Proper pay for carers?

[Anna B]

Is a possible answer to the current social care problem to pay people to look after elderly / disabled people?

 

Time was when women (usually) took on this role, looking after aging parents, doing voluntary work etc, but now it takes two incomes to keep a household going, and women are expected to work until they are 66 (soon to become 68.)

 

That means they (or their partner) have to give up a well paid job, and sometimes a pension, to do the caring. For this often 24 /7 gruelling task they might qualify for carer's allowance, a paltry sum of £60 per week, which usually is taken off the person being cared for. This in no way compensates for loss of earnings and may force them into poverty. They don't even get the carer's allowance after retirement age. It's even worse for parents of disabled children. Carers save the NHS a fortune with their free labour.

 

Compare this with the >£600 per week paid to foster carers for looking after children, and the £600+ a week for the cheapest care home.

 

Something has to be done about social care. Care homes are not the answer as the good ones are either unaffordable or oversubscribed, and there are quite a few I wouldn't keep a dog in. So what's the answer?

Edited February 3, 2018 by Anna B

[cressida]

I fully agree Anna, carers do save the government thousands, more people would be willing to be a carer if they could afford to, also if the person who needs the care has a parent as the carer then it can be a 24hour day, no retirement.

[cgksheff]

........ but now it takes two incomes to keep a household going, ..........

 

In many cases this by choice, not necessity.

 

Many single parent families survive quite well.

[Jomie]

Giving up paid employment to care for an elderly or disabled person is a step not to be taken lightly. Any would-be carers should think about it very, very carefully. There are all kinds of pitfalls. It is difficult to see any advantages.

 

The carer's allowance is paltry and is taxable. National Insurance is paid for carers but they lose workplace pension along with salary. As the elderly or disabled person's care needs increase, the carer can become increasingly exhausted. Ill health in carers has been researched and it is well known that they suffer from a high risk of ill health, mental and physical. For some carers, the stress can be intolerable. When the caree goes into care or dies, after a very short time the carer will find themselves without any income. If they have been out of the workplace for a long while, it might be very difficult to find another job, more so for the men and women who are older.

 

Some people have no choice but to become carers. Others drift into the role inadvertently, without fully understanding what they are letting themselves in for. If anyone is thinking about becoming a carer, take advice and have a look at some of the threads on the Carers UK Forum. Being a carer is not a job that has many benefits (if any). It can be like going to work and never being allowed to go home and rest. This is why paying carers more money is not always the answer. Better, and more support for carers is needed but with cut backs in spending, that is not always available.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Jomie

[Anna B]

In many cases this by choice, not necessity.

 

Many single parent families survive quite well.

 

Having young children ups the benefit allowances quite considerably until they leave school. I'm not saying that having children isn't expensive, but they can be a lot better off than say, an unemployed man with no family.

 

Less and less is working a 'choice' for a great many women.

 

---------- Post added 03-02-2018 at 14:19 ----------

 

Giving up paid employment to care for an elderly or disabled person is a step not to be taken lightly. Any would-be carers should think about it very, very carefully. There are all kinds of pitfalls. It is difficult to see any advantages.

 

The carer's allowance is paltry and is taxable. National Insurance is paid for carers but they lose workplace pension along with salary. As the elderly or disabled person's care needs increase, the carer can become increasingly exhausted. Ill health in carers has been researched and it is well known that they suffer from a high risk of ill health, mental and physical. For some carers, the stress can be intolerable. When the caree goes into care or dies, after a very short time the carer will find themselves without any income. If they have been out of the workplace for a long while, it might be very difficult to find another job, more so for the men and women who are older.

 

Some people have no choice but to become carers. Others drift into the role inadvertently, without fully understanding what they are letting themselves in for. If anyone is thinking about becoming a carer, take advice and have a look at some of the threads on the Carers UK Forum. Being a carer is not a job that has many benefits (if any). It can be like going to work and never being allowed to go home and rest. This is why paying carers more money is not always the answer. Better, and more support for carers is needed but with cut backs in spending, that is not always available.

 

I agree. I know from personal experience how difficult it can be. Add to that, that it is often the quickest route into poverty and ill health, and it is hardly an enviable prospect. Sadly, there is often no alternative.

 

Things like day centres and respite care to give carers a short break have been cut to the bone and are often no longer available. Visiting paid carers are also often unsatisfactory (through no fault of their own,) and can cause as many problems as they solve.

[tinfoilhat]

Having young children ups the benefit allowances quite considerably until they leave school. I'm not saying that having children isn't expensive, but they can be a lot better off than say, an unemployed man with no family.

 

Less and less is working a 'choice' for a great many women.

 

---------- Post added 03-02-2018 at 14:19 ----------

 

 

I agree. I know from personal experience how difficult it can be. Add to that, that it is often the quickest route into poverty and ill health, and it is hardly an enviable prospect. Sadly, there is often no alternative.

 

Things like day centres and respite care to give carers a short break have been cut to the bone and are often no longer available. Visiting paid carers are also often unsatisfactory (through no fault of their own,) and can cause as many problems as they solve.

 

Even respite care is barely respite, my mum found that out. Caring for someone is a huge task. Would giving my mum a big wad of cash help her? She and my dad had good pensions, so no, it wouldn't have helped much at all. It wouldn't have made my dad less ill or my mum less tired and stressed, which sort of illustrates how you can't put a ££ figure on every situation.

 

I've no idea what the long term answer to the social care problem. When (if) I finally retire I know it's going to be a lot worse than it is now and that's a scary prospect. We are living much longer. Actually, let me rephrase that, we're keeping people alive much longer. The body (and mind sadly) will start to fail and we as a society spend huge amounts of money trying to stop the inevitable, only for a reasonable number (I'm not sure of the percentage) ending up in care home burning through our savings and spending our final days with precious little quality of life.

 

I suppose we need a complete seismic shift in our outlook in life, perhaps quality rather than the number of years you manage to stay alive?

[Anna B]

Even respite care is barely respite, my mum found that out. Caring for someone is a huge task. Would giving my mum a big wad of cash help her? She and my dad had good pensions, so no, it wouldn't have helped much at all. It wouldn't have made my dad less ill or my mum less tired and stressed, which sort of illustrates how you can't put a ££ figure on every situation.

 

I've no idea what the long term answer to the social care problem. When (if) I finally retire I know it's going to be a lot worse than it is now and that's a scary prospect. We are living much longer. Actually, let me rephrase that, we're keeping people alive much longer. The body (and mind sadly) will start to fail and we as a society spend huge amounts of money trying to stop the inevitable, only for a reasonable number (I'm not sure of the percentage) ending up in care home burning through our savings and spending our final days with precious little quality of life.

 

I suppose we need a complete seismic shift in our outlook in life, perhaps quality rather than the number of years you manage to stay alive?

 

I'm not sure I buy into this 'we're all living much longer' idea. Hasn't the average life expectancy gone up by just 2 years to 83 for women, and is actually on the way back down again? It feels like part of the 'blame' culture to me, and an excuse to raise the pension age.

 

That aside, I agree with you, but think the last thing carers need is serious money problems, and sadly I know quite a few who have exactly that problem these days. They find themselves not only caring in very difficult circumstances, but placed in penury as a result, and when their thankless task is over, unable to recover.

 

As Jomie says, after years of selflessly giving care, and saving the NHS a fortune, the carer can find themselves without income or pension, and, can I add, being hounded by the DHSS.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Anna B

[tinfoilhat]

I'm not sure I buy into this 'we're all living much longer' idea. Hasn't the average life expectancy gone up by just 2 years to 83 for women, and is actually on the way back down again? It feels like part of the 'blame' culture to me, and an excuse to raise the pension age.

 

That aside, I agree with you, but think the last thing carers need is serious money problems, and sadly I know quite a few who have exactly that problem these days. They find themselves not only caring in very difficult circumstances, but placed in penury as a result, and when their thankless task is over, unable to recover.

 

As Jomie says, after years of selflessly giving care, and saving the NHS a fortune, the carer can find themselves without income or pension, and, can I add, being hounded by the DHSS.

 

It looks a fairly steep rise to me. https://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-has-life-expectancy-changed-over-time/

 

Having no money doesn't help a carer but it's damn hard anyway.

[Jomie]

Not sure, but longevity is maybe not the problem. There are many people living reasonably independent lives into their eighties and sometimes nineties. The difficulties arise because due to medical advancements people with serious disease/s and high care needs and are living longer, kept going by drugs etc. Many have a poor quality of life and whether this is ethically and morally the right thing to do is up for debate. One thing that we definitely need to do is to talk about this issue and make our family members aware of our wishes towards the end of life.

 

With regards to earlier comments about carers having no choice, actually they do have choice. There is no law that says you have to care for another person, even if they are spouses and you live in the same house. It is difficult but sometimes exhausted carers have to do just that. As a carer you are legally entitled to a carers assessment from social services and if you say you cannot continue, alternative arrangements have to be put into place. If more carers downed tools the government would have to wake up and do something about it because Anna is right - carers are saving them millions of pounds.

 

Personally, I would advise people not to take on a caring role if they can possibly avoid it. As a carer, you have no life of your own. People around you disappear because they don’t want to get involved. Medical staff are only bothered about their patient. The carer is irrelevant, just as long as they keep going and save the health service money. Most of the time the carer is exhausted but feel they must carry on. Carers allowance in no way compensates for it and as has been said, they take it off you when in receipt of state pension, even though you are still doing the job!

Edited February 3, 2018 by Jomie

[Anna B]

Not sure, but longevity is maybe not the problem. There are many people living reasonably independent lives into their eighties and sometimes nineties. The difficulties arise because due to medical advancements people with serious disease/s and high care needs and are living longer, kept going by drugs etc. Many have a poor quality of life and whether this is ethically and morally the right thing to do is up for debate. One thing that we definitely need to do is to talk about this issue and make our family members aware of our wishes towards the end of life.

 

With regards to earlier comments about carers having no choice, actually they do have choice. There is no law that says you have to care for another person, even if they are spouses and you live in the same house. It is difficult but sometimes exhausted carers have to do just that. As a carer you are legally entitled to a carers assessment from social services and if you say you cannot continue, alternative arrangements have to be put into place. If more carers downed tools the government would have to wake up and do something about it because Anna is right - carers are saving them millions of pounds.

 

Personally, I would advise people not to take on a caring role if they can possibly avoid it. As a carer, you are subsumed and you end up losing yourself. People around you disappear because they don’t want to get involved. Medical staff are only bothered about their patient. The carer is irrelevant, just as long as they keep going and save the health service money. Most of the time the carer is exhausted but feel they must carry on. It’s not a life, just an existence. Carers allowance in no way compensates for it and as has been said, they take it off you when in receipt of state pension, even though you are still doing the job!

 

But care has to be paid for. And that can be a disaster for the family. It can all but bankrupt them. The cared for person has to have a sponsor to guarantee the carehome fee. If the cared for person has no money, the state will only contribute about £400 towards fees but the fees are usually at least £600 a week minimum. The sponsor (carer) has to find the other £200 a week. Yes, the carer can refuse to pay, but then the home can refuse to take them. Stalemate.

 

If you do pay the fees but your money runs out, the home can insist the cared for person leaves the home. The council then has to find them a place in a council home (And most have been sold to private companies) anywhere they can, and that might be at the other end of the country.

 

If I'm wrong in this I'd love to hear it, but this is what I've read, and heard from clients.