Central government want council tax rise to fund elderly care.

[Anna B]

Neglect a dog and you can be prosecuted.

 

Neglect an old person and nobody bats an eyelid.

[El Cid]

There are a lot of elderly people needing help that simply don't get any help at all. Sadly, they can no longer depend on family or neighbours popping in and need carers. OAPs already have to pay a lot for these services.

 

It annoys me that government is putting the onus on Local Government to raise the money via council tax, so that the government can claim to have not put up taxes when the overall effect for the public is exactly the same.

 

Is the problem with this knowing who is responsible for caring for our old folk?

 

Is it an health issue, and should be paid by NHS?

 

Or is it that people dont have a large enough pension to care for themselves?

 

Does anyone have a duty of care, or a legal responsibility to care for old people?

[ANGELFIRE1]

As someone said, this is more about care at home.

 

There are a lot of elderly people needing help that simply don't get any help at all. Sadly, they can no longer depend on family or neighbours popping in and need carers. OAPs already have to pay a lot for these services.

 

It annoys me that government is putting the onus on Local Government to raise the money via council tax, so that the government can claim to have not put up taxes when the overall effect for the public is exactly the same.

 

Just as an aside: can we not get rid of some (most) of the 800+ unnecessary old fossils in the house of Lords and use the savings from that to help fund OAP care?

 

See, I'm finding savings already...

 

 

Saving around £62,400,000 a year if we got rid of the lot of them. IF my sums are correct, I stand to be corrected though.

 

Angel1

[Anna B]

Saving around £62,400,000 a year if we got rid

 

Mmmm interesting.

 

At what age do you suggest we get rid of them.

 

And how far off that age are you?

[Bargepole23]

Saving around £62,400,000 a year if we got rid

 

Mmmm interesting.

 

At what age do you suggest we get rid of them.

 

And how far off that age are you?

 

Is he not referring to the House of Lords members?

 

Was that your own suggestion?

[spilldig]

As someone said, this is more about care at home.

 

There are a lot of elderly people needing help that simply don't get any help at all. Sadly, they can no longer depend on family or neighbours popping in and need carers. OAPs already have to pay a lot for these services.

 

It annoys me that government is putting the onus on Local Government to raise the money via council tax, so that the government can claim to have not put up taxes when the overall effect for the public is exactly the same.

 

Just as an aside: can we not get rid of some (most) of the 800+ unnecessary old fossils in the house of Lords and use the savings from that to help fund OAP care?

 

See, I'm finding savings already...

 

Agreed. It should be funded from central government through income tax because income tax/national insurance is by and large a progressive tax whereas council tax largely takes no account of ability to pay, but spending our £13 billion foreign aid here would probably cure the problem as opposed to giving it to countries such as India, with it's own space programme.

[hush]

As most homes are private concerns that's unavoidable to some extent. On the other hand if it goes to council run it will be burnt off with council inefficiency.

 

Or spent on council excess like the Student Games.

[Anna B]

 

Is he not referring to the House of Lords members?

 

Was that your own suggestion?

 

Ooo yes, just re-read it and I think you're right, my apologies.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Anna B

[Bob Arctor]

Agreed ....

 

---------- Post added 12-12-2016 at 16:34 ----------

 

Making more money available is no guarantee that elderly care will improve or be more efficient for reasons you imply.

 

Ask anyone who has been in receipt of social care services since 2010 whether their situation is better or worse now - you will be very hard pushed to find anyone who thinks it's got better or even stayed the same, for the vast majority it's got worse. And that's because less money is being spent on them, so they receive less support. So while it's true that spending more money doesn't necessarily provide better care, it's most peoples' experience that having less money spent on them has provided worse care, therefore upping the amount of spend again is highly likely, based on recipients' own experiences, to result in better care and support. Which means your theories about efficiency are pretty much irrelevant to peoples' actual experiences.

 

If you want to see what inefficiency looks like, then read this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/11/nhs-in-grip-of-worst-bed-blocking-crisis-on-record-figures-show/

 

“The funding crisis in social care is heaping needless pressure onto the NHS. A third of bed days lost to delayed discharge are due to social care and the biggest reason for social care delays is ‘patients awaiting a care package in their home.'"

 

That's inefficient.

[jane2008]

My neighbour, who has worked all his life up til retiring lives alone now. He does have family but no-one that looks after him (that's me being diplomatic). My O/H is, at this minute, sitting with him to give him some company. My neighbour goes in and out of hospital because he falls, but, occasionally he says he feels unwell and wants an ambulance.

He will admit that sometimes he just feels so lonely that he wants to be in hospital.

 

He has no-one, other than us to get any shopping in. Me and another neighbour give him hot meals whenever we can, but it's not everyday.

 

If he had some help, he could stay at home happily instead of using NHS rescouces. I believe a little help would save a lot of money.

 

I don't know where this money should come from, but I do know it would save money in the long run.