Carers

Sixer

krisskross wrote: »

I really cannot get my head round this needing to be paid for looking after one's husband or child. I honestly thought this was what wives/husbands/parents did.

See this is where I think wires are getting crossed. I absolutely agree with you.

I personally (together with my mother, an aunt and a neighbour) looked after my bedridden grandmother for ten years to prevent her going into a care home. She needed four visits a day (getting up and into a chair, lunch, tea, getting out of chair and into bed) including plenty of semi-medical stuff such as injections and chiropody, which we had to learn how to do safely. We had help from another two aunts who lived away and who did respite for us for a couple of weeks each per year. I had a full-time job and two children under five for most of this time.

I see this as a familial and civic duty and nobody claimed anything for it aside from Attendance Allowance, some of which was used to treat the neighbour with things as she refused any money.

BUT: if my grandmother had been childless and had no good neighbour, the care she would have had to be given would have been conservative at £14.50 an hour - taking into account that for there to even BE a carer, there have to be overheads in creating a care provider company/government department and transport in getting there. Care isn't a matter of one person's wages for the time they spend with a carer. And it's silly to say otherwise.

So it's not unreasonable to say that if the carers weren't there, the bill would be massive. Or that if the carers themselves are unable to work because of their caring or are otherwise struggling for money, it's much cheaper to pay them than for them to say "I can't cope - I'll get a job and be normal and he'll have to go into a care home/a nurse and carer will have to come round and do it all instead of me".

ETA: general tidying up for clarity.

krisskross

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I also agree with your second point, as long as other income is enough to live on.

It will be if no one in the household is actually working. We have all seen how the disability related benefits often add up to a tidy sum.

Tehya

All the arguments about costs are getting us nowhere but I suppose debate is never a bad thing. All I know is what the Specialist nurse told me on the course and unfortunately I didn't get it in writing. Though if you look up Central Homecare who organise the home delivery/pick up our meds they save the NHS £64 per person per week, can't remember where I found it though as it was last year.

The medications my husband needs are a complex mix, yes he has Methotrexate but also Embrel and Prednisone, heart and ashtma meds including a nebulizer plus another eight or nine items on priscription I can never remember the names of. The training consisted of specific care giving tailored to his needs as well but mostly concentrated on the organisiation and giving of medicines and was delivered by my husband's specialist nurse from the hospital.

Originally Posted by krisskross
So can we have our £1500 a week please? Could be more if his diabetes needs extra input.

This is the reasoning of the madhouse that people manipulate to prove that 'carers' should get

The figure of £87b that carers save the tax payer each year is recognised by the government that is why carers were an election priority but as usual we have been forgotten now they're in power. I need major surgery but social services are dragging their heels, we have no one else to step in but they will only cover emergency care as part of their carers card scheme, even when I broke my wrist help was nowhere to be seen and having brittle bones it'll hapen again. There are thousands of other carers out there in much worse situations than mine.

I don't believe that carer's should get "hundreds of £s a week" and neither do any of the carers I know but we do think CA isn't good enough, it's almost £13 less than JSA and is the only benefit a person has the work a minimum of 35 hours a week to recieve yet we are classed as unemployed and still get dragged into the JC+ periodically.

I think a carer should be able to earn a bit more than is currently allowed and the weekly benefit should go up to around £80 per week, I also think this should not have an affect on other income related benefits. I really don't think that is asking for too much.

PS: The research into what carers save the tax payer was done on the request of Carer's Uk but the University of Leeds actually carried out the study independently.

Oldernotwiser

Sixer wrote: »

Oh, I agree valid comparisons are difficult. However, your comparisons are equally "invalid". They've taken care to include independent actuarial calculations - these say that it costs £14.50 per hour of care to replace:

a) situations with no carer in which the caree would have to go into a care home

b) situations with no carer in which the caree would require state service at home

So: nurses cost a great deal more than £6-8 an hour. Delivery of meals on wheels costs admin, the meal, the transport plus £6-8 per hour for the delivery agent, a standard carer visit costs admin overheads, transport, plus £6-8 an hour for the carer.

I think the argument MAY lie in people who are carers but in instances where the caree could possibly manage for themselves. And that's a whole different kettle of fish. And in what families should do ANYWAY - should care go only to those who have no family? And that's another kettle again.

£14.50 an hour including admin, transport and wages for a state apparatus to provide care is probably conservative. There may be arguments about what care the state should provide, but this sum isn't really arguable - unless you're being deliberately awkward.

I'm not being awkward, but why involve a state apparatus that costs this much when you could employ someone directly for so much less?

Comparing hourly costs for someone to come in daily with the costs in residential care just seems like apples and pears to me.

dark_lady

For anyone who believes the daily mail propaganda that disability benefits are quote "a tidy sum" unquote, any one still on the old Incapacity Benefit has to pay for rent, council tax, prescriptions, eye tests and travelling to medical appointments leaving them with £40 pounds a week to live on. A tidy sum indeed!!!!!

Sixer

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I'm not being awkward, but why involve a state apparatus that costs this much when you could employ someone directly for so much less?

Comparing hourly costs for someone to come in daily with the costs in residential care just seems like apples and pears to me.

Because without the carer, some people would BE in care homes! That's the entire point!

Because the caree usually needs medical and general care. You can't employ someone to give injections or carry out chiropody at £6 an hour. Without the carer, expensive nurses and other professionals are needed.

Even assuming £6 per hour (which is ludicrous for much of the care), my grandmother, for example, would have needed:

3 x 30 minutes meal preparation/feeding/clearing up using her groceries and energy or 2 x meal deliveries - daily

1 x 15 minutes washing/personal care/commode emptying (often more than that as she wasn't always entirely continent) - daily

1 x 15 minutes general tidying/dish washing - daily

2 x 15 minutes (sometimes longer) to get her up/down dressed/undressed - daily

1 x 1 hour proper bathing - weekly

2 x 1 hour laundry (often more than that due to continence issues) - weekly

1 x 2 hours housework in flat (often more than that, again due to continence issues)

1 x hour shopping (assuming local convenience store: meal planning/list making, getting to shop and back, unloading groceries) - weekly

1 x 1 hour chiropody - fortnightly

This is about 25 hours a week and is an incredibly conservative estimate, because it doesn't include coping with any of the many crises - falls, faints, flat maintenance and repairs, keeping the garden decent, dealing with finances, occasional outings (half a day just to get her ready), yadda ad infinitum. Crises were weekly, at least. I would estimate that my family spent at least 30 hours on care a week, plus of course the untold extra hours of just keeping her company.

I am not saying the state should rush in and provide this to everyone. I am saying that those people who are providing nigh-on full-time care to relatives and are unable to share it or otherwise work it out so they can earn their own living, carers allowance - even at double the rate it is now - is a bargain.

dmg24

dark_lady wrote: »

For anyone who believes the daily mail propaganda that disability benefits are quote "a tidy sum" unquote, any one still on the old Incapacity Benefit has to pay for rent, council tax, prescriptions, eye tests and travelling to medical appointments leaving them with £40 pounds a week to live on. A tidy sum indeed!!!!!

Rubbish - anyone who receives solely IB will receive a good amount of LHA/ HB, CTB and qualify for help with medical costs under the NHS Low Income Scheme.

krisskross

dark_lady wrote: »

For anyone who believes the daily mail propaganda that disability benefits are quote "a tidy sum" unquote, any one still on the old Incapacity Benefit has to pay for rent, council tax, prescriptions, eye tests and travelling to medical appointments leaving them with £40 pounds a week to live on. A tidy sum indeed!!!!!

It's not propaganda though is it? We have posters on here who are happy to tell us they receive in excess of £30K a year tax and NI free when LHA and council tax benefit are added in. DLA or AA is not counted for means tested benefits and this alone can amount to £120 a week.

krisskross

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I'm not being awkward, but why involve a state apparatus that costs this much when you could employ someone directly for so much less?

Comparing hourly costs for someone to come in daily with the costs in residential care just seems like apples and pears to me.

Our 94 year old neighbour has just gone into a residential home. She was blind but managed well until a few months ago.

She was in receipt of high rate AA and used this for a private carer twice a day, for half an hour or so to help her get washed and dressed then the reverse in the evening. She also had her hot lunch delivered 5 days a week at a cost of £3.50 per day. Sunday relatives collected her for lunch and the other day was at the local church where lunch cost £1. This was a good social occasion with raffles etc.

She paid £8 a month for a lifeline phone sevice.

She also paid £10 a week for a local young mum to do her housework and put the washing on etc.

She said her AA (£70) covered the care she actually paid for and she would have had to pay for food anyway.

Jaycee_Dove

Just to post a real example of someone who - without care - WOULD be in a home long term.

My mum had a massive stroke in 2003 and was hospitalised for 9 months. She requires round the clock care as she is completely paralysed down one side, can only eat or drink with constant supervision and assistance and requires ceiling hosts just to move her. Her speech was for years none existent and is still very badly effected to the extent that most people cannot understand what she wants to say.

The choice was simple for me.

She had no home or savings (I took her in after my dad died and looked after her for several years prior to her stroke whilst I carried on working).

The options were, therefore, that she went into a care home at NHS/state expense or I looked after her, requiring me to give up my job as she needs someone with her 24/7.

I had to fight to be allowed to care for her and for a few weeks whilst I received approval, then training, then various adaptations to the home (hoist, ramp etc) she had to go into a home for a few weeks. It cost just under £400 for each of those weeks (at 2004 rates) when she was in there paid for by the state.

When she was allowed home and I took over her care I did not claim carer's allowance (it had never occurred to me to do this for my mum and I just worked as much as I could from home).

So for several years probably £400 per week plus was saved by the state.

Eventually three years ago our social worker persuaded me to apply for CA as my income had become so low given my very restricted ability to work between caring at home and without any ability to leave the vicinity of the house. I get £53 per week and am happy as I can just about pay the bills with that and the limited money I can still make myself working from home.

I still worry about things like how this will effect my pension (I am 59 so due to retire in about 2 or 3 years) and if I should/should not be paying NI.

However, I can directly compare what my mum was like during care in the care home in 2004 at a rate of £20,000 per year and how she responds in her own home and can look forward to each day without concern that she might be left alone for hours unable to call for something or explain to the carer what she wants if they are there. If I were looking in as a taxpayer I would consider the less than £3000 per year for that to be a fantastic saving.

Like I am sure nearly every carer out there I have not once thought I should be getting even one hundred pounds a week and would still be doing it for nothing if carer's allowance were axed.

So this is the perspective that I get from this side of the fence after 30 years as a taxpayer without such an insight.

Some people might be abusing the system but I am fairly sure that most are simply getting some help for what they are doing and willingly earning far less than they could/would receive if they did not feel that caring was the very least that they must do for their loved one.

That is the context in which carer's allowance should be judged for the vast majority of people who receive it.