£11 for 15 minutes of Care..

[ECCOnoob]

What happened? Don't tell me there are more old people now, there's also a lot more people paying taxes, and we're supposed to be a rich nation.

 

You have answered your own question.

 

You might try and dismiss it as some predictable excuse but that is in fact the crux of the issue.

 

Rich nation or not, in the real world money is not endless.

 

There is simply too much and too many taking from the system and not enough being paid in.

 

Massive increases in population. Continuing increases in life expectancy. Continuing increases on demands for services. Continuing increases in demands for higher wages and national minimums for those staffing the services.... the list is endless.

 

"free" may well have applied to service user back in the day but someone was picking up the bill. We have to face facts - these days there is not enough in the pot and something had to change.

 

Personally, I dont think £17 an hour is extortionate. The core minimum wage alone (based on next months increase) will be £7.85 out of that then we have overheads, deductions, travel, admin, supplies and other costs.

 

Its all has to be paid for.

[cressida]

Just phoned a care company about help with caring at home for a young disabled person.

 

£11.00 for 15 minutes!

 

or £17 an hour (with no guarantee that he'll actually get the full hour of course,)

Is this standard?

No doubt the actual carers will be on minimum wage.

 

When my Grandmother was old in the 1970's care like this was free at the point of use, and so were care homes. What happened? Don't tell me there are more old people now, there's also a lot more people paying taxes, and we're supposed to be a rich nation.

Anyway, he's a young person for a start, and his benefits won't stretch to this.

 

Hello Anna,

 

Has the young man no relatives who could help, you say he is only 38 years old - from what I've read of his situation I can't understand why he is not getting more in allowances.

 

[Anna B]

You have answered your own question.

 

You might try and dismiss it as some predictable excuse but that is in fact the crux of the issue.

 

Rich nation or not, in the real world money is not endless.

 

There is simply too much and too many taking from the system and not enough being paid in.

 

Massive increases in population. Continuing increases in life expectancy. Continuing increases on demands for services. Continuing increases in demands for higher wages and national minimums for those staffing the services.... the list is endless.

 

"free" may well have applied to service user back in the day but someone was picking up the bill. We have to face facts - these days there is not enough in the pot and something had to change.

 

Personally, I dont think £17 an hour is extortionate. The core minimum wage alone (based on next months increase) will be £7.85 out of that then we have overheads, deductions, travel, admin, supplies and other costs.

 

Its all has to be paid for.

 

Old people have paid into thesystem all their lives, longer than anyone else. The contract was that this money would be used to pay for them to be helped when they needed it. The government has reneged on that promise.

 

We can aford what we chose to afford. Money is not short. It can always be found for the government's pet projects, extortionate salaries, bungs and wars. The old and the sick however, are an easy target to ignore, they can't fight back.

[dizzy_chick]

No, not yet. Apparently it's incredibly hard to get and he's not considered bad enough yet. Mind you his family are having to go up to look after him 3 times a day, as well as working full time. It's having a serious affect on them. They're at their wits end.

 

His memory is poor so he can't manage his medication, He can barely walk and falls over at least two or three times a week, he has had to have stitches twice. He finds it difficult to feed himself and can no longer manage a knife and fork, he has to eat finger foods or liquidised stuff with a spoon. He can't communicate / talk and that makes it difficult for him to verbalise his needs.

 

However he can still use the toilet, and that apparently is what makes all the difference. So he is still deemed as capable and unlikely to qualify for Continuing Health care.

 

Has he had an assessment from the Local Authority Social Care? The first step is to contact Adult Social Care and ask for an assessment.

 

There's more information here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/care-act-2014-part-1-factsheets/care-act-factsheets

 

That assessment is for funding for his social care needs. From the information given, it sounds as though he has certainly got social care needs, such as the support with eating and getting around the home. Has he ever had any support from a speech & language therapist?

 

The Council may be able to advise on equipment. An OT can come and assess him to see if any equipment or adaptations could help.

 

Funding from Social Care is subject to a financial assessment of his income and any savings.

 

I assume he lives in Sheffield. The adult social care team can be contacted on: 2734908. There's some online help here: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/content/sheffield/home/social-care/independent-safe-well.html

 

He may have to wait for an assessment. It'll be worth him having someone to advocate on his behalf.

 

The Clinical Commissioning team (CCG) manage the Continuing Health Care funding, which is NHS money. The CCG team will assess him to determine whether he has eligible health needs. More information is here: http://www.sheffieldccg.nhs.uk/Your-Health/continuing-healthcare.htm

[Anna B]

If old people need to go into a home but have no money then doesn't the council pay?

 

Not necessarily. The council will pay some of the cost if the old person has no money of their own, / no house to sell etc, but relatives are supposed to make up the shortfall. If they won't / can't, or the OP has no sponsors, then the care home is not obliged to take them.

 

That's one of the reasons hospitals are full of old people bed blocking.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2018 at 21:03 ----------

 

If they are disabled and claiming ESA / PIP, and need a Carer, then they should be getting an allowance for care, which is to cover the cost of said carer....

 

It doesn't cover the cost, only some of it. The carer get's £60 p.w. for 24/7 care and to replace their lost salary, and even that is taken off the disabled person's allowance.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2018 at 21:05 ----------

 

Hello Anna,

 

Has the young man no relatives who could help, you say he is only 38 years old - from what I've read of his situation I can't understand why he is not getting more in allowances.

 

 

His relatives are heping (3 visits a day,) as well as holding down full time jobs.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2018 at 21:09 ----------

 

Has he had an assessment from the Local Authority Social Care? The first step is to contact Adult Social Care and ask for an assessment.

 

There's more information here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/care-act-2014-part-1-factsheets/care-act-factsheets

 

That assessment is for funding for his social care needs. From the information given, it sounds as though he has certainly got social care needs, such as the support with eating and getting around the home. Has he ever had any support from a speech & language therapist?

 

The Council may be able to advise on equipment. An OT can come and assess him to see if any equipment or adaptations could help.

 

Funding from Social Care is subject to a financial assessment of his income and any savings.

 

I assume he lives in Sheffield. The adult social care team can be contacted on: 2734908. There's some online help here: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/content/sheffield/home/social-care/independent-safe-well.html

 

He may have to wait for an assessment. It'll be worth him having someone to advocate on his behalf.

 

The Clinical Commissioning team (CCG) manage the Continuing Health Care funding, which is NHS money. The CCG team will assess him to determine whether he has eligible health needs. More information is here: http://www.sheffieldccg.nhs.uk/Your-Health/continuing-healthcare.htm

 

Thankyou for that. He's been told (don't know who by) that he won't qualify yet, he has to get worse, but that was a while ago. He's a tricky customer, difficult and in denial. It's the carers who need help....

[ECCOnoob]

Old people have paid into thesystem all their lives, longer than anyone else. The contract was that this money would be used to pay for them to be helped when they needed it. The government has reneged on that promise.

 

We can aford what we chose to afford. Money is not short. It can always be found for the government's pet projects, extortionate salaries, bungs and wars. The old and the sick however, are an easy target to ignore, they can't fight back.

 

Oh have they? All of them? You can guarantee that can you Anna.

 

We are currently on a very different generation of pensioner now. They are not ALL live through the war, paid their way all their lives types.

 

SOME of them have paid very little into the system. What about say all the post war stay at home mothers - have they all paid in their fair share? What about the thousands if not millions of elderly refugee/asylum seekers/naturalised immigrants who have come to the country over the years - have they all paid in? What about those who have been long time jobseekers, serial strikers, general workshy layabouts, early retirees - have they paid in a full share perhaps?

 

Things are not always black and white.

 

Yes, there is plenty of money about but there is more to running this country than just the bottomless pit of the NHS.

 

You might rant about so called "pet projects", well perhaps some of us other taxpayers see them as investments or improvements to infrastructure.

 

Either way, still does not get around the simple fact that we have moved on from 1948. Population is more than 16+ million people since the NHS was established. Nor did the NHS have the vast range of departments, services, subsidaries, wasteful community operations, endless government initatives and fund draining quangos as it does now.

 

I refer to my earlier statement. Too much going out not enough going in.

 

Very simple fact. The solution is much harder to establish.

Edited March 5, 2018 by ECCOnoob

[Anna B]

Oh have they? All of them? You can guarantee that can you Anna.

 

We are currently on a very different generation of pensioner now. They are not ALL live through the war, paid their way all their lives types.

 

SOME of them have paid very little into the system. What about say all the post war stay at home mothers - have they all paid in their fair share? What about the thousands if not millions of elderly refugee/asylum seekers/naturalised immigrants who have come to the country over the years - have they all paid in? What about those who have been long time jobseekers, serial strikers, general workshy layabouts, early retirees - have they paid in a full share perhaps?

 

Things are not always black and white.

 

Yes, there is plenty of money about but there is more to running this country than just the bottomless pit of the NHS.

 

You might rant about so called "pet projects", well perhaps some of us other taxpayers see them as investments or improvements to infrastructure.

 

Either way, still does not get around the simple fact that we have moved on from 1948. Population is more than 16+ million people since the NHS was established. Nor did the NHS have the vast range of departments, services, subsidaries, wasteful community operations, endless government initatives and fund draining quangos as it does now.

 

I refer to my earlier statement. Too much going out not enough going in.

 

Very simple fact. The solution is much harder to establish.

 

So what do you suggest we do with poor old people (and disabled) who have no money?

And remember the next generations, with no houses to sell, a lifetime of low paid unreliable work and rubbish pensions are going to have even less money at the end. And there'll be even more of them. What are you going to do with them?

[ECCOnoob]

Very difficult question. I certainly dont have all the answers but you must at least admit things cannot go on the way they are.

 

But, since you asked.

 

Firstly I would stop the whole "free" at source thing for everything other than essential services. No silly sidelines. No minority services. No wasteful and unnecessary auxillary services. Might discougage too many people taking it for granted and encourage them to invest in their own healthcare provision.

 

I would have the state level stripped back to basic and essential healthcare provision only. Why should the entire system be free?

 

Secondly, I would put responsiblity back on the people. Everyone in a working capacity should have some form of income/health protection insurance to pay for any of that non-essential treatment. Everyone who is capable and physically able to work should be taking some responsibility saving for their retirement. Low wages my foot - EVERYONE should be taking responsibility for their own way in this world. Even on a low income you would find a way to pay for essentials like health and retirement. Other less essential things will have to be put back until you can afford them - that's life.

 

That will free up more money for those unfortunate enough - and through absolutely no fault of their own who have severe or life long illness to get the necessary services, care and treatment they require.

 

Speaking of personal responsibility and thirdly I would make self inflicted illnesses, lifestyle choices, sporting activities, hazardous hobbies childcare/child healthcare (above say 2) and serial misssed appointments should be subject to financial charge or other penalites.

 

I would also like to see contributions made into the service reflected in the scope/extent of service received. For example, take elderly nursing homes - why is it fair that someone who has worked hard all their lives and provided for themselves by say, property or other investments lose it all if they are taken into a nursing home when somebody else sat in the same room receiving the same treatment may have paid nothing into the system and never worked a day.

 

I would have no shame in there being a two or multiple tiered system with certain non-essential elements.

Edited March 5, 2018 by ECCOnoob

[Anna B]

Very difficult question. I certainly dont have all the answers but you must at least admit things cannot go on the way they are.

 

But, since you asked.

 

Firstly I would stop the whole "free" at source thing for everything other than essential services. No silly sidelines. No minority services. No wasteful and unnecessary auxillary services. Might discougage too many people taking it for granted and encourage them to invest in their own healthcare provision.

 

I would have the state level stripped back to basic and essential healthcare provision only. Why should the entire system be free?

 

Secondly, I would put responsiblity back on the people. Everyone in a working capacity should have some form of income/health protection insurance to pay for any of that non-essential treatment. Everyone who is capable and physically able to work should be taking some responsibility saving for their retirement. Low wages my foot - EVERYONE should be taking responsibility for their own way in this world. Even on a low income you would find a way to pay for essentials like health and retirement. Other less essential things will have to be put back until you can afford them - that's life.

 

That will free up more money for those unfortunate enough - and through absolutely no fault of their own who have severe or life long illness to get the necessary services, care and treatment they require.

 

Speaking of personal responsibility and thirdly I would make self inflicted illnesses, lifestyle choices, sporting activities, hazardous hobbies childcare/child healthcare (above say 2) and serial misssed appointments should be subject to financial charge or other penalites.

 

I would also like to see contributions made into the service reflected in the scope/extent of service received. For example, take elderly nursing homes - why is it fair that someone who has worked hard all their lives and provided for themselves by say, property or other investments lose it all if they are taken into a nursing home when somebody else sat in the same room receiving the same treatment may have paid nothing into the system and never worked a day.

 

I would have no shame in there being a two or multiple tiered system with certain non-essential elements.

 

And of course, I assume that with us all taking responsibility for ourselves, and buying our own insurances etc, you will of course be greatly reducing taxes so we can afford it....

[truman]

Not necessarily. The council will pay some of the cost if the old person has no money of their own, / no house to sell etc, but relatives are supposed to make up the shortfall. If they won't / can't, or the OP has no sponsors, then the care home is not obliged to take them.

 

That's one of the reasons hospitals are full of old people bed blocking...

 

So you're saying that councils wont pay for people's care homes if the person has no money? As I understand it councils pay less than private "clients" for the same home....