Adult Social Care

Gavin83

monkeyspanner wrote: »

It probably won't be a popular view but I think we need to take a long hard look at what the NHS will pay for. I believe the priority must be given to illness and disease and their prevention and the NHS should not pay for things like:
Tattoo Removal
Unneccessary cosmetic surgery
Corrective surgery when private cosmetic surgery goes wrong
IVF
Viagra
Gender reassignment
Drug abuse (alcohol, tobacco or other chemicals)

This does not mean the services should not be provided but that there cost should not be provided free or at minimal prescription cost.

Now I am going to put my hard hat on and head for the bunker whilst the disapproval rains down.

I agree with you on all but the corrective surgery and drug abuse, all the others aren't actually illnesses/problems and can be ignored. Those two are genuine problems however and despite the fact they are self inflicted to an extent (although not completely as the intention was never to actually inflict harm) the NHS still has a duty to treat. You could also generally assume that anyone with substance abuse issues will generally be too poor to afford such treatment.

At what point would you draw the line? Charging attempted suicides, charging those in a car crash, charging heart attack or stroke victims because of their lifestyle?

It's such a grey area that I think you either have to charge no one or everyone when it comes to a genuine need.

margaretclare

At what point would you draw the line? Charging attempted suicides, charging those in a car crash, charging heart attack or stroke victims because of their lifestyle?

'Heart attack' victims do not always bring it on themselves by smoking etc.

I had one of those exactly 20 years ago this month (on St Patrick's Day 1989 to be exact). It certainly was not caused by my smoking - I've never been a smoker. We are now being told that Type II diabetes is 'preventable' because it's caused by obesity and/or inactivity. Not necessarily. DH developed this and he'd always been a fit, sporty, active guy from his youth. What he had was a genetic predisposition - this condition came down both the paternal and maternal sides of his family.

Trebor16

Gavin83 wrote: »

I really don't see the issue with the elderly selling their homes to pay for their care. After all, if they are entering long term care they won't be returning home and therefore no longer need the property. What else will they do with it? Besides, if it was fully state funded then where will the money come from? It also brings an issue on the whole top up scheme, some homes are more expensive than others for a reason. Should someone who has lived on benefits their whole life really be entitled to better care than someone who has several hundred thousand in the bank?

Because if their primary needs are health needs then the NHS is obliged to pay for their care costs in full. It's the basic principle of how the NHS was set up and how it should work. This care should be provided regardless of means. In return for this promise that the government made we pay a heck of a lot of our hard earned in income tax and national insurance (not forgetting VAT, duty on petrol and all the other stealth taxes).

So why should someone have to sell their home when they have genuine health needs?

I suggest you take a look at the following websites so that you get a better understanding of the system, as you are lacking knowledge of this issue.

http://freenursingcare.findtalk.net/forum.htm

http://gpss.npl.com/nhscare/

Errata

It's a difficult situation and one that the Green Paper will address.
Perhaps the main difficulty is that when the NHS became operational in 1946 life expectancy was around the late '60s, many more older people were looked after and nursed by their families, people with dementia who couldn't be looked after by their families were warehoused in large psychiatric hospitals, and the total population was 20% less than it is now.

Should there be an amount levied on every working age adult to fund the care of older people?
Should everyone be required to insure themselves so any care they need in old age would be paid for?
Should taxes be increased so no older person has to pay for the care they're assessed as needing?

The only certainty is that care needs funding, the only question is how should it be funded.

EdInvestor

Errata wrote: »

Perhaps the main difficulty is that when the NHS became operational in 1946 life expectancy was around the late '60s, many more older people were looked after and nursed by their families, people with dementia who couldn't be looked after by their families were warehoused in large psychiatric hospitals...

Seems to me that with something like 70% or more of care home inmates suffering from dementia and plenty more at home with their families, the outstanding need is to get a much closer focus on the dementia/Alzheimers issue.

The Government should

a) Devote much more funding to finding effective treatment and hopefully cure for the disease.Current amounts are pathetic.
b)Recognise it properly as a disease at a much earlier stage and make the (cheap) drugs which delay onset immediately available
b)Improve the funding to carers of patients at home and the provision of respite services to give them a break.The current outrageous withdrawal of carer's allowance when state pension kicks in should be dropped immediately and the amount of the allowance increased to reflect the onerous nature of the work.

Dementia has been swept under the carpet for years, subject to a taboo based on shame about mental illness.The time has come to end this wrongful attitude, which just encourages the Government to avoid its responsibilities.

One can't help but admire people like the Reagans, the Thatchers, Sir Terry Pratchett and John Suchet for starting the ball rolling: for this is certainly a problem which isn't going to go away.

Errata

Ed, I agree. The difficulty with research is that funding gets sucked into the 'ah' stuff like breast cancer at the expense of adequate funding for things like prostate cancer - and you'd think that would concentrate the mind of half the population at last - and dementia.

It has been swept under the carpet in the past, but we have the culture we have which the population and government are segments of.

I'm not sure how much difference the Suchet's and Pratchett's will make. Experience shows that no matter how many famous people come out about the mental health problems they've experienced, support and treatment improves at a snails pace.

ukmaggie45

EdInvestor wrote: »

Dementia has been swept under the carpet for years, subject to a taboo based on shame about mental illness.The time has come to end this wrongful attitude, which just encourages the Government to avoid its responsibilities.

One can't help but admire people like the Reagans, the Thatchers, Sir Terry Pratchett and John Suchet for starting the ball rolling: for this is certainly a problem which isn't going to go away.

Edinvestor, I agree so much with you. Both my parents died of dementia, it was shocking how fast Mum went downhill after Dad admitted to nursing home.

I dread having anything similar and being a drain on my daughters.

If the State can't look after us, for heavens sake allow assisted suicide for folks who want it.

weanie

I really feel for you. My mother has slid down a slippery slope of Dementia with amazing speed since Dad died. Mum was no Einstein but she was capable of intelligent conversation, worked extremely hard an lived a good, honest and thrifty life. She brought up her family well and was a good friend to others and helped many people in her lifetime. No amount of 'Brain Gym' could have avoided her form of dementia. She was an excellent cook and studied recipes well and used a vast knowledge of food to improve her health and that of my father.
The prospect of falling into the same Dementia slide and the responsibility this would plac eupon my own adult children frightens me horribly. I completely understand the dread you feel and definitely would prefer no life to the life stretching before my mother.

margaretclare

Errata wrote: »

It's a difficult situation and one that the Green Paper will address.
Perhaps the main difficulty is that when the NHS became operational in 1946 life expectancy was around the late '60s, many more older people were looked after and nursed by their families, people with dementia who couldn't be looked after by their families were warehoused in large psychiatric hospitals, and the total population was 20% less than it is now.

In addition, there were what were called 'geriatric hospitals'. These were what had been workhouse infirmaries only painted magnolia instead of dark green. They would care for people who were simply infirm as opposed to demented. These did come under the NHS and there was a different, shorter and simpler, nursing qualification which was considered adequate - more basic, more practical, less academic. But there was no question - it was still 'nursing' as opposed to 'care'.

Errata

margaretclare wrote: »

In addition, there were what were called 'geriatric hospitals'. These were what had been workhouse infirmaries only painted magnolia instead of dark green. They would care for people who were simply infirm as opposed to demented. These did come under the NHS and there was a different, shorter and simpler, nursing qualification which was considered adequate - more basic, more practical, less academic. But there was no question - it was still 'nursing' as opposed to 'care'.

I take your point, but in those days women spent 10 days in hospital being 'nursed' after giving birth.