Avoiding care home fees.

Malthusian

BML wrote: »

If you visited many care homes now you would find drastic reductions in the treatment of yesteryear.

No you wouldn't. As mentioned above the treatment of yesteryear was in wards or dormitories, or workhouses.

No doubt 50 years ago the best asylums cared for people better than the worst care homes do so now, but overall the quality has improved considerably. Like all crises the care "crisis" is a crisis of expectation, not of provision.

As Mojisola says we could easily solve the care crisis by going back to that but it would be politically untenable. It is much easier just to carry on squeezing the public.

The care system is in the same position as the NHS. Politicans and the media tell people that they should expect high quality care for everyone for free and consequently the system will always be overdemanded and understaffed. It is designed to exist in permanent crisis. It is our version of the never-ending war of Orwell's 1984. It is a black hole to dump excess wealth in. Putting more money in never has any noticeable effect, as the result is that costs rise, expectations rise and demand rises until equilibrium crisis is restored.

BML

You are already paying for those who don't want to pay for their own care. Anyone in council type housing.

BML

There is nothing unfair with a care system funded from central taxation where poor people pay little tax. .

p00hsticks

BML wrote: »

You are already paying for those who don't want to pay for their own care. Anyone in council type housing.

Don't be such an ill-informed snob. My late mother in law lived in council housing. She was the hardest working woman I know, holding down a (badly paid) full time job and working as a cleaner in the mornings and evenings to make ends meet.

She ended up in a care home, and all but £20 odd pound a week of her hard end pension went towards that care, even though she was subsidised by the local authority. But she understood that it was only right that it was spent on her care rather than as a inheritance for her son. There was no 'not wanting' to entirely pay for her care, it was just not possible - she had a hard life, worked hard all through it but like many women of her time was badly paid throguhout her life and simply had not been able to build up much in the way of savings after being widowed at a relatively young age.

Not everyone in council housing is a workshy layabout / immigrant / scrounger, and not everyone in council housing is against contributing to their own care needs as they get older. Some have more social responsibility than that.

BML

My reply to Spadoosh,
The alternative is the government being honest. Is there such a phenomenon?
They are unable to offer the level of support people want at the price they are willing to pay. Unwilling you mean,

At that point they need to step back and accept they cant offer a solution to it.
Never.

Its about personal responsibility. I prefer to live in a caring society not sink or swim society.
Me, im not anticipating the government being able to help me as i age.
So, if your ill you will not use the NHS?

Why when im being sensible are you asking me to pay for your care home fees?
Because it’s a fairer system.

House of lords economic affairs comittee announced that £8bn is needed to bring just adult social care up to a reasonable standard.
In 2016 the UK budget for defence sat at £35.3bn, making the UK's the fifth biggest defence budget in the world. Use some of that.

spadoosh

BML wrote: »

There is nothing unfair with a care system funded from central taxation where poor people pay little tax. .

There really is.

Its a race to the bottom.

What incentive is there for people to not be poor. If you get everything you need and you dont need to do anything, why would you do anything? There really is no point in going to school, working hard, getting a decent job, saving, and being sensible if its guaranteed that you will live relatively comfortable until youre 100.

Im at the limit of how hard im willing to work now (i earn £20k a year so not like im doing 60+ hour weeks). I meet my needs and thats generally enough for me. Tell me i dont need to plan for my retirment, ill quit tomorrow, allow my hosue to repossesed, get put in council housing and allow the government to look after me. All at the expense of some mug who is willing to work so i dont have to. I will not be the only person.

Offering something that isnt sustainable isnt fair. You get people hooked on the drug of state aid and its near impossible to get them off it. When they do inevitably get forced off it, its usually a massive slap in the face.

This isnt aboutthe righteousness of society and not wnating to help people. Its knowing full well that a system that is designed for short term thinking isnt going to be able to offer a solution. A government can last a maximum of 5 years before the next election. In an election politicians put forward what theyl do. this always involves what are essentially incentives to vote for them. So it might be that you dont like people in council house and they say theyll kick em out. Or that you want free care homes and they say theyll offer it. Problem is governments never last long term. The opposing party inevitably gets in and inevitably starts turning things back the other way leaving those who had just got what they had been promised thinking when is it going to be taken away.

The government should have no involvement in social care. If your happy in a dorm paying £20 a week they should allow it. If you want to pay severl grand for top quality care it should be allowed. If you dont want to make any provision for care because your priorities are food right now then thats someones choice. Ok its a really bad one but their choice. Not that of a politician who really doesnt care about them anyway no matter how much they say they might. The only reason they care about them is they might vote for them.

BML

BML If you visited many care homes now you would find drastic reductions in the treatment of yesteryear.
Malthusian. No you wouldn't. As mentioned above the treatment of yesteryear was in wards or dormitories, or workhouses.

BML The care system started to go downhill as soon as local Government dumped responsibility for it into the hands of a profit hungry care industry.

Malthusian. No doubt 50 years ago the best asylums cared for people better than the worst care homes do so now, but overall the quality has improved considerably. Like all crises the care "crisis" is a crisis of expectation, not of provision.
BML I suggest that you check the Care Quality Commission complaints department and find what poor staffing and poor management has done to an industry who’s prime aim is profit not care.

spadoosh

BML wrote: »

My reply to Spadoosh,
The alternative is the government being honest. Is there such a phenomenon?
They are unable to offer the level of support people want at the price they are willing to pay. Unwilling you mean,

At that point they need to step back and accept they cant offer a solution to it.
Never.

Its about personal responsibility. I prefer to live in a caring society not sink or swim society.
Me, im not anticipating the government being able to help me as i age.
So, if your ill you will not use the NHS?

Why when im being sensible are you asking me to pay for your care home fees?
Because it’s a fairer system

House of lords economic affairs comittee announced that £8bn is needed to bring just adult social care up to a reasonable standard.
In 2016 the UK budget for defence sat at £35.3bn, making the UK's the fifth biggest defence budget in the world. Use some of that.

Sorry to be a douche but can you use the quote function or use quotation marks on the bits that you quote, makes it a load easier to read.

Unwilling you mean,

Because theyre well aware its unattainable.

Never.

Thats like being on a boat thats drifitng out to sea with a hole in it thats filling up faster than you can bail it out. The boat will go down eventually, the question is how far do you want to have to swim back to the shore.

Me, im not anticipating the government being able to help me as i age.

Good. So youve got the provision to pay for the care you require?

So, if your ill you will not use the NHS?

Of course i will. Its free. If i it was a service that cost proportionate to use though i suspect my lifestyle choices would be somewhat different. Cant imagine id be as keen to smoke or eat as much rubbish as i do.

Because it’s a fairer system

Its not. As mentioned above its a race to the bottom. Its pandering to the lowest common denominator. When you do that everyone moves closer to that position. Imagine a team race. Fastest team to cross the line. Youve got a slow person. Do you run at their speed. Or do you pick them up and carry them at the faster speed? Running at their speed is guaranteeing a loss. Picking them up and draggin them is harder work for those doing it and more indignant for the perosn being carried but your more likely to win.

In 2016 the UK budget for defence sat at £35.3bn, making the UK's the fifth biggest defence budget in the world. Use some of that.

Defence (and law and order) is the only thing i think the government should be doing. Its just not practical for citizens to be arranging individual arrangements for defence against armies and invasion. When communities first come together, security is the first thing they manage. This since the dawn of man. Fluffy things like care homes come several thousand years after it, theres a reason for that.

Although i think id prefer a swiss model for our armed forces. A large, active, volunteer force/national service that predominantly deals with international emergencies (aid) unless attacked. With the massive back up of the big red buttons and a comprehensive missile defence system.

onwards&upwards

spadoosh wrote: »

There really is.

Its a race to the bottom.

What incentive is there for people to not be poor. If you get everything you need and you dont need to do anything, why would you do anything? There really is no point in going to school, working hard, getting a decent job, saving, and being sensible if its guaranteed that you will live relatively comfortable until youre 100.

Im at the limit of how hard im willing to work now (i earn £20k a year so not like im doing 60+ hour weeks). I meet my needs and thats generally enough for me. Tell me i dont need to plan for my retirment, ill quit tomorrow, allow my hosue to repossesed, get put in council housing and allow the government to look after me. All at the expense of some mug who is willing to work so i dont have to. I will not be the only person.

Offering something that isnt sustainable isnt fair. You get people hooked on the drug of state aid and its near impossible to get them off it. When they do inevitably get forced off it, its usually a massive slap in the face.

This isnt aboutthe righteousness of society and not wnating to help people. Its knowing full well that a system that is designed for short term thinking isnt going to be able to offer a solution. A government can last a maximum of 5 years before the next election. In an election politicians put forward what theyl do. this always involves what are essentially incentives to vote for them. So it might be that you dont like people in council house and they say theyll kick em out. Or that you want free care homes and they say theyll offer it. Problem is governments never last long term. The opposing party inevitably gets in and inevitably starts turning things back the other way leaving those who had just got what they had been promised thinking when is it going to be taken away.

The government should have no involvement in social care. If your happy in a dorm paying £20 a week they should allow it. If you want to pay severl grand for top quality care it should be allowed. If you dont want to make any provision for care because your priorities are food right now then thats someones choice. Ok its a really bad one but their choice. Not that of a politician who really doesnt care about them anyway no matter how much they say they might. The only reason they care about them is they might vote for them.

Really easy to tell you’ve had no real contact with or experience of poverty.

Malthusian

BML wrote: »

Malthusian wrote:

Like all crises the care "crisis" is a crisis of expectation, not of provision.

I suggest that you check the Care Quality Commission complaints department

I'm glad we agree that the care crisis is a crisis of expectation and not provision.

Virtually nobody submitted complaints to the equivalent of the CQC when dementia payments were housed in dormitories in asylums. Was it because they preferred living on a giant ward with no privacy or dignity (by today's higher standards) to having their own room? No, it was because there was zero point in complaining as they were getting what people expected for those who couldn't look after themselves, i.e. almost nothing.