Have your say on the Big Care Debate

sloughflint

EdInvestor wrote: »

This will not work.You and you wife need to take action NOW if you want to protect the house from being used to pay for care.There is a way of doing it by switching ownership to tenants in common and leaving each half in trust to the children with lifetime rights for the spouse.See a solicitor.

That way the council cannot get the house.If you give it to your daughter, they can.

I think I'm correct in saying that what you suggest won't help in the situation where both owners are living in a care home.

lynzpower

I can see that the care sector needs huge investment in order to provide care of a high standard for our increasingly ageing population but where does that money come from?

What has happened is thqat care companies have been able to flourish and take aprofit- thats whats happened.

I also used to work in commissioning of care for a short while, and just could not morally contnue to work in that setting. Ihad to tell people, that they had to pay 18 per hour for bathing. I know the carers used to get the minimum wage.

There are people takig fat profits from the state supported care MARKET and I for one dont like it. Its not OK to make profit out of home care. Its not ok to charge 18 PH to someone for bathng them, this is the absolute basic a state should provide.

If the state was employing the staff, the cost could be passed on to the "person cared for " at a fair rate. If you can afford it then its 6.00 per hour, not18. Then there would be less anger between those who have paid in and those who hadnt - those who have to pay for thier own care, should not be ripped off for the privilidge.

Privatisation of CARE IS unacceptable, harms people, and fleeces those in need and there is a resounding silence in the press about this- why:?

dzug1

kittie wrote: »

Doh, thanks button instead of quoted again.

Where from? We will pay for us from our savings but no way on earth are we going to contribute into a national pot to pay for all the people who spent instead of saved. There is a lot not being said by the government ie who IS going to pay for the workshy, serial, scroungers who have never done a days work in their lives or the inadequate mothers who have 14 children on the state

Well short of denying them care, you ARE going to pay for this lot whether it's through a national pot or general taxation, so it's really a matter of presentation.

dzug1

lynzpower wrote: »

. I know the carers used to get the minimum wage.



If the state was employing the staff, the cost could be passed on to the "person cared for " at a fair rate. If you can afford it then its 6.00 per hour, not18. Then there would be less anger between those who have paid in and those who hadnt - those who have to pay for thier own care, should not be ripped off for the privilidge.

That's taking a very narrow view of 'cost'. The carer's wages are only part of the picture, whether provided by the state or privately.

How much of that £18 is actually profit, and not costs? I don't know but I doubt if it's much.

lynzpower

I dont know if it is simplistioc. ultimatelywhat you have to look at is the profit that many cmpanies are making. It is not unusual to see care homes for sale with huge operating profits.

http://www.businessesforsale.com/accountingweb/1327601-1/browse.aspx

Do you think its OK for a care home to be making 250k profit per year? I personally dont and find it all rather distasteful.

FWIW, there is in fact a cost to the taxpayer of having these services provided outseide of the LA.

Commissioning staff, investigations, chasing up carers who hadnt attended, reviews of car packages- all paid for by the state to manage the at times, poor qality home care that people are payin a fortune for - is it OKto pay 18ph for someone to go to tescos for you? If it takes 1 hour 10 then it costs £36- sometimes more than your food budget! if the care gets stuck on a bus- and it tips over into 2 hours, is that the older persons problem?

EdInvestor

I agree that it would be better if care homes and hospices and other quasi medical facilities were run on a not-for profit or charitable basis (as always used to be the case in the distant past).

Not so sure that it's a good idea for the council to be involved in running them though.

Errata

I believe that most hospices are charities, my local ones are and part supported by many local fund raising initiatives and unpaid volunteers.

Looking at paying for home care: even if a worker was on the minimum wage there are 50% on-costs to be added to that which would take it to around a cost of £10 an hour.

The whole situation has been allowed to develop into chaos and unfairness. Although not every older person who is fully funded will have been living the life of Reilly. Many will have been in low paid jobs with no hope of buying a house and lived in social or private rented housing all their lives, and will have been able to put savings aside, but not many, many thousands of pounds.

[Deleted User]

dzug1 wrote: »

Well short of denying them care, you ARE going to pay for this lot whether it's through a national pot or general taxation, so it's really a matter of presentation.

general taxation will be shared amongst ALL TAXPAYERS. The amount being debated was anticipated to come from those over 60

dzug1

lynzpower wrote: »

Do you think its OK for a care home to be making 250k profit per year? I personally dont and find it all rather distasteful.

'A' care home - yes, I don't see the problem. It will be catering for the rich.

Every care home no - many are non-profit making.

They don't all have to be the same.

missychrissy

There are not many non-profit making care homes. Most of them are privately owned and as I said in an earlier post they are in the business of making money. I've been working in them for years. I suppose the like of Sue Ryder and the Cheshire Homes are the kind you are referring to. They still run as profit making businesses.

I recently worked in one of them. I only lasted 6 shifts. I couldn't take the abuse dished out by some of the residents. I decided life was too short to be that stressed out at work. Some of the younger disabled peoples' fees are approaching £2,000 per week so a lot of abuse is tolerated from them by sometimes non nursing managers. It is easy to be tolerant when you do not have to look after someone yourself.

I am finding in general that people are becoming harder and harder to look after. Horrible people turn into horrible old people and horrible sick people. I am experiencing more and more physical and verbal abuse from the people I look after. Some homes will not tolerate it, though there is little can be done when dealing with people with dementia. I recently worked with a young girl just returned from off sick with fractured ribs having been kicked by a resident. I worked recently with another lady who lost one of her front teeth after being thumped in the mouth. I regularly come home with bruises, scratches and sometimes even bites and often experience verbal abuse. I could go on.

My impression is that the dependency levels of many residents in care homes are increasing. People are living longer therefore there are more and more people with dementia. However, staffing levels in these homes are not increasing to match. Staff often experience stressful working conditions for poor pay. Many care homes only pay their care assistants basic minimum wage. They may receive an extra 10p per hour if they have NVQ2 - wow! not a lot of incentive, but CSCI state that at least half the care staff must have NVQ2 within a nursing home.

I digress. I will get back to my point. Most care homes are privately owned and in the business of making money.