HatMan Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 We have 3 pensioners who move into a care home. One pensioner has scrimped and saved all their meager life, just so that they can leave something to their family or loved ones when they have gone. Another, spent every penny they earned through their working life, while never being hard up, they never saved anything while living the highlife. They retired with an empty bank account and not much to their name. The last could never be bothered to work, sponged off the taxpayer all their life. These are just examples, make up any scenarios you choose to. But I fail to see why one of these people should be penalised and pay any more on care than the lowest denominater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 humanity , basic humanity , one persons failling/dying loved one is no more n no less than important than another. Why does everthing have to end up in a sharg about money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HatMan Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 It usually does. But if my savings are just going to go on care when I'm old when the next person is going to get it for nothing, what incentive is there for me to save? I may as well just blow it now, live off the state or make sure I don't get to the stage of needing care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pleepsie Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 We have 3 pensioners who move into a care home. One pensioner has scrimped and saved all their meager life, just so that they can leave something to their family or loved ones when they have gone. Another, spent every penny they earned through their working life, while never being hard up, they never saved anything while living the highlife. They retired with an empty bank account and not much to their name. The last could never be bothered to work, sponged off the taxpayer all their life. These are just examples, make up any scenarios you choose to. But I fail to see why one of these people should be penalised and pay any more on care than the lowest denominater. What about the pensioner who has a house worth over £250,000 (which was inherited from their parents) a nice pension pot (never had to pay for a mortgage - so put it into their pension). Who's child moved to Shetland a few years ago and then secured them a place in a care home at hugely subsidised prices. An “equalisation of charges†scheme operated by the charitable trust means the most any care home resident pays is currently £485 a week. http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/01/22/care-home-residents-face-big-rise-in-fees-after-trustees-end-support I fail to see why this person should not contribute to their upkeep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 I am sure there are many examples, good, bad and indiferent. one of the questions are, how will folks cope with loosing all they may have saved for, because they live a long time, which our society has promoted but done little to counter the effect elsewhere in our society. Will they now feel compelled to arrange some sort of euthanasia so as to leave their money to the relative who has struggled in the earlier part of their life. It is a huge amount of stress for anyone to have on their shoulders.We seem to be concerned only with those who don't deserve it, even tho we live in this fair system we all signed up to. In my earlier post, I mentioned that this also has a huge impact on those with a medical condition. Folk who are suffering with gradual dementia, having to worry about getting rid of their assets so as their partner can lead a reasonable life. In the south, I have seen folk who have a good pot of cash get the best care it can buy, then when it runs out, shoved from pillar to post until a home will accept them for the fee offered from the local authority. NI contributions are only cumulative for your pension, they dont guarentee a safe older life when ill. This will have an impact on all ages, anyone who needs full time care.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodger Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 I think this thread highlights possibly THE biggest problem our society has, no, not the care of the elderly but the huge obsession the vast majority have with money and materialistic possesions.If this could be solved it would be surprising how many other ills of society would resolve themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joenorth Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 The built environments our care home service users live in are laid out in accordance with non-negotiable Care Commission guidelines. These dictate such standards as the size of room, en-suite toilets, even the floor space each service user is entitled to. These guidelines are enforceable, and this is why new-build care centres appear to be quite flashy to many peoples' eyes. These standards don't apply to hospitals. Surely the point should be; if your older relative is receiving first-class care for the remainder of their days, should you be worrying about how this might reduce the money you stand to inherit from them? What is most important? Have no doubt, caring for our older population is the biggest issue facing health/social care systems nowadays, most especially in terms of funding.The famous "cradle to grave" pledge was made in an era when people did not live to such advanced ages, and when many older people were cared for by their families (primarily the women) at home. Social values have changed, and how many of us have a bed-ridden granny in the back bedroom today?We expect our older relatives to be looked after for us, and this "looked-after" population group is massive compared to what it was at the inception of the welfare state. Yet, it seems, many of us are still reluctant to relinquish that anticipated inheritance, and would rather the taxpayer foot the bill, despite the freedom to work (or to do anything else) given by not having to look after older relatives, often for years on end. Look after your own future. Don't rely on the selfish privilege of inherited wealth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skunnered Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 ^^Absolutely!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 ^^ It isn't as simple as that. In my case, I knew that I would never have an inheritance from either parent. Not only that, I left home years ago rather than be unemployed. As for people looking after their elderly relatives; again, it is not that simple. Gone are the days when many women stay at home - in many instances, both man and wife have to go out to earn a crust in order to make ends meet. What about those with no offspring? Perhaps there is something to be said for those countries with higher taxation but better care systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoogler Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 ^^^Give me an example of what other country has a superior care system and funds it through higher taxation? I totally agree with the excellant post from joenorth above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted January 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 those with savings are paying. just short of £500 a week. nobody is saying that this should stop. the trust grant was meant to bring down the highly inflated cost of care in shetland to a similar level to that of the uk. the trust was set up to care for them and i don't see why they should stop. there are lots of elderly folks living in terrible conditions in homes that would be condemned if inspected. maybe this is an area that could be looked at. the trust seems to be funding things that in the rest of the uk would be covered by the councils and county councils. why for example is the trust paying nearly £40,000 for the repair of Church's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 So perhaps a Socialist Society would be a better one perhaps? If cash is your probem. But you cannot just change these sorts of things overnight and expect everything to move accordinly without worry. A whole mindset has t change.Again, what about the ILL, you keep picking on auld folk as if they are the sole cause and benificiary. Folk dont plan to get sick, so we have National Insurance that does not cover everything, and for folk to be able to obtain reasonable cover from an insurer will need plenty of notice as to aquire enough credits for full care. If not ALL health insurance will increase substantially, and would then create another tier of our social network who cannot afford to plan for their future. So, will this be the start of the American way of doing things? There is no short term cure, this sorta thing should be graded/graduated in. Anyhow, where are the comments about the 18 yearold with learning difficulties who cannot care for themselves and parents cannot/unable/not around. Will they then get lesser housing than those who can pay, then move them when their benefits cut to suit their available funds.... The fairest way will be to increase taxes, by qhite alot. Oh, Luxumburg had high income tax and low tax elsewhere. And the Socialist/communist way, if done without predjuduce, would work too, mind there are always those who feel they are more equal than others, it happens at your work for instance, females are paid quite alot less than males. dont forget those who cannot voice their own opinions, over yours. They are locked away in their own minds or body. I do not know if I am qualified to look after anyone who may need my care. So, do I pay privatly for the years of training required. The ideal you suggest will be ok eventually, but we have to concern ourselves with the intrim. The change over period.... What ever happens, the tax payer will eventually pay, twice sometimes three times over...... The ongoing issue is not about folks inheritance but folks wishes and available choices being taken away without consultation or regard..... Has anyone have plans to look after their auld folk or other relatives? Have you made provision for care incase of accident or illness. Probably none to both..... Hence the need for better care, or completly withdraw the NI system and go for a private system. Then we can have queus of poor at free surgeries anf auld folk rotting at home....cos no one can afford to care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 the trust was set up to care for them and i don't see why they should stop. there are lots of elderly folks living in terrible conditions in homes that would be condemned if inspected. maybe this is an area that could be looked at. the trust seems to be funding things that in the rest of the uk would be covered by the councils and county councils. why for example is the trust paying nearly £40,000 for the repair of Church's. The Trust has been paying for the improvement of houses for elderly people throughout its existence. If there is someone you know of you should get in touch with Social Work. The Trust funds many things that are paid for by local councils elsewhere. This has been an SIC policy for many years. If an organisation has charitable status the Trust is able to fund it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogling Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 I worked for the Welfare Trust at one time. They had a mission statement to meet not only the physical needs of the clients, but their social, emotional and spiritual needs too... ...the most useful of all the Trusts, so it had to go... They were warning 20+ years ago about the projected massive increase in the numbers of elderly and disabled people going to be in need of social care and residential places and the extra financial burden on those working / paying Taxes... it's not as if it 'snuck up on them'? How much did someone say the Mirrie Dancers project cost - 1/3 million? Now how many carer hours {and / or travelling-time between clients} could that pay for?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted January 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2010 i agree mogling any cuts should be the non vital ones. i don't care if someone is one or a 101 if they need the service they should get it. there are big delays getting relatives into the social care sector. have you tried to get the social to do something for a very vulnerable older person. our friends grandmother had no heating or hot water over the cold spell they knew this a did nothing. and britain wonders why we have the worst winter death rate in europe. we are happy and willing to have our parents live with us. but some peoples situation means that you can't care for them. for instance caring for a person with dementia is a 24/7 job. and as someone said i think it was snow they support the family with 20 odd quid a week. that would buy two hours of care if they were lucky. mental health care is a separate issue but the support could be a lot better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.