Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[pscocoa]

I cannot work out how the proposed caps on charges are going to benefit those who have worked hard and built something from nothing and end up with a modest house and some savings.

They will still end up with nothing.

[Sir Tigger KC]

I think it means that if say you have assets worth £300,000, you have to pay the first £75,000 of your care costs and thereafter the government will pay the rest.   

Which means you will have £225,000 left to leave to your children and grandchildren..... or blow it on booze, fags/drugs, gambling and chasing the grannies in the old folks home!!! Woohoo!!!   

Edit: and they're also going to raise the amount of assets people have before having to contribute at all from £23,250 to £125,000.

[pscocoa]

But it is only care costs and not accommodation and food - the so called "hotel" costs.

[pscocoa]

I think also thy will maintain the £4 per week per £1000 in assets over £13250 that you have to contribute up to the £ 125000 (which is how it works now but up to £23250) and so you will be depleting your savings at £450 a week plus at this level.

Needs tinkering with or could be a disaster

[Sir Tigger KC]

But it is only care costs and not accommodation and food - the so called "hotel" costs.

Ah I didn't read that far into it to be honest..... 

[geoffr70]

I cannot work out how the proposed caps on charges are going to benefit those who have worked hard and built something from nothing and end up with a modest house and some savings.

They will still end up with nothing.

It's not meant to. These sorts of people are the biggest cash cows for the government. After all, they can't tax a jobless workshy layabout, can they? No, work hard all your life and pay your way, then watch as lazy bastards all around you live off wealth created by you and paid in taxes.

[albitz]

Ont the other hand.Is the state ever going to be able to afford to car for elderly people (who are living longer and longer) for evermore ?
And should the state actually be responsible for that care ? 

[geoffr70]

Ont the other hand.Is the state ever going to be able to afford to car for elderly people (who are living longer and longer) for evermore ?
And should the state actually be responsible for that care ? 

No and no, just my opinion. The government only does what the people want though (or are supposed to! That's a laugh), and from what I can see too many people now expect the state to wipe their arse for them from birth to death.

[albitz]

I would tend to agree to an extent.It used to be mainly families that looked after their elderly,but I suppose the world has changed to an extent where that very often isnt possible anymore.
On the other hand if we are a wealthy and compassionate country maybe we should be happy to beat the cost of looking after the elderly after they have finished their working lives,and therefore contributed to the country we now enjoy ?
Tbh,Im not sure about this one.

[geoffr70]

Yes it is, I'll use health as an example to make a wider point. There are more people, living longer, with more diseases/conditions/things wrong with them, that expect more treatment, that usually costs more. Lots of reasons why more money needs to be spent. So as health care improves, and inevitably costs more, people expect the state to provide. Yet at the same time, our standard of living increases, disposable income increases, and people can fill their dwellings with all sorts of crap, but they're not prepared to pay more in taxes to fund extra services that cost more, that they expect the state to provide without question.

[albitz]

Broadly speaking I agree.We have a big state and many (maybe most) people take it for granted that it will look after their needs and wants.Im all for dismantling much of the machinery of the big socialist state and re educating people to take responsibilty for themselves.
When people get old however,they are often pretty limited in what they can do for themselves,but most of them have contributed what they were required to during their working lives,so maybe that should be a different scenario ?

[geoffr70]

Good point Albs I didn't think of it that way! Yes elderly care could be different for the reasons you stated. Although I still think if possible the responsibility should fall on the family, of the person has family. It annoys me when family 'carers' on a tv news item claim to be saving the government money by caring for their relative(s)!!!!! Who the hell do these peoPke think they are. They're not saving the government money, they're saving you me and themselves money, even of they claim carers allowance for looking after their own relative!

I believe in the dismantling of our socialist state as well, and much more too. I don't think it'd happen though, it's a huge vote winner (or loser for our pretend conservative government).

[Kevin Wood]

Perhaps, if we spent less money looking after people who can't be @rsed to get out of bed in the morning there would be some left for those who have spent a lifetime contributing to the country's economy?

[pscocoa]

I seem to have been living with and managing this whole complex situation for ages.

The expense for tax payers comes from a variety of sources ranging from paramedics/ambulance staff/doctors who are afraid to use their judgement for fear of being sued for negligence and pack off a patient to hospital at the least sign of something that "might" be a problem. So a real example from last week - my 91 year old father is in a care home - he is double incontinent and cannot walk an inch - they hoist him everywhere. The GP wanted some tests to be carried out so wanted him in hospital - the home amd I questioned why it could not be done at the care home. Anyway he said he had organised a bed and off went my father only to then languish in  A and E on a trolley for many hours and then end up in MAU which is a very familiar a well trodden path. A week later he comes out with the "sh**s", no change to his medication and within 7 hours has fallen out of bed. Care home staff fair enough called for paramedics who to my mind should be capable of checking if anything broken - anyway they packed him off again - we happened to be in Manchester so got the call at 12.30am and ended up waiting in A and E for 5 hours with him only for doctor to do a quick 5 minute check and send him back to the care home.

All this is a huge expense and happens so regularly for us and is disorientating for parents. I have explained so many times to the NHS that the weeks and months my parents have spent in hospital over past 10 years it would have been so much easier to coordinate with social services on the support that is needed. But no they each have their separate systems which produces a vicious circle of home, A and E, MAU,time on a recovery ward and back - last time before this for my father was 3 months in NHS when he went in with a nose bleed (sent in by paramedics again early last September).

The point is the issue of funding needs to encompass what is going on with the elderly in NHS terms.

[albitz]

Agreed.Its a big problem which is going to get much worse in the future,it needs an intelligent approach without being concerned about whose boats get rocked in the process.
Have a similar situation with my father,and its heartbreaking to see.Its made worse for me by the fact that Im in a different country so cant be of much help most of the time. When I remember what a proud man he once was I cant help thinking that he would be better off out of it tbh.
I have told my kids that if I ever get anywhere near the state he is in now,they must do the kind thing and somehow put me out of my misery.They seemed to think it will only be a matter of months.
We have the means of keeping the body going for much longer these days,but not the means of providing quality of life unfortunately.