Attendance Allowance to Be Abolished

Well the idea that you can give a an amount of money to LAs as a substitute for AA has several flaws that I can think of.
LA budgets have been slashed. Some more than others. www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/09/tory-councils-south-north-funding-nothing-labour_n_9195108.html

Councils are already struggling with social care - and not all councils have the same demand. How would the money be allocated - according to need or according to government whim. Not all councils have the same level of demand.
Also the have a system now that is at least fair to everyone. If you transfer the responsibility to LAs they will all have to invent their own system of assessing and allocating funds. This is likely to be less fair and efficient.

Does anyone know how you go about claiming AA if you are the partner of someone with Altzeheimer's? Patient is pretty stroppy and no longer able to claim in his own right (form filling for instance not possible any more) and his wife fears he would not be cooperative.

And my parents and mother-in-law, whitewave.
I think there is a worry that there are too many of us baby-boomers living longer and having a claim on the state. I noticed yesterday that there was a mention of more people dying last year than in any year since the 2nd world war.
It's because there are simply more of us in our age group because those parents who benefited from AA had too many children.

Many more people like my Mum have been able to remain in their own home allowing them the dignity of independence and choice as a result of payments like AA.
Take this away from future generation and where does that leave them?

Nothing will stop councils from trousering the money, and it goes against Tory philosophy of individualism, so I am at a lose as to the reason for the decision, apart from the hope the money may be used to paper over the cracks that are beginning to show as a result of the current governments economic thrust.

not sure what the answer is, but a lot of people really don't seem to believe that we have a problem with the economy that will still take years to fix.
I try and be realistic about these things, we will no doubt use our own money to do mobility things in our house in the future as well.So many groups of people need to be cared for and we all have our hobby horses so to speak.Mine is the care of people with mental health issues.
Be nice if the AA stays for future claimants but it's doubtful.I do understand what the allowance is for btw. and don't condone all cuts by this government, but in the end all cannot go on as before.
Have said my comments now, I will leave the thread.

I don't think that Lazigirl is entirely correct in saying AA is only for personal care. I think it is also to help people stay in their own homes.

I don't think it would be unreasonable for AA to be a taxable benefit for those who pay tax and as I mentioned before it would bring in about £1.4.billion.

Given that we have an ageing population that will, increasingly, be looked after at home and that if things fall apart for individuals coping at home the state may have to pick up the bill this would seem like a crazy move.
Rosesarered pensioners with a generous income do plenty of tax so why not look on AA as a kind of tax rebate from the government to those who need help to cope with disability associated with age or injury?

Granny23, you can only get help for personal care, but having got it, no one asks what you spend it on.

I totally disagree with rosesarered on the previous page.

It would have been interesting to see how 'council help' would have worked when DH was trying to mow the lawn a couple of years ago. He fell over, slid along the grass and attempted to move a tree-root with his head, which didn't do him an awful lot of good. I was indoors, fortunately had my mobile in my pocket and he asked me to come out and bring a garden chair so that he could struggle to his feet. Consequently, no more lawn-mowing therefore need to pay a gardener on a regular basis. It goes without saying that things like window-cleaning are 'out'.

We are just about to have the bathroom completely renovated to 'mobility' standards including walk-in shower, non-slip floor, easy-clean walls, higher loo, the lot. Cost: approx £13K. So I hope, rosesarered you will agree that we DO spend our own money on things we choose, that will make life easier, safer and more comfortable for the remaining time we have on earth.

rosesarered sorry, I was aware that I was rather strident in my reply, but it's because I've noticed you give a similar opinion on other threads about government policy, especially cuts.

Instead of playing devil's advocate, why not say what you think should happen to the people at the sharp end of all this like the woman sleeping in here wheelchair? Do you have any experience of trying to get help from the local authority for older or vulnerable people? It's a soul destroying experience for everyone involved, from the relatives and friends trying to get the help, to the person needing the help who can be left feeling they're a burden, to the employees trying to organise help and those with so little time to do the allotted tasks.

As I've already mentioned, it costs a lot more for the state to help someone in care. I realise this article is from the left wing Guardian, but please, please read it. The crisis might peak sooner than we think if the providers of care stop bidding for the work because there's not enough profit for them after the introduction of the National Living Wage.

Social care in 2016

In all seriousness, I'm wondering if I will end up moving back to Scotland.

A very hectoring post to me from you wilma!
I was rather playing devils advocate on the matter, because I do feel strongly that people able to pay should do.
As for 'spouting' on the money question, it may well be the case because we really do have an aging population and a very large population to be cared for.The AA sounded a very nice thing, but may have to be devolved to the Council for the future.Signing petitions may or may not help.I am certainly not against the allowance, that would be silly, but can see how much it would cost.

I so agree Wilma that we do have the money, it's political ideology at work here.
Good luck claiming Granny23 - but you can only get AA for personal care, not general help - and there's lots of paperwork (several hours) to fill in, but try and do this ASAP.
Perhaps if tax payers are feeling aggrieved about contributing to this universal benefit (we all pay NI & tax during working life) so it's not exactly free, we should revisit the 1834 Poor Law. Perhaps bring back the Workhouse?

Yes, welfare groups are saying just that - apply now if you think you could do with help.

I will sign both petitions but from an entirely selfish point of view would I be well advised to apply for AA for DH now ? I had thought about it vaguely but over the last few months when we have had to pay for hedge cutting and window repairs and I have made a terrible mess of cleaning the windows and dreading the prospect of digging over the vast vegetable plot single-handed (all jobs that DH did himself) I wonder if we would be eligible for some help.

rosearered I do understand why you think people should pay if they can, but I don't agree with abolishing the benefit and the responsibility for meeting the person's needs being devolved to councils.

For your information, councils do means test for this sort of thing. An assessment of a person's needs is carried out first, without regard to a person's financial situation. Then the person is told what the council will provide and this not only takes in to account the person's financial situation, but the council's financial situation. And that's the problem. Council have had 5 years of heavy budget cut and are billions of pounds short to provide necessary care for those who don't have the money to pay.

It's a lot cheaper for the state to pay AA so someone can stay at home than if they need to be moved in to care. This proposal is a way of government passing the responsibility to local authorities knowing it means a reduction in meeting the needs of the individual. It is just the latest of similar moves that have left vulnerable people in need and a way of trying to retain the pensioners' vote by introducing the change through the back door.

It's all very well saying we have an aging population, but what do you say to people like the woman left to sleep in her wheelchair (I hope you read the article in the earlier link), or the elderly person with no family who gets a carer for 15-30 minutes a day?

There's other ways to reform AA (I already mentioned two), but they don't fit into the strategy of this government. It's not proposing a consultation on the future of AA, only on devolving it to local government. We're a rich country and should not be treating the vulnerable in society in such a way that they're only recourse is the lengthy appeal process, or giving up and gradually go downhill.

Stop spouting the same thing about we don't have the money. We do. It's the political will that is the problem.

That has always been the grumble, hasn't it? some people who have money have been careful and sensible and others blown it if they had it in the first place.I guess councils have to go on what people have in ' the here and now'
Because that's all they can do.The problem is that we are an aging population, and live much longer these days ( not a problem for US of course.?)but does pose a problem if we need money.
Galen says it will not be means tested, so councils must be using some sort of criteria ( or rather will be using, as this AA question has not been resolved yet.)

And how do you define 'plenty of money'? At the moment, people who are in a position to save for their old age and do so will probably end up paying for all their care while people who are in a position to save and spend it instead get their care provided.

roses yes! NHS care is free to all, no means testing. But if you suffer from some diseases, dementia being the most common, you don't get free care. Actually, in principle I agree that people 'should' pay for what they can afford to but the whole welfare system is full of anomalies and this makes for a very peculiar kind of unfairness.

Signed last week. Really time older people were treated with respect in this country.

The cost of means testing AA outweighs the allowance. It was debated in the past but was found not to be cost effective

My reservations are that funding individuals would be down to local councils.
There are councils and councils and it would be a postcode lottery as to who received what.

There are lots of inequalities in life Lilygran from the moment we are born.
NHS care is free for all.
my point is that if a person has plenty of money, then that must be used before dipping into the public purse.
The attendance allowance will be continued for those who presently receive it and all that is happening at the moment, is looking at other ways of getting care to those who need it and perhaps do not have the good fortune of having a healthy bank account.Before anyone gets het up about this, why not investigate further about what may happen?

If you have some form of dementia, a disease sadly affecting a lot of us, you won't be in hospital, you'll be 'in the community' ie looked after by your family or in a nursing home. At the moment, Attendance Allowance helps towards paying nursing home and carer costs both for people paying their own and for people who can't afford it. If you were in hospital, you would pay nothing whatever your income or bank balance. Some inequalities there, roses?

Sorry margrete can't agree with you. It IS somebody's 'damn business' how much money you have in the bank! The taxpayers.
If you have enough money to pay somebody to come and help you do some jobs in the house, then you should pay for it.
If not, and you are frail and need help, the Council should step in for you, and maybe that will happen.In good economic times, there was money for all kind of things, now there isn't and we are coping with a much larger population, so people with money should spend it where they need it.

rosesarered: one of the great advantages of AA is that it is neither means-testable nor taxable. There may be some valid argument for giving it only to those in greatest need, but who determines who they are? Many older people are really resistant to the idea of means-testing. This may be historical - the means-test of the 1930s - or it may simply be down to an idea of privacy. It is no one else's damn business whether I have money in the bank, or not. The point is, there are physical needs which preclude doing those things we used to do with ease, and which we now have to pay someone to do.I would really resist anyone from the council coming in to tell me what I should do and how to live my life. I had a bit of that in the couple of days I spent on a care of the elderly ward at New Year. I had a long interview with a social worker - had been referred to her without my knowledge or consent - and physios who wanted me to take a zimmer frame home with me. Having all my marbles, I put them all off.

When MiL was still managing to live at home her AA was £25 a week (we're going back a bit in time here) and that was enough for her to have someone come in a couple of times a week to help her with tasks she couldn't manage safely herself.

Yes, the family did help out with garden and housework too, but we lived 120 miles away and her son was in poor health (and later died) and her other DiL had a full time job and her own mother who needed help.

I would say that MiL managed to stay in her own home for a further 2-3 years before she had to come to us for the last few months of life.