Social Care Reform and help got the elderly

PoliticsNerd, workable recommendations within 18 months. Getting the British public to accept that the hallmark of a civilised society is how it treats its old and its sick and thus support the cost - ?, your guess is as good as mine.

PoliticsNerd

Whitewavemark2

Casdon

The funding model is what the Commission is to determine Monica. Regardless of which government we have, surely that nettle has to be grasped?

Nothing can happen until that decision is made.

I’m still for a form of government backed insurance, but I am open to persuasion😊

Do you mean Government backed private insurance? Whitewavemark2. Personally I would be very much against that.

I believe in the value of utilising private companies and non-profit organizations when they can provide valuable services. However, when it comes to funding, I think that everyone should contribute so that everyone can access these services at no charge at the point of use.

Whether the cost of care is paid through insurance or general taxation it still comes out of our pockets, the current of means testing system gives no support for those that have the money.

To either tax or enable payments into an insurance scheme wages will need to go up and those that are not earning will also to need be enabled to pay into an insurance scheme. I would not want a private insurance scheme for elderly care, private care homes are already controversial enough.

The other alternative is to make some of the other services means tested as well

It would help if the new inquiry is cross-party. Otherwise it will end up as another political football .
Also if it starts from the premise that social care should be free at the point of access, as is nhs care. Is anything else justifiable?. Some deep thinking required there.

I think it’s essential for physical exercise to be embedded into our way of life. Some people are very over reliant on their cars and walking is not seen as a desirable activity in my area. I believe that older people need to be more community based, and churches can play a role in this.
Even with good daily care, it’s still a pretty miserable life for the elderly to be placed securely in a comfortable armchair all day until an early bedtime. However yesterday I had a great chat with a volunteer (approaching 90) in a charity shop who was thriving on being part of the community. We shouldn’t wait for the government to sort this mess out - people might be old but don’t expect government to wave a magic wand 3 years into the future. Try to work out your own plan! It’s going to be a lot better than anything government suggests.

ronib

I think it’s essential for physical exercise to be embedded into our way of life. Some people are very over reliant on their cars and walking is not seen as a desirable activity in my area. I believe that older people need to be more community based, and churches can play a role in this.
Even with good daily care, it’s still a pretty miserable life for the elderly to be placed securely in a comfortable armchair all day until an early bedtime. However yesterday I had a great chat with a volunteer (approaching 90) in a charity shop who was thriving on being part of the community. We shouldn’t wait for the government to sort this mess out - people might be old but don’t expect government to wave a magic wand 3 years into the future. Try to work out your own plan! It’s going to be a lot better than anything government suggests.

I’m sure most of those that have the means do make the arrangements they want, I have family closeby, the house has been adapted, extra carers will be found as needed so I’m very lucky. My parents and my wife’s parents were cared for in that way

That’s a world away from the social care system a great many are going to rely on, where everything is rationed and never enough

David49 what is a reasonable level of social care provision for an immobile person? I see a friend being cared for 4 times daily by 2 carers. 30 minutes each session. Is this enough? Is this rationed?

It is clear that the way forward needs to be thoroughly investigated, but I do have a concern about the idea of a National Care Service. A lot of the current problems stem from the divide between care and health. We need a National Health and Care Service so the two work as one.

I hope I don’t ever need to go into a care home. Like most people, I would prefer to stay in my own home with carers visiting as necessary, if it becomes impossible to live independently. Sometimes it’s not possible though, and a care home becomes a necessity.
I don’t know what the government will eventually do after the inquiry reports. Nor can I second guess the outcome of the inquiry.

Normally, 2 carers x 3 visits per day is the maximum social care provision, to get somebody up, provide their lunch and put them to bed. 4 visits a day is quite unusual. The only other option, for the state to fund somebody staying at home is continuing healthcare, which is only provided if somebody needs qualified nursing input on a continuous basis.
I don’t think that whatever model of social care is introduced, it would be possible to provide care at home above 4 visits a day, it just wouldn’t be economical to do that when there are care homes doing that for a number of people with similar needs and less staff time.

Oreo

It hardly ever works out that way Lathyrus and this new government is very big on talking about setting up inquiries to look at things rather than actually having to implement anything.Talk is cheap in other words and they have no plan for social care.As Whitewavemark2 notes, after the war, the Labour government got going immediately on the big projects that the people of the UK had desperately needed for so many years and they don’t come much bigger than the concept of our NHS.They didn’t set up inquiry after inquiry, quango after quango to look at it, they actually did it.

Yes but as post after post says, it's about the money!
After the war, there was a willingness to work together to rebuild and the US dolloped in a load of money, (the Marshall plan) plus the government nationalised the key industries and raised taxation. Interest rates were low and the money didn't need to be repaid to the US.
There might have been arguments but it wasn't bicker, bicker, bicker by every interest group about their own (selfish) interests.
I recently stayed in my daughter's house in a close on an estate outside Bristol. In the entire time I never saw a neighbour though the cars came and went. Once, a neighbour might have knocked just to check who was there (my daughter was away) or waved on their way to buy the milk!!
This is moder Britain, no one wants to care about anyone else! I think Labour certainly did make plans in opposition but got shot down every time something was proposed. Meanwhile, many reaped the benefit of raging house prices and Tory ministers hid their riches in offshore investment etc etc.!!

Yes but as post after post says, it's about the money
It’s there for some things….
Sadly (and I had high hopes that Starmer meant what he said in his election promises) the Labour government seem to prioritise train drivers over the elderly. The money for their IMO extortionate pay rises was forthcoming quickly enough.
Another disillusionment.

ronib

David49 what is a reasonable level of social care provision for an immobile person? I see a friend being cared for 4 times daily by 2 carers. 30 minutes each session. Is this enough? Is this rationed?

Lucky to get 4 30min sessions a day many only get 2 15 min visits, enough, everyone is different so hard to tell. I’m thinking 4 30min visits is quite expensive, if you have to pay

For those with short memories
www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zsd68mn/revision/
It's a link to the revision guide for young people, Rebuilding the UK after the Second World War.

RosiesMaw2

^Yes but as post after post says, it's about the money^
It’s there for some things….
Sadly (and I had high hopes that Starmer meant what he said in his election promises) the Labour government seem to prioritise train drivers over the elderly. The money for their IMO extortionate pay rises was forthcoming quickly enough.
Another disillusionment.

Exactly, bicker, bicker, bicker, THEY GOT MONEY, WE/DIDN'T. There isn't enough to go around and there isn't the willingness to share.

ronib

David49 what is a reasonable level of social care provision for an immobile person? I see a friend being cared for 4 times daily by 2 carers. 30 minutes each session. Is this enough? Is this rationed?

It will be rationed by cost if the Local Authority are paying ronib. I would guess the ceiling the Local Authority have is four half hour visits a day or equivalent. This seems to be quite common.

You can’t compare the costs though RosiesMaw2. If we had no train drivers at all in the UK the money saved would pay for very few social care packages. My mum has savings above the limit, and pays £12500 to Social Services a year for one carer once a day to get her up. The package ronib describes would cost £100,000 a year on that basis - for one person.

As much as I want this report to come out with workable methods, I’m afraid I can’t see it working in the long term.
By the long term I mean the time when most of us on this site will no longer be here.
We have been tinkering with the obesity problem in this country for, how long? Are these measures working? No.
This problem is costing the NHS £billions a year.
I do appreciate and understand how difficult it is to loose weight. I live with such a person who could put on a pound by eating an apple.

I think the amount each month to the user/client is around £1650 after a financial assessment has been made.

There isn't enough to go around and there isn't the willingness to share. Notagranyet24

Which is why the government need to grow the economy. That means getting it working first, e.g., getting trains running and doctors doctoring.

You cannot come from the spend end first when you inherit a wrecked economy. A majority voted that government in so presumably some of those who did so are now complaining about the time it will take to bring back services we had once grown to expect.

One thing we need to understand is that wealth is highest in the age groups 55-64 years and 65+. If we want the services those people need to stop claiming general poverty. Giving WFA to millionaires seems perverse to me.

ronib

I think it’s essential for physical exercise to be embedded into our way of life. Some people are very over reliant on their cars and walking is not seen as a desirable activity in my area. I believe that older people need to be more community based, and churches can play a role in this.
Even with good daily care, it’s still a pretty miserable life for the elderly to be placed securely in a comfortable armchair all day until an early bedtime. However yesterday I had a great chat with a volunteer (approaching 90) in a charity shop who was thriving on being part of the community. We shouldn’t wait for the government to sort this mess out - people might be old but don’t expect government to wave a magic wand 3 years into the future. Try to work out your own plan! It’s going to be a lot better than anything government suggests.

I am amused by this reference to the churches. Have you been to church recently? Seen how small the congregtaion is?

While in some cities there are a few churches with large ccongregations, get out to the majority of towns villages and 'communities' and you will find ministers serving 4 or 5 parishes, churches closed down, possibly demolished.

Without a doubt, the churches punch above their weight in providing community services, but to think they can suddenly do more and help turn things round is cloud cuckoo land.

It is easy to talk about 'making your own plan' when the older person is physically fit and in good health, but the person in the chair with carers coming it, is probably unable to get out of that chair unaided. The arthritis in their hands may mean that even making a cup of tea is beyond their capability.

The majority of lonely old people are in that situation because of disablity and frailty that makes getting out of the house difficult/impossible. That person may also have declining mental faculties, be sinking into dementia, which will soon require residential care.

As for exercise, plenty of older people walking around in our community, including me, also plenty of exercise classes - but if you are frail or disabled and cannot leave the house unaided. That puts the kybosh on walking for health or any other reason, and makes exercise classes impossible.

I agree with that PoliticsNerd, it’s a hard message that people don’t want to swallow, but it’s the reality.

Which is why the government need to grow the economy. That means getting it working first, e.g., getting trains running and doctors doctoring
In the light of this then I wonder why have employers been soccer punched with a rise in NI taxation which has led to a reduction in staffing levels - aka fewer jobs even to the point of businesses going to the wall, reduced consumer activity, a shrinking hospitality sector (previously a strength) and overseas owned companies withdrawing production from the UK.

Cross-party talks to begin in 3 weeks.

Cross-party talks over the future of social care will begin next month as the health secretary hit back over criticism that a commission on the issue would take too long to bring change.
Wes Streeting said he wanted all parties to “agree on the direction on social care for the long term” and that the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Reform UK had all said they would work together on it.

"………………. part one of the Casey commission isn’t reporting in 2028 – it’s reporting next year, and it will outline what we need to do during this parliament.”.

I agree that exercise is necessary and advisable, but many people who need care are way beyond exercising independently. They may be able to take part in a chair exercise group in their care home, or even in a local hall if they’re able to get there, but many aren’t. People are living longer, but living longer brings decline in health and ability. Then people need care, and so we’re back at the initial problem of how to manage that.

Of course social care is going to cost money raised from taxes and the main argument will be about the cut off point for those able to contribute but I am disappointed that Labour, having had 14 years to plan, can only kick the can down the road. Streeting was an effective Opposition MP but is clearly a lightweight when pressing for funds from the Treasury for social care.