Paying for Social Care

Hi paddyann! Lovely to see you posting. I hope you'll stay, we could do with some added support, those of us who don't think Scotland is an abject cesspit going to hell in a handcart. We need to balance out the Rev I M Jolly approach

As paddyann expects here comes the rebuttal! She is very lucky to have such a Rolls Royce service for her family member. Most people are not nearly so lucky even if they can be assessed at all in the first place
There's a huge waiting list for assessment. Not SWs fault. Their numbers are severely depleted and the red tape involved in actually getting any free personal care is lengthy and convoluted. My poor MiL had already fallen and was in hospital before I had word back that she could have one 15 minute each morning to get her up dressed fed and out to a bus which somehow would appear at exactly the right time. She'd also have one 15 minute appt to meet her off the bus, give her her tea and get her into bed. Cloud cuckoo land so naturally we ended up paying for care for the hours when we were working. Direct payments would have taken ages to organise and anyway it was academic. She died in hospital where the care was very good unlike the community care.
Don't believe the claptrap about free personal care for all in Scotland. Like the 'free' university places it's strictly limited.

growstuff

Doodledog

I agree that it's about political will too, and also that life's not fair. I just don't think that making it more unfair for more people is the answer.

I honestly don't think that anyone sees you as feckless, growstuff. I know I don't speak for Gransnet, but I don't think that's true at all.

The latest changes have definitely made it less fair. The results won't be seen for a while and I wouldn't mind betting there will have been a GE before then.

I meant that I don't think people on here think it's true either, even though I can't speak for them . . . (where is the 'blah blah' smiley when you need one?)

WRT people who've been sectioned - we absolutely can't have a system under which people can be made to go and stay somewhere without their consent and have their assets seized to pay for it! That would be open to terrifying levels of abuse.

Of course not everyone with care needs will be sectioned but the point is people who are sectioned will get free care.

Not everyone with mental health issues gets sectioned, some because it isn't appropriate and some because they don't have the beds so avoid sectioning, as I said that is a different issue. The issue of providing free care for one group of people and refusing it to others with the same needs and symptoms based solely on age is not fair or reasonable.

Having said all that I wouldn't have wanted my relative to be sectioned, there was money to pay for her care and it has been used to give her a good quality of life for as long as possible, it is the principle I have issues with.

I worked in this area too worriedwell, and as you know not by any means all patients who need ongoing care are sectioned, only those who are at severe risk to themselves or others, and they are regularly reviewed and the section changed or removed if their condition improves. If a patient is on a section I do think they should receive free medical care, millionaires or not, as they are seriously unwell. There are also many thousands of people with severe mental health issues in the community who need extensive support packages but don’t get them.

paddyann54

I dont post here now only came back to add to the Phoenix thread, ,I live in Scotland and my MIL has had FREE social care for almost a year ,After a run of accidents and a suspected stroke where she was hospitalized she was sent home with a care package in place.She has 4 visits a day ,someone to help her dress and shower her twice a week ,someone at lunchtime who checks her medication has been taken will help her make her lunch ( she's very independent)or just walk along the street with her so she gets fresh air and a little supervised exercise.Someone late afternoon helps with dinner and theres a bedtime visit ,though at 7-30 its too early for her,but they make sure she's changed and ready to go It works well,is around 2 hours a day in all and she's able to stay in the home she loves ,There is absolutely NO reason the same system cant be applied in England ,only lack of political will is stopping it,As has been said many times on here if your government can fund vanity projects like HS2 and trident to name just2 or to hand BILLIONS to mates then there should be funds to support people .Thank heavens the Scottish government is a socialist leaning one who believes people come first .I will await the onslaught from those who rubbish anything done by the SNP ,there was one poster who even denied a bridge's existence ....lol

Thank you for giving us such a good example of what can be done. Shame they can't seem to work it out for England.

growstuff

And there's a difference between mental healthcare and care for people with severe learning difficulties.

A relative has worked in both areas for most of her life. My understanding is that mental health is "medical" and very few people receive long-term care (as Casdon wrote).

Caring for people with severe learning difficulties is different. The burden of care is still mainly with family, but it's the responsibility of local authorities. Very few of them have any assets of their own. Their care might be free, but there aren't anywhere near enough residential places.

The whole situation is complicated because some people with learning disabilities also have mental health issues, so the NHS and local authorities squabble over responsibility. More often than not, families end up paying, either for carers or giving up opportunities to work themselves. It's not a case of receiving care for nothing - somebody always pays.

I must have worked in a very unusual organisation as we had people with mental health and learning difficulties and all were fully funded. Some coming from psychiatric hospitals were NHS funded and learning disabilities funding by the LA.

Currently I am volunteering in a learning disability home and again all are fully funded by the LA.

Casdon

theworriedwell you said ‘Actually mental health care is also inadequate which is a whole different problem but if you are at the stage where you are admitted for long term care it is free.’

That’s not actually true, the whole rigmarole of applying for CHC packages applies in mental healthcare exactly the same as it does in physical healthcare. There are over 10,000 adult mental health beds in the independent sector in the UK. That obviously doesn’t include dementia beds. One major issue is that very few adult patients are admitted for ‘long term care’ because the aim is always ‘recovery’ - so the vast majority of people who need nursing home input are not in designated long term beds. I do agree though that it’s a whole different topic - but equally important.

It is true if you are sectioned which is what I was referring to, I did mention it earlier in my post. I know this as I have worked in this sector in the admin management side and I know millionaires who have had free care for years as they are on sections. I can think of two and possibly a third who were millionaires and I knew patients who had been in independent sector for over 20 years. They had been moved on from high security hospitals as they were never going to recover and the cost of a bed in a high security hospital is truly eye watering so moving on into the independent sector was a money saving/bed freeing option.

Doodledog

I agree that it's about political will too, and also that life's not fair. I just don't think that making it more unfair for more people is the answer.

I honestly don't think that anyone sees you as feckless, growstuff. I know I don't speak for Gransnet, but I don't think that's true at all.

The latest changes have definitely made it less fair. The results won't be seen for a while and I wouldn't mind betting there will have been a GE before then.

Doodledog

I agree that it's about political will too, and also that life's not fair. I just don't think that making it more unfair for more people is the answer.

I honestly don't think that anyone sees you as feckless, growstuff. I know I don't speak for Gransnet, but I don't think that's true at all.

No, it's not true and I know it's not true, but I strongly object to being labelled as such by people who don't know me at all. It's not just about me, but all the people whom life has given a duff hand.

I agree that it's about political will too, and also that life's not fair. I just don't think that making it more unfair for more people is the answer.

I honestly don't think that anyone sees you as feckless, growstuff. I know I don't speak for Gransnet, but I don't think that's true at all.

I agree with paddyann. It's about political will.

Doodledog

Alegrias1

What if you go into hospital on a Tuesday but come out on a Thursday and your cousin's called Sandra?

When did I become responsible for giving details of the way that medical and social care should be funded in all hypothetical situations?

Sell your house if you're not going to live in it.

When you started saying that people should sell their house if they’re not going to live in it, but not if they are young, and not if they have some diseases and not others.

You say that as though you are making a clear case, but by your own admission it’s nothing of the sort. Unless you are advocating doing away with free healthcare, we either have a system that applies to all, or decisions have to be made as to who gets it and who doesn’t. I would rather have a society that doesn’t discriminate in that way, but I don’t suppose any two opinions on this subject will be identical in all aspects.

Doodledog But some younger people do have to sell their houses when they're ill. I did, for a start, after saving and slogging my guts out to pay for the mortgage - and there are countless others in the same situation. As a result, I now live in rented accommodation and am deemed "feckless" by some on GN and elsewhere. As somebody said previously on the thread, life's not fair.

Doodledog I think the issue is that we don't, as a society, pay enough for the health and social care we'd like. Comparisons with some other developed countries, whose systems we admire, show that.

I'm glad that the conversation has turned away from the "feckless" who apparently don't have their own homes at the end of their lives.

It's all a distraction from Johnson's promise to "get social care done" (or whatever he said) and the fact that he hasn't done anything of the sort. He's raised taxes unfairly for those who can least afford them and very few will benefit.

I’m no expert either, but whilst we hear a lot about free prescriptions, education, health and so on in Scotland, NS herself has just said the their NHS is under strain and Scottish friends say that things are not as rosy as they are painted up there.

Aren’t there a lot of PR people on the Sturgeon team?

Paddyann54 I think in Scotland you benefit from a number of things, eg free university education, free prescriptions. I'm not an expert on funding but will it still be affordable if Scotland gains independence and loses the additional Barnett funding, which for this year was 38 billion? With a population of just over 5.5 million, that goes quite a long way. Be careful, we might all move to Scotland

Well, that just shows what a postcode lottery the situation is. I mentioned before that I know somebody who has a very disabled son. He was born with various problems and is unable to walk or talk. He lives with his mother in bed or in a wheelchair. Although, his parents do receive some financial help, they still pay for 24/7 care, which they can fortunately afford.
Yes, postcode lotteries are very unfair. I very much doubt that many people in my friend’s area get that level of care either. She is very clued up about the care system because of her professional knowledge, and I think a lot of things rely on claimants knowing what to ask, rather than being advertised as available.

Anyway, the conversation has turned from people wanting to deny money to ‘the feckless’ to people wanting to deny it to the old (or the home-owning old). I know none of it is my money to spend, but I can’t be alone in wanting to deny nobody, surely? What’s the difference between saying ‘I don’t want my taxes to support the feckless’ and ‘I don’t want my taxes to pay the rent of old people with houses’? Both are making judgements about others and wanting to penalise people on the basis of those judgments. I have said neither, I hasten to add - I am just a bit bemused at the turn the thread has taken.

I don’t care if people are spendthrift wastrels or puritanical misers - and in many ways it’s the state interference in letting people make those choices that angers me - if we pay enough tax to cover healthcare it can (and should, IMO) be there for everyone on the same terms.

Alegrias1

What if you go into hospital on a Tuesday but come out on a Thursday and your cousin's called Sandra?

When did I become responsible for giving details of the way that medical and social care should be funded in all hypothetical situations?

Sell your house if you're not going to live in it.

When you started saying that people should sell their house if they’re not going to live in it, but not if they are young, and not if they have some diseases and not others.

You say that as though you are making a clear case, but by your own admission it’s nothing of the sort. Unless you are advocating doing away with free healthcare, we either have a system that applies to all, or decisions have to be made as to who gets it and who doesn’t. I would rather have a society that doesn’t discriminate in that way, but I don’t suppose any two opinions on this subject will be identical in all aspects.

I dont post here now only came back to add to the Phoenix thread, ,I live in Scotland and my MIL has had FREE social care for almost a year ,After a run of accidents and a suspected stroke where she was hospitalized she was sent home with a care package in place.She has 4 visits a day ,someone to help her dress and shower her twice a week ,someone at lunchtime who checks her medication has been taken will help her make her lunch ( she's very independent)or just walk along the street with her so she gets fresh air and a little supervised exercise.Someone late afternoon helps with dinner and theres a bedtime visit ,though at 7-30 its too early for her,but they make sure she's changed and ready to go It works well,is around 2 hours a day in all and she's able to stay in the home she loves ,There is absolutely NO reason the same system cant be applied in England ,only lack of political will is stopping it,As has been said many times on here if your government can fund vanity projects like HS2 and trident to name just2 or to hand BILLIONS to mates then there should be funds to support people .Thank heavens the Scottish government is a socialist leaning one who believes people come first .I will await the onslaught from those who rubbish anything done by the SNP ,there was one poster who even denied a bridge's existence ....lol

And there's a difference between mental healthcare and care for people with severe learning difficulties.

A relative has worked in both areas for most of her life. My understanding is that mental health is "medical" and very few people receive long-term care (as Casdon wrote).

Caring for people with severe learning difficulties is different. The burden of care is still mainly with family, but it's the responsibility of local authorities. Very few of them have any assets of their own. Their care might be free, but there aren't anywhere near enough residential places.

The whole situation is complicated because some people with learning disabilities also have mental health issues, so the NHS and local authorities squabble over responsibility. More often than not, families end up paying, either for carers or giving up opportunities to work themselves. It's not a case of receiving care for nothing - somebody always pays.

theworriedwell you said ‘Actually mental health care is also inadequate which is a whole different problem but if you are at the stage where you are admitted for long term care it is free.’

That’s not actually true, the whole rigmarole of applying for CHC packages applies in mental healthcare exactly the same as it does in physical healthcare. There are over 10,000 adult mental health beds in the independent sector in the UK. That obviously doesn’t include dementia beds. One major issue is that very few adult patients are admitted for ‘long term care’ because the aim is always ‘recovery’ - so the vast majority of people who need nursing home input are not in designated long term beds. I do agree though that it’s a whole different topic - but equally important.

PS. I'm a bit suspicious of the phrase "taxing the wealthy". It needs to get its head round the concept of taxing wealth (assets) rather than income.

I agree with you Grany. Labour needs to come up with a realistic alternative - fast. For the first time for months (years), they're ahead in the polls, but that's not because they've done anything great, but because people are fed up with the Conservatives. This should be an own goal for Labour.

worriedwell I have no idea.

It would appear from what Teacheranne (and others) have written that there is a need for more publicly funded places, which means more publicly funded building. Unfortunately, the government is a little "vague" about how many new hospitals it's building, so I can't see that happening.

Labour could have presented a clear alternative, such as taxing capital gains at the same rate as income, which has broad political support and would raise £90bn over five years. It could have pledged to abandon the fragmented, largely privatised model of social care, where much of the care on offer is inadequate and seven in 10 social care workers are paid less than £10 an hour. Taxing the wealthy to build a publicly run care service that provides dignity and security for disabled and elderly people alike could have been a ready-made Labour pitch.