Social Care Reform and help got the elderly

Meantime in Scotland the Scottish government has just extended personal care and some home nursing to people with disabilities or chronic illness …regardless of age .

Compassionate government….a foreign concept to Westminster.
This will be a godsend to people like my daughter who have depended on their children to do much of their personal care ,and release some of these kids from the burden of caring while trying to study .So glad I live in Scotland .

Graceless

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.

The NHS and other reforms were the result of the Beveridge Report in (IIRC ) 1944

Work on the Beveridge Report started in June 1941. The NHS began in July 1948, 7 years later.

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.

The NHS and other reforms were the result of the Beveridge Report in (IIRC ) 1944

winterwhite

You are probably right Casdon tho short stay patients could be billed on return home if there was a scheme in place but I wasn’t trying to open that can of worms, just make the point that home care is considerably cheaper than hospital care involving treatments, procedures and surgery yet it is grudged and denied, and this needs to be considered. I hope the new commission will do so.

I think there’s a tipping point with home care, it’s what we’d nearly all want for ourselves, and it is cheaper for the state too for most people who need it. I don’t personally think that people should be kept at home whatever the cost though, and some home packages are very expensive, particularly continuing healthcare cases. It’s not only the cost, it’s the resources absorbed that concern me. One person receiving four double handed half hour visits per day is using 4 hours of carer time, which could help eight people who only need two single handed visits per day, but are really struggling with no input, or are stuck in hospital because there are no care packages available. It’s a dilemma.

I thought we were conjuring up quotes ??

Why is that in any way relevant, Ronib?

Let’s try this quote
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Disraeli

“As for the "common sense" you mentioned earlier, there are many quotes about this but here is just one, attributed to Albert Einstein. "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”

Oh I remember that one Political Nerd…and it still has me howling when Labour want to extend the voting age to most school pupils!

ronib

Doodledog I don’t have the time to investigate the discussion on Mumsnet as am taking down Christmas decorations but in brief, just because a large number of people say something doesn’t mean that it’s accurate.
I prefer to try to find out more from the horse’s mouth so to speak. Bypassing social media!

"Straight from the horses mouth" is generally considered unreliable hearsay unless backed by proof. It means motivations, biases, inconsistencies or different possibilities are unlikely to have been explored.

This means you may form an opinion, but it unreasonable to expect others to agree with an opinion based on hearsay.

As for the "common sense" you mentioned earlier, their are many quotes about this but here is just one, attributed to Albert Einstein. "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.

You are probably right Casdon tho short stay patients could be billed on return home if there was a scheme in place but I wasn’t trying to open that can of worms, just make the point that home care is considerably cheaper than hospital care involving treatments, procedures and surgery yet it is grudged and denied, and this needs to be considered. I hope the new commission will do so.

The cost of administering a system to means test people for hotel costs associated with hospital stays would outweigh the amount of money that could be gathered, surely winterwhite. The average length of stay in hospital is very short, and most patients are admitted as emergencies rather than planned care. Social care is for far fewer people, usually for weeks, at least, and there is the time to assess need before the care is put in place. Although I understand your point, I really don’t think charging hospital inpatients would result in a benefit to the state.

Some of the perceived unfairness is because the state funds some forms of care but not others. For instance many types of cancer can be treated for some time in hospital settings. This is costly and is not grudged.

Most types of dementia also destroy life but cannot be treated in this way so incur comparatively little by way of hospital costs. Care costs for dementia patients are high and it is fair to say that state help is grudged. Greatly. Why?

Whenever it is suggested that ‘hotel’ charges should be introduced for hospital stays a powerful argument is that many wouldn’t be able to afford to pay (and means testing is expensive). Yet social care is meanstested until the pips squeak and beyond. Is that just?

Doodledog I don’t have the time to investigate the discussion on Mumsnet as am taking down Christmas decorations but in brief, just because a large number of people say something doesn’t mean that it’s accurate.
I prefer to try to find out more from the horse’s mouth so to speak. Bypassing social media!

ronib

Doodledog hope you’re not suggesting that I am lying?

No, I am asking why you are discounting a discussion amongst a large number of people on MN but expecting us to accept your account of a conversation with an unnamed entrepreneur as gospel. As my post suggests.

And meanwhile the celebs are moving from the USA to the UK to escape Trump. Strange old world.

In my circle of friends, one has a daughter who has relocated to Dubai, can work online from anywhere and after doing her research Dubai won.

Another friend and her husband have relocated to Jersey.

Commonsense will tell you that the luxury market is falling in the Uk and definitely expanding in the rich oil producing countries. Don’t need statistics?

Doodledog hope you’re not suggesting that I am lying?

One contributor to GN and her ‘conversation with an entrepreneur’ and statistics? Perhaps you could tell us more please?

Why do you believe what the entrepreneur told you about others emigrating, and why should we accept your acceptance of that belief?

Conversation on MN is not statistically valid (and there are numerous bots on there spreading propaganda just now) but usually it at least represents a range of perspectives. You want us to accept the word of one unnamed ‘entrepreneur’ whilst rubbishing the validity of a whole conversation? How does that make any sort of sense?

Notagranyet24. A recent conversation with an entrepreneur confirmed that businesses are being moved overseas. There’s no aspiration or market here at the moment as living expenses are extremely high so luxury goods need to follow the market and Saudi Arabia hits the spot.
Mumsnet and statistics? Tell us more please.

ronib

I think everyone is forgetting one essential fact and that in reality the State doesn’t own its population. Most people can get on an aeroplane and apply to live elsewhere. The Uk is seeing an exodus of high earners. Think again?

I would like to see the statistics on this ronib, as a statement, it's been rubbished on mumsnet. Probably it's true for a few but frankly, shame on them, the age of philanthropy is long gone.

Agreed. Luckygirl.

It is pointless to pretend that political decisions are made in a vacuum. Of course they aren’t.

Equally it is naive to assume that money doesn’t buy influence and the ability to swerve the realities that beset those without it.

I am happy that I don’t have to make policy decisions on behalf of others, and (on the whole) take my hat off to those who make that effort, whether I agree with their choices or not.

GrannyGravy13

Doodledog you might call doing away with inheritance political suicide

I would call it state theft, a disincentive to start businesses and make a better life for oneself and one’s family.

I can see both of these arguments, though I would probably not use the word theft.

The reason there has been no real progress on the issue is of course because many of the solutions are political suicide.

Disincentive is a word I can get behind. I guess the answer would be some sort of compromise where not all assets would be expected to go towards care and some were left for the offspring. I do not think it would be state theft, any more than expecting people to pay for their daily needs out of their assets is theft - that is what assets are for. It would only be theft if the state were taking people's money to pay for something that was entirely the state's responsibility, which currently it is not.

The problem of those rich enough to wangle legal loopholes remains. It would be the responsibility of government lawyers to make the legal framework as watertight as possible.

I think everyone is forgetting one essential fact and that in reality the State doesn’t own its population. Most people can get on an aeroplane and apply to live elsewhere. The Uk is seeing an exodus of high earners. Think again?

Fair enough. I’m not saying I would vote for it either - just that it would reduce (if not eradicate) unfairness. The current system steals from the less well-off, as means-testing always does. They don’t have the political clout of the rich though, so nothing will change.