations like this. I own my house but with interest accruing on an equity release loan, there’s barely anything in savings, a few hundred sometimes other times zero, reduced private pension because hubby didn’t date his pension form ! I have my own state pension with some from hubby, tiny private pension of less than £80 a month from my occupation and because I am terminally ill I get an Attendance Allowance. I manage my money very well and at the end of each month there’s a bit of money to go in a savings pot for modest birthday gifts and Christmas . I guess it’s going to be the house?

67notout

I don’t know what will happen to me in situations like this. I own my house but with interest accruing on an equity release loan, there’s barely anything in savings, a few hundred sometimes other times zero, reduced private pension because hubby didn’t date his pension form ! I have my own state pension with some from hubby, tiny private pension of less than £80 a month from my occupation and because I am terminally ill I get an Attendance Allowance. I manage my money very well and at the end of each month there’s a bit of money to go in a savings pot for modest birthday gifts and Christmas . I guess it’s going to be the house?

If you are terminally ill, you may be eligible for Continuing Health Care which is not means tested. It is worth checking this out now but certainly in the long run.

I keep filling up with tears - and I could see from the Liverpool audience I wasn’t the only one.

AB's speech on Hillsborough when he returned to Parliament, on ending rough sleeping, on changing the care system and so many things in his conference speech today.

A Prime Minister who believes in socialism. It’ll be a long and ambitious road out of the mess of the Tories and Brexit but it’s a purposeful start.

Agree absolutely, Graphite.

67notout yes, under the present system you would have to sell your house, but if AB gets this through that won’t happen. Pensions will still rise.

Graphite

I keep filling up with tears - and I could see from the Liverpool audience I wasn’t the only one.

AB's speech on Hillsborough when he returned to Parliament, on ending rough sleeping, on changing the care system and so many things in his conference speech today.

A Prime Minister who believes in socialism. It’ll be a long and ambitious road out of the mess of the Tories and Brexit but it’s a purposeful start.

Same here. At one point I was actually clapping.👏👏👏👏

At last, after so very many years, a proper Labour Prime Minister!

Andy Burnham is the bravest PM I've seen in a long time. He is facing some of the most difficult issues that bring this country down.
The care system is abysmal. Water owned by private companies that he wants to bring back into public ownership.
None of this will be easy but he is not afraid to tackle the issues others have ignored for too long.