The Government is promising free personal care at home for people with the highest care needs. It says the cost will be £670M, with local authorites funding £250M from "efficiency savings". ADASS says the cost will be £1Bn, and will have to be funded by cutting other services.
Who is right?
Is the policy fair to the people with the very highest care needs who are in residential/nursing care and will continue to have to pay for their own care?
surfer: The Government is promising free personal care at home for people with the highest care needs. It says the cost will be £670M, with local authorites funding £250M from "efficiency savings". ADASS says the cost will be £1Bn, and will have to be funded by cutting other services. Who is right? Is the policy fair to the people with the very highest care needs who are in residential/nursing care and will continue to have to pay for their own care?
ADASS is right and no, it's not fair.
What is more unfair is to create framework whereby people expect care for free. The details are a hotch-potch when there is supposedly a consultation in progress which has been completely ignored for political expediency.
The proposals only affect those with 'critical' banded needs in a few areas so will probably be extremely tightly controlled. I'd rather more care across the board was rolled out to those who cannot afford it rather than free care to those who can afford it but I'd never win any votes that way.
The Conservatives are no better with their proposals for an insurance scheme to pay for residential care. It seems that neither party have any understanding of social care apart from as a headline grabber for middle classes who are terrified to lose their 'inheritances'.
lets face it, we have an election looming, I don't mean to be cyncial but there is very little chance that any of these 'promises' will ever come to fruition. It is well known that the 'Grey demographic' have some of the highest turnouts when it comes to voting and quite frankly it amazes me that people don't see past each party pandering to this majority everytime an election looms. Don't get me wrong I would welcome any policy that changed the currently highly unequal system we have now, but quite frankly, it aint gna happen!
We all know the amount is going to be much much higher than either of these organisations have suggested, currently many people care for relatives, refuse care or accept much less care than they actually need purely because of cost. If care became free then demand would rise far beyond the current levels, and far beyond any expectations of the policy makers.
It also leaves us open to far lower standards of care than we already have. If councils are forced to provide higher levels of free at the point of access care then the practice of tendering for the most for less will only expand, putting the profession at risk of some very bad care practices to save money.
And yes, the policy would be even more unfair towards those that can only be supported in residential care. Increasingly residential care is not a lifestyle choice but a necessity
we have this in scotland. it is so vague that it means virtually nothing. the idiotic snp freezing the council tax did'nt really help.but the snp are idiots thoough.
Im sure soem form of this will exist in years to come but if it meets the promise then i will be very suprised. I can see it costing alot more than the government quote.
"We speak, and the word goes out beyond us, to consequences and ends which we had not conceived of." - Gadamer
Thanks for putting me onto this, Hatgirl. This knee jerk announcement at the Labour Party Conference cut right across the Care and Suport consultation and has resulted in a very swift Bill going thru Pariliament at the moment. It does not sit easily to criticise an initiative to provide 'free' care to people with high care needs and (in some cases) low incomes, but....
1. Add up the numbers - it's about £34 a week each for those who will receive rehab and/or free personal care. 2. Cost partly met from Council 'efficiency savings' - so we go about being inefficient do we - it'll mean cuts to those with lower (but still significant) care and suppport needs. 3. Many people with Critical need should be funded by Continuing Care (NHS) anyway. 4. What constitutes personal care - feeding someone but not preparation of the food. Expect battles and confusion over which parts of someone's care and support package are met free and which they are still menas-tested on. 5. Councils will implement differently so more post code lottery. 6. There will be national guidance but very short timescale (civil servants say it will be out in June so expect July/August for October implementation) so details will be hazy. 7. As others have said this raises false hopes and it is we Social Workers who will be giving people bad news about their eligibility or that they still have to pay for part of their care.
As a society we need a serious considered discussion on funding for care and support, and the C&S Green Paper and soon White Paper seem like the best opportunity for this. Ill-thought-through plans like this are not helpful. My view on funding - first choice, from general taxation, second choice, insurance scheme as we do for the NHS in the hope we won't need it.
What do people think of this week's political row over the funding of social care?
To recap:
A number of charities have slammed the parties - particularly the Tories - for treating social care like a political football at such an important juncture.
Too right, Mithran. A. Labour never said £20K (I think £13-15K was mentioned) and reclaiming after death was only one way of paying this - it coud be lump sum at retirement, paid over your working career, or paid in installments. B. The Tories said the same thing (whch they are now criticising), but said £8K and that was never going to be enough.
I was encouraged that the parties seemed to be discussing the important matter of care and support in a reasonably measured way and prepared to agree with each other. Strange how an impending election changes things and introduces scaremongering, disinformation, and knee-jerk legislation. Some subjects are too important for political point scoring and stupid games and this is one of them as it affects us all as workers and as individuals with friends and family who may require care and even having care needs ourselves. To see this vital topic reduced to a shouting match across the floor of the Commons is annoying in the extreme and makes me feel like not voting for any of 'em (but I will vote - you have no right to complain about any Govt policies if you've not bothered to exercise your democratic rights.)
This issue has, once again, highlighted the failure of our combative style of Politics to address sensitive issues (such as immigration or drugs) or long-term issues (such as social care funding or defence). Oh, for a change!
I have a problem with those who can't afford it should get free care, those that can should pay. Who is qualified to say someone should pay?
My mum saved all her life and had a small private pension - she had to pay for everything. My aunt spent everything, lived on benefits when she retired and got loads of things my mum wasn't entitled to.
That's a big issue - means testing is arguably the fairest system for identifying those who can afford to contribute and those who can't but it cannot deal with value judgements about whether people have wasted their money or not. Maybe the fairest way would be for care to be provided free at point of delivery to everyone, having been funded from taxes. We do have to accept as a society that some of us pay more and some less for the same services - a rich person may pay a lot into the NHS thru high taxes but never have occasion to go to Hospital and a poorer person may pay little but need a lot of health care. Personally I'm happy to contribute more to the NHS than I get back if it means a child with a disability or somoone with a heart condition, etc, gets the treatment they need - but there are arguments about those who deserve help and those who don't (eg kidney tranplants for alcoholics). Social workers don't make the decisions about who pays and how much - that's down ultimately to our local Councillors and to MPs and we can express our views through the ballot box.
Anyway, what aobut the news today that David Cameron didn't know his party was engaged in talks with the other parties to achieve a consensus on care funding? Compare President Obama and all sorts of bilateral talks on health reforms - some things need our politicians to be working together; maybe we should get some social workers in there to offer mediation and get them talking again!
How good of you all to feel free to discriminate against older people and get all aggrieved about the feckless. I have yet to see a comment about the availability of universal child benefit to all regardless of their financial probity or resources. Famously, Cherie Blair claimed child benefit as a right and I believe Mt Cameron and his chums in the Monarchy all claim this. I suppose if older peoples social work had the same self-imposed ‘complexity’ that children’s work has you would be feeling free care would be one to defend. Lets hear it for the social work of the privileged; after all we are all consumers now are we not?
I know of one person who said they didn't want/need the child benefit and another who said they didn't need their disability allowance - both were ignored. Perhaps there should be a process where those 'who have' can refuse a benefit. Old age pension is another one!
Means tested benefits have low take up, especially amongst those who are most in need, and they are notoriously expensive to administer, each requiring an army of Civil Servants/LG Officers.
Kathy: I have a problem with those who can't afford it should get free care, those that can should pay. Who is qualified to say someone should pay? My mum saved all her life and had a small private pension - she had to pay for everything. My aunt spent everything, lived on benefits when she retired and got loads of things my mum wasn't entitled to.
thats the problem and what i find very unfair. those who are responsible for their life, save and work end up being punished financially when they retire or need to go into a nursing home etc. then there are those who take no responsability, don't work and are socially irresponsible use the benfits system as a lifestyle choice and not as a safety net and we the taxpayers fund their entire life. sorry state of affairs.
At the end of the day we are working with vulnerable people, the main point is that people get the care they need, when they need it. There is never going to be agreement about whether some people should get free care and others not. To be honest, if I was going to move house, I would sell my house and use the money to move somewhere else. In effect this is what people who do have the money available will be doing. They sell their house to fund their move to somewhere more appropriate for them at that time. At least if they have some money they get a bit more choice about where they can go, or they could have live in care at home.
At the moment if an older person does not have savings, we cannot afford to give them live in care at home, if they need 24 hour care, the only option is then residential or nursing care and there aren't a huge amount of vacancies out there so choice is minimal
In a lot of areas, there is a major problem actually sourcing any home care to provide a service for people. We have the money available to pay for it, but there is little or no care out there. As well as more money, I think we need to have a cultural shift mentally about the importance of social care jobs and pay them accordingly. On the news today there was a big thing about councils not using home care services enough and putting people in residential care instead. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE! the reason we are not using services is because they are not there to be used. We want people to stay at home and be independent, but at the moment I feel like I am working with my hands tied behind my back.
Perhaps if the parties spent a bit less time bickering amongst themselves and listened to the people involved and the workers on the frontline we might get somewhere.
My point is not about the universality of child benefit but the mindset that regards it a right but then gets indignant when something similar is suggested for older people.
I think one thing to remember in this whole debate is that 'free' will probably also mean shoddy if we continue to treat older people in the way we currently do in this society. People are not going to be prepared to pay significantly more in their taxes and the money has to come from somewhere... or does it... the reality is that the free services will be spread so thinly that the difference will be minimal.
Whilst there are those that argue that those who have saved all their lives will lose out I would to an extent disagree. Quite frankly the care provided in some of the council run homes, and the care provided by some of the council accredited care agencies in my area is quite frankly dire. If you have no money of your own you just have to put up with what you are given, as there are no other options.
However, if you have a little bit of money put aside, or your family do, you can afford that 3rd party top up to go to a nicer, better staffed care home, you can use that fantastic care agency the local authority can't because they are too expensive because of the high quality service they offer, you can afford to have nice aesthetically pleasing mobilty equipment and aids rather than the nasty cheap white plastic stuff that the council order in bulk.
Ill health, dementias and cancers occur to people in all walks of life. The fact is if you can pay for it because you have saved through your life for this eventuality you will receive an above average service as a reward, and have much more control over your care than your counterparts who lived in benefits their entire lives.
I agree with the poster who posted regarding the basic 'child benefit' right and the assumption that older people should not be entitled to the same. I suppose you could argue however that as older people do receive a statutory pension on retirement and this is essentially a universal benefit for that age group. The issue for me is when people are having to pay because of diseases such as dementia, a terminal disease, because they require care as a result of their condition. This in my view is very wrong, and we would never dream of charging cancer patients in the same way.
i fully agree with you kathy some people work hard all their lives they saved to buy a home and have a fair retirment. paid their dues to society. some people been on benifits all their lives. get their rent and rates paid, go on holidays. never saved a penny and are far better of on old age pension than those who have worked. that is the example we have left to the youth of today
a
I agreed until the last sentence. We do indeed charge people with cancer for Social Care services. I don't think charging should be determined by condition so if you charge people with dementia it is only right that people with Cancers and all other conditions should be charged too.
In many parts of the country there are no Council-run homes. In many privately-run homes the self-funders are subsidising those who have been placed by the Council, though both receive the same care.
The only fair system is a free service funded by the tax system, as per the Health service. Any other approach will be grossly unfair to one group or another, and will need an army of bureaucrats to administer.
Hi! I think Hatgirl was probably referring to the fact that people who are very ill with cancer may well get Continuing Care (Health) funding for care at home or in a Nursing Home but people with dementia are less likely to do so. It seems that dementia (whether Alzheimers or some other illness of similar effect) counts as some sort of social rather then medical condition as far as care is concerned and social care is very much bailing out the NHS here, a point I did raise with Phil Hope at the launch of the Dementia Strategy.
If care, whether deemed medical or social was all paid for through general taxation, we could get rid of all these artificial distinctions and means testing which causes such resentment and distress entirely and it seems to me this would be a good thing. As I've said before, we all pay for the NHS in the hope we won't have to use it but with the peace of mind it will be there if we do need it, and so it should be for care.
I agree carer.
It seems to the goal-posts have been moved repeatedly over the past 30 years, loading more and more things onto "social" care which were previously funded by the NHS.
surfer: I agree carer. It seems to the goal-posts have been moved repeatedly over the past 30 years, loading more and more things onto "social" care which were previously funded by the NHS.
this is indeed true and there is no better example than addictions. in addicion teams, certainly here in glasgow, it is absolute turmoil. nurses/ot's leaving thier droves as they are told from on high that they must 'care' and not 'treat'. and this why nurses/dr's/ot's get out of it asap. very few detoxes are carried out and it is all about stability and child protection, very much a s/w workers area and the medical staff leave.it has been described as nothing short of a military coup. coup by some.
it has become clear that LA's have taken over areas where it should be medics leading the way and not LA staff. it is frankly ridiculous that s/w's lead alzheimer care in some places.
but LA's won't give it up now as it is a cash cow.
medical problems should be dealt with medics and social problems by s/w's.
but, hey, thats get's right in the way of that media soundbyte 'joint working' does'nt it.
toney: i fully agree with you kathy some people work hard all their lives they saved to buy a home and have a fair retirment. paid their dues to society. some people been on benifits all their lives. get their rent and rates paid, go on holidays. never saved a penny and are far better of on old age pension than those who have worked. that is the example we have left to the youth of today a
ineed. it is a terrible legay, generation now know that they can opt out of social responsability and know that benefits are now a long term lifestyle option.only we are to blame, w let it happen.
carer1: I think Hatgirl was probably referring to the fact that people who are very ill with cancer may well get Continuing Care (Health) funding for care at home or in a Nursing Home but people with dementia are less likely to do so.
I was in a way referring to this but my main point (that i didnt really put accross very well I have to admit) was really that there are many many charities out there that fund for reasonably high quality cancer care and cancer is very much seen as a medical problem accross all ages and walks of life, where as dementia is seen as something that eventually just happens to most older people rather than a disease in the same way that cancer is. I am not saying that people with cancer do not also fund the aspects of their social care, they do (if this funding is not being met by a cancer charity), but usually the funding of their care for their cancer condition is usually met by the NHS. This just doesnt happen for people with dementia who are just seen as old, senile and beyond medical help - i.e their problem is a social one not a medical one.
I hope that better clarifies the point I was trying to make!
I don't think that the NHS has really "owned" dementia, and prefers to see it as a social problem, with care funded by individuals themselves or by local authorities. There are some signs that this is changing, though it may take some time.
I have worked all my adult life in low paid community jobs; I have minimal savings, rent a crap flat from a HA and will have a tiny state pension. when I retire at 64. My sister is married toa rich man, retired from her part time academic job when she was 50, has hundreds of thousands of pounds in savings and owns two houses.
When my niece compares us, she no doubt will think I am a scrounger and my sis a hard done by hero - I oddly enough disagree.
Why would your neice think that?
Hopefully you're niece will grow up to know her auntie and what good she did chosing jobs in the community .
Perhaps you could take some comfort that when you claim your benefits and pension, your sister would have paid a lot towards them through her super taxes!
titchmagoo: surfer: The Government is promising free personal care at home for people with the highest care needs. It says the cost will be £670M, with local authorites funding £250M from "efficiency savings". ADASS says the cost will be £1Bn, and will have to be funded by cutting other services. Who is right? Is the policy fair to the people with the very highest care needs who are in residential/nursing care and will continue to have to pay for their own care? we have this in scotland. it is so vague that it means virtually nothing. the idiotic snp freezing the council tax did'nt really help.but the snp are idiots thoough.
Oh, that's a rational response. *rolls eyes*
Free personal and nursing care for the elderly was introduced in Scotland by the Labour government and has been continued by the current SNP government. It was never funded adequately and paying for it has created real problems for local authorities, especially as people who are very wealthy and would previously just have organised their own care privately rather than go through social work means testing etc have decided to take advantage of it. Also, when it first came out, there was a lot of confusion about whether or not meal preparation should be classed as personal care or a domestic task and for some unknown reason the idiot Labour government decided meal preparation is personal care, which created an additional burden.
I have huge problems with free personal and nursing care for all over 65s. I think it's a ridiculous use of public money to provide free personal care for a millionaire just because he's 66 and not 46. I don't see why someone who has accumulated huge wealth during their working life should get their personal care for nothing when someone in their 20s who has been disabled since birth and on benefits their whole life should have to go through means-testing and contribute to the cost.
Kirst: titchmagoo: surfer: The Government is promising free personal care at home for people with the highest care needs. It says the cost will be £670M, with local authorites funding £250M from "efficiency savings". ADASS says the cost will be £1Bn, and will have to be funded by cutting other services. Who is right? Is the policy fair to the people with the very highest care needs who are in residential/nursing care and will continue to have to pay for their own care? we have this in scotland. it is so vague that it means virtually nothing. the idiotic snp freezing the council tax did'nt really help.but the snp are idiots thoough. Oh, that's a rational response. *rolls eyes* Free personal and nursing care for the elderly was introduced in Scotland by the Labour government and has been continued by the current SNP government. It was never funded adequately and paying for it has created real problems for local authorities, especially as people who are very wealthy and would previously just have organised their own care privately rather than go through social work means testing etc have decided to take advantage of it. Also, when it first came out, there was a lot of confusion about whether or not meal preparation should be classed as personal care or a domestic task and for some unknown reason the idiot Labour government decided meal preparation is personal care, which created an additional burden. I have huge problems with free personal and nursing care for all over 65s. I think it's a ridiculous use of public money to provide free personal care for a millionaire just because he's 66 and not 46. I don't see why someone who has accumulated huge wealth during their working life should get their personal care for nothing when someone in their 20s who has been disabled since birth and on benefits their whole life should have to go through means-testing and contribute to the cost.
you think labour are idiotic and i think the snp are idiotic.yaing and yang.i again stress the snp freezing the council tax was idiotic and only made funding free 'personal care' more difficult.
i must say i'm a little troubled that you think we should discrinate against wealthy people who have paid their tax and contributed to society all their lives. there is no doubt in my mind who is more desrving (not that anyone should be more deserving) of any kind of nhs/social care.......hmmmmmmmm the person who works and pays taxes or the person who uses's the state benefits/care system as a lifestyle choice.
Do you take the same view on free health care? If not, why not? Or do you think health care should be means-tested?
titchmagoo: i must say i'm a little troubled that you think we should discrinate against wealthy people who have paid their tax and contributed to society all their lives. there is no doubt in my mind who is more desrving (not that anyone should be more deserving) of any kind of nhs/social care.......hmmmmmmmm the person who works and pays taxes or the person who uses's the state benefits/care system as a lifestyle choice.
But it's ok for you to discriminate against the poor?
You've completely ignored my point about adults who have never been able to work because of disabilities. People who are born severely disabled and have never been able to work have to get by on benefits, and are means tested for their care and often have to contribute to the cost. Is that fair, when millionaires don't have to pay just because they're over 65?
It would be wonderful if all care was free to everyone no matter what, but that's unlikely to happen. But why is it ok for a person on a low income to have to pay just because they're under 65 when the very wealthy get the care for free just because they're over 65? It should either be free for everyone or means-tested for everyone, regardless of age.
Kirst: titchmagoo: i must say i'm a little troubled that you think we should discrinate against wealthy people who have paid their tax and contributed to society all their lives. there is no doubt in my mind who is more desrving (not that anyone should be more deserving) of any kind of nhs/social care.......hmmmmmmmm the person who works and pays taxes or the person who uses's the state benefits/care system as a lifestyle choice. But it's ok for you to discriminate against the poor? You've completely ignored my point about adults who have never been able to work because of disabilities. People who are born severely disabled and have never been able to work have to get by on benefits, and are means tested for their care and often have to contribute to the cost. Is that fair, when millionaires don't have to pay just because they're over 65? It would be wonderful if all care was free to everyone no matter what, but that's unlikely to happen. But why is it ok for a person on a low income to have to pay just because they're under 65 when the very wealthy get the care for free just because they're over 65? It should either be free for everyone or means-tested for everyone, regardless of age.
i'm not discriminating, i've made that perfectly clear in my post. i did not say that a poor person should not personal care/treatment, they should and are entitled to it.you are discriminating because you don't think a 'millionare' should get free personal care if they are over 65. something to which they are entirely entittled to. if someone is entitled to something and you say your not getting it beacuse they have been successful in life and paid all their taxes, then that is discrimination.
Kirst - Do you take the same view on free health care? If not, why not? Or do you think health care should be means-tested?
surfer: Kirst - Do you take the same view on free health care? If not, why not? Or do you think health care should be means-tested?
I think that if it was to be means-tested, it should be means-tested for everyone regardless of their age. And if it remains free, it should remain free for everyone, regardless of their age. That's what annoys me about free personal care - not that it's free for millionaires, but that it's free for over 65s. It should either be free for all or means-tested for all, not means-tested for the under 65s and free for the over 65s.
Kirst: surfer: Kirst - Do you take the same view on free health care? If not, why not? Or do you think health care should be means-tested? I think that if it was to be means-tested, it should be means-tested for everyone regardless of their age. And if it remains free, it should remain free for everyone, regardless of their age. That's what annoys me about free personal care - not that it's free for millionaires, but that it's free for over 65s. It should either be free for all or means-tested for all, not means-tested for the under 65s and free for the over 65s.
hmmmmmmmmmmm, would you ake the free bus passess of the over 65's?
what about the heating allowance for the elderly?
state pension?
free prescriptions for over 65's?
or maybe just have all the things the over 65's qualify for when they retire and give them to everyone................hmmmmmmmmmm sounds like socialism!!
or maybe means test for evrything and and an individual works and paya taxes all their days, does well, sell's their business and gets zilch back in reward, bus pass, health care, nadda, zip, zero. pay your taxes and get NOTHING back..................hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm sounds like socialism.
ever wondered wy no-one votes for socialist parties?
titchmagoo, love the daily mail definition of socialism, you might want to read something a bit less bile ridden though if you are going to set yourself up as a political expert. Been known to vote for socilaist parties, been known for voting communist, never knowingly tory. Please let us know where you get your certainties from if I have missed the irony
titchmagoo: hmmmmmmmmmmm, would you ake the free bus passess of the over 65's? what about the heating allowance for the elderly? state pension? free prescriptions for over 65's? or maybe just have all the things the over 65's qualify for when they retire and give them to everyone................hmmmmmmmmmm sounds like socialism!!
I'd rather people had a higher level of basic benefits so that heating allowances and free bus passes were unnecessary for the over 65s. If their pensions were bigger, they wouldn't need subsidies for other things. And I apply the same thinking to benefits for the under 65s too - if the basic benefits were higher, other subsidies wouldn't be needed.
You seem to think that anyone over 65 should get things free just because they're over 65, no matter what their financial status. I think that age should not make a difference - poverty is poverty and wealth is wealth no matter how old the person. Can you explain what's fair about a 21 year old who has been severely disabled since birth, have never been able to work and has very little money being means tested for free personal care while a 70 year old millionaire gets it free? If it's ok for a 45 year old with £150,000 in the bank to pay for their care, then it should be ok for a 70 year old with £150,000 in the bank to pay for their care. If a 21 year old on disability benefits has their care funding means-tested, then an 80 year old on benefits should have their care funding means-tested.
Prescriptions are now £3 in Scotland and will be free next year - to all. Please try to be aware that the different countries of the UK do things differently.
titchmagoo:or maybe means test for evrything and and an individual works and paya taxes all their days, does well, sell's their business and gets zilch back in reward, bus pass, health care, nadda, zip, zero. pay your taxes and get NOTHING back..................hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm sounds like socialism. ever wondered wy no-one votes for socialist parties?
Well, if you've saved for your old age, shouldn't you be prepared to spend what you've saved once you get to your old age? Isn't that what you've saved it for? Is it right to use dwindling public money to fund care for people who have plenty of money and could afford to pay for things themselves? Is it right to say that people should get things for free just because of their age? Why is it ok to means-test an under-65 but not an over-65? Why are you so keen for the under-65s who have little money to have to pay for their care?
People do vote for socialist parties - Scotland has had several socialist MSPs. People consistently vote in favour of socialist policies like the NHS - health care free for all at the point of need. Are you aware that the NHS was set up by a socialist government?