Social Care Reform and help got the elderly

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.

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.!!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

So how quickly do you imagine it could be done in order to prfude a Care Service we would be proud of, winterwhite?

Three years is certainly kicking the can down the road. The Blair govt commissioned the Dilnot Report and then baulked at implementation the recommendations. The issues are well known. The range of possible solutions isn’t infinite. A task-and-finish group for 18 months should be able to come up with sensible recommendations.
The sums proposed for the NHS and for social care need to be weighted more towards social care. There’s little point in hospitals being able to increase the nos of operations performed if there is no after-care to get patients back home, or indeed home care to prevent many hosp admissions in the first place.

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.

I hope they get lots of input from Ed Davey...

Writing in the Guardian, Wes Streeting said: “It will take time, but Casey’s work will finally grasp this nettle and set our country on the path to building a national care service that meets the urgent need of our generation, guarantees quality care to all who need it, and lasts long into the future, no matter which government is in power.”

Good luck!

Perhaps people need to save, reform won't happen instantly.

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?

Yes, but the nettle has needed grasping for the last 25 years or more, and everyone has side-stepped it, and I just think that they will do it again.

I’d like it to be an impartial Commission that every party will sign up to honour regardless of who is in Government when it’s delivered. 2028 is a long way ahead in Politics.

I’d like to think it will be so considered and well thought out that it could be accepted by everyone.

I’m a bit of an idealist, aren’t I😬

Casdon 😁I read everybody’s posts closely.

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.

I don’t think three years is an unreasonable amount of time to gather accurate information, garner evidence and opinion and work out viable solutions.

There’s been too many knee jerk, instant unthought through actions in the past in my opinion.

I just hope the Government is then actually prepared to act on the findings . It doesn’t always work that way does it?

FriedGreenTomatoes2

I wish these commissioned reports were time limited. Say 18 months max. Focus minds. Ready for action people! The report will be ready just as a next GE is due …. Then it’ll be ‘you have to vote for us so we can implement these changes blah de blah”.

Cynical, me?

Quite cynical, yes, given it’s hugely complicated, which is why successive governments have sidelined it. If this report is completed within three years there will still be 18 months of the current government’s tenure remaining.

To succeed in bringing long term reform to our health care system including social care, we need a national conversation and this is what is going to happen.

Of course we can stand on the sidelines and shout “ya-boo” but it doesn’t seem a very intelligent or valuable contribution to the conversation.

J52

Private insurance to cover care home costs is available, but it is extremely expensive.
30 years ago we looked into such insurance after my FIL died and we could see that in the future MIL might need care, although quite well at the time. The premium then was £18000, with quite a few exclusions. Goodness knows what it would be now.
She wouldn’t take it out despite being able to afford it, she was very independent minded!

I wouldn’t consider a private scheme. A relative had one but when push came to shove they argued and argued about the care she needed until she died before anything was agreed.

I’m not sure why I might feel more confident with a Government backed scheme though, but I would😬 Probably mistakenly.

But that future concern is stopping me from spending. Not essentials, just stuff like having the garden better landscaped.

Actually I think there’s money out there that could be helping the economy if only we weren’t so insecure.

Better to be realistic about how long an inquiry and report/recommendations of this kind actually do take rather than a repeat of long history of enquiries that have over run and extended and extended the release date.

I think some of the negative responses above are a shame.

Money is being given immediately, today, for areas of social Care, and as Casdon has said above

"To clarify, there has been no suggestion that additional funding won’t be put into the Social Care system in the interim before the commission decides what the future funding model will be, already proven by the additional funding announced today. The commission is about the model for the future.
.....
at least now there is going to be an all party process to decide what the model will be. How people can’t see that as a positive I don’t understand.