[DemolitionRed]

Many elderly physically and mentally disadvantaged people have no relatives. For those that do, should we insist they care for those elderly relative? What if they never got along? what if they live long distances away? What if they don't have a caring nature?. What if that family member has a record of financial abuse? What if the user has complex needs and the relative has no formal training?

Nearly everyone who uses social care has to financially contribute. If a person (and they don't have to be elderly) come out of hospital, can't manage and have nobody, the government has to provide a free service for a limited time. During that time (normally 2 weeks) an enabling team encourages that person towards independence. If that person isn't enabled within that designated time and its proven that they can't manage on their own and can't afford private care, a financial assessments is carried out and funds for private care are applied for and paid for by the local council. The local council will have to pay for their care through the private sector, a sector which is much more expensive than the old style of social care. Private care has the monopoly in all of this.

Fortunately, under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, the government have a legal obligation of care. If they didn't then we'd be like America, with the poor elderly abandoned and forgotten.

[Cherie]

Any chance you could read what I have written ....I said where people CAN they should help shoulder the burden of caring whether that be providing time or paying towards extra hours for carers on top of what the state provides, thereby freeing up hospital beds and care home spaces for those who have no family or are no longer in touch, too many people want to pass the buck of the care of their relatives onto the state instead of taking some responsibility themselves,

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Any chance you could read what I have written ....I said where people CAN they should help shoulder the burden of caring whether that be providing time or paying towards extra hours for carers on top of what the state provides, thereby freeing up hospital beds and care home spaces for those who have no family or are no longer in touch, too many people want to pass the buck of the care of their relatives onto the state instead of taking some responsibility themselves,

You use words like 'expecting the state to cough up' and 'passing the buck' that's emotive language that makes one feel we are living in a soulless, greedy society. Your blaming society and forgiving the government.

The problem with your suggestion is, its not reliable. There are plenty of sons and daughters, family members and even neighbors who do this. They don't do it because its a legal requirement; they do it for three reasons, because they can, because they care or because they feel its a moral obligation but Its wholly voluntary and often unreliable.

I couldn't look after my parents if god forbid, then needed that care. I could pop in a couple of times a week but they wouldn't want me to give up a career I've worked hard for to make that hour... often two hour journey to them once or twice a day. That doesn't mean I don't care or I'm passing the buck. Most families don't live in the same town, never mind the same street as their parents. Most families can't afford to give up work or become a part-timer so they can sit mum on a commode when she needs to. If most couples can't afford to cut their working hours when their children are pre-school, how can they afford to do that when their parents need them?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

You use words like 'expecting the state to cough up' and 'passing the buck' that's emotive language that makes one feel we are living in a soulless, greedy society. Your blaming society and forgiving the government.

The problem with your suggestion is, its not reliable. There are plenty of sons and daughters, family members and even neighbors who do this. They don't do it because its a legal requirement; they do it for three reasons, because they can, because they care or because they feel its a moral obligation but Its wholly voluntary and often unreliable.

I couldn't look after my parents if god forbid, then needed that care. I could pop in a couple of times a week but they wouldn't want me to give up a career I've worked hard for to make that hour... often two hour journey to them once or twice a day. That doesn't mean I don't care or I'm passing the buck. Most families don't live in the same town, never mind the same street as their parents. Most families can't afford to give up work or become a part-timer so they can sit mum on a commode when she needs to. If most couples can't afford to cut their working hours when their children are pre-school, how can they afford to do that when their parents need them?

There are ways around it like taking annual leave or or helping towards paying for extra carer hours to help them get back on their feet if they needed it after a stay in hospital. if someone has to put their parent on a commode on a regular basis I suspect the best place for them is a care home. Maybe the government needs to look at some kind of leave similar to paternity leave so that people can look after a relative to get then over a stay in hospital, I am not absolving the government of anything, but I do think we are developing into a society that want them to do everything for us and that isn't healthy pardon the pun

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Cherie

There are ways around it like taking annual leave or or helping towards paying for extra carer hours to help them get back on their feet if they needed it after a stay in hospital. if someone has to put their parent on a commode on a regular basis I suspect the best place for them is a care home. Maybe the government needs to look at some kind of leave similar to paternity leave so that people can look after a relative to get then over a stay in hospital, I am not absolving the government of anything, but I do think we are developing into a society that want them to do everything for us and that isn't healthy pardon the pun

It is a tough one.
I don't want my kids burdened with me if anything happened to hubby, fortunately barring very bad luck I will be long gone before him.
If they want our fortune then it would pay them to put some care in, rather than paying for a home.
Everyones circumstances are different, but if my kids have ever needed anything over the years, we have been there for them, dropping our plans etc.
My daughter is home for xmas and is looking into staying up here for up to 6 months so she can help her dad juggle the refurb of the bungalow and looking after me, we haven't asked her to but she won't hear of any argument against it, she is packing her very well paid job that she loves down south up and will hopefully get some supply work as and if it comes up.
All a question of give and take

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Cherie

There are ways around it like taking annual leave or or helping towards paying for extra carer hours to help them get back on their feet if they needed it after a stay in hospital. if someone has to put their parent on a commode on a regular basis I suspect the best place for them is a care home. Maybe the government needs to look at some kind of leave similar to paternity leave so that people can look after a relative to get then over a stay in hospital, I am not absolving the government of anything, but I do think we are developing into a society that want them to do everything for us and that isn't healthy pardon the pun

Many people don't have surplus funds and sadly, in this modern age, families often live some distance apart. Finding a good provider takes time and is often difficult depending on where the person lives. People are often left in a situation where they take what they can, even if its overly expensive and not ideal.

What we need is government funded respite care facilities. This would speed up hospital beds whilst still giving much needed enabling care to those who need it. What happens atm is, an elderly person is hospitalized after, say a pelvic injury. Social services within the local council are contacted and agree to take her on, often on the day she is discharged home and even though that person is on red alert and will see someone fairly quickly, she is still going to arrive home, often to an empty house, with no immediate equipment or facility to help her. If she has a family that has arrived to help... great. If she doesn't, she must feel very frightened and alone.

The tragic thing is, many of these people have worked hard all their lives. They've paid their taxes and NI and they've saved enough money for a rainy day and hope to leave something for their family but are suddenly faced with not having enough or losing it all. Domiciliary care has become so expensive, even though the actual carers get a pittance, that the elderly people who need that care, often choose to manage without it and that in itself is a huge problem.

We are all hopefully going to grow old. None of us know if we will need home care in the future but wouldn't it be awful if we reached a stage where that care comes subject to affordability?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

if you read my post carefully and digest it you will see that is not what I am saying at all

I thought lifting the poorest low income earners out of tax was a good thing? no? I should have known that it would become a negative at some point.

NI and now council tax is what pays for social care and everyone pays that..

How about you stop telling me what you're not saying and tell me what you are saying explain 'looking after your own' please.

No, it's not a good thing neither is it a positive thing... how are we to pay for our public services, NHS, welfare and social care with no taxes?
How are they going to make back the money they just lost lifting people out of tax...flog more arms to the saudis?

They get a percentage from central government too

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by smudgie

It is a tough one.
I don't want my kids burdened with me if anything happened to hubby, fortunately barring very bad luck I will be long gone before him.
If they want our fortune then it would pay them to put some care in, rather than paying for a home.
Everyones circumstances are different, but if my kids have ever needed anything over the years, we have been there for them, dropping our plans etc.
My daughter is home for xmas and is looking into staying up here for up to 6 months so she can help her dad juggle the refurb of the bungalow and looking after me, we haven't asked her to but she won't hear of any argument against it, she is packing her very well paid job that she loves down south up and will hopefully get some supply work as and if it comes up.
All a question of give and take

Its really nice that your daughter is going to do that for you. Unfortunately, not everyone is in your daughters position. Many families, including my own, still have children at home. They have pets that may not be welcome at their parents house. They are in a relationship and have a mortgage that requires two full time salaries. They have an established business in a particular area and so on.

[Kizzy]

Care in the community.... LOL care in a private unregulated nursing home from some unqualified 0hr contract part timer, and that's if you can afford it if not it's, yes you've guessed it be sent home to die or bedblock.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Its really nice that your daughter is going to do that for you. Unfortunately, not everyone is in your daughters position. Many families, including my own, still have children at home. They have pets that may not be welcome at their parents house. They are in a relationship and have a mortgage that requires two full time salaries. They have an established business in a particular area and so on.

Indeed.
It is up to the individual to decide what they want out of life, and what they can or can't sacrifice.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Its really nice that your daughter is going to do that for you. Unfortunately, not everyone is in your daughters position. Many families, including my own, still have children at home. They have pets that may not be welcome at their parents house. They are in a relationship and have a mortgage that requires two full time salaries. They have an established business in a particular area and so on.

that seems like a long list of excuses to me than more anything else, if people have a good relationship with their parents and they needed care for a few weeks post op which seems to be one of the main reasons for bed blocking in the the NHS, I am sure a lot of people could work around it, particularly if it is a two parent family unit, not everyone has to up sticks and move, just one adult would do for starters, and if it is only for a matter of weeks, not a permanent arrangement it is doable, as Smudgie said it is up to the individual what they want to sacrifice but it seems to be a lot of people don't want to sacrifice anything they want the state to pick up "because they have paid in".

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by smudgie

It is a tough one.
I don't want my kids burdened with me if anything happened to hubby, fortunately barring very bad luck I will be long gone before him.
If they want our fortune then it would pay them to put some care in, rather than paying for a home.
Everyones circumstances are different, but if my kids have ever needed anything over the years, we have been there for them, dropping our plans etc.
My daughter is home for xmas and is looking into staying up here for up to 6 months so she can help her dad juggle the refurb of the bungalow and looking after me, we haven't asked her to but she won't hear of any argument against it, she is packing her very well paid job that she loves down south up and will hopefully get some supply work as and if it comes up.
All a question of give and take

I would agree with that Smudgie, if you had a happy upbringing and your parents were there for you, imo its your turn to be there for them when they are vulnerable, I don't think any parent wants their kids to be burdened, but it is not a burden when you love them and that is what families are all about, looking out for each other especially when the going gets tough, I sound like a Disney movie

[bitontheslide]

I can only speak from my own experience, and things like the NHS are great for some aspects of care, and absolutely dreadful for other aspects. Family members are the only ones that can provide certain types of care at its best, public services just can't do it. So there just isn't a generalised solution for everyone, and many just wouldn't want it. Of course there should be some default level of care that the state provides, but beyond that its up to individual families

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I would agree with that Smudgie, if you had a happy upbringing and your parents were there for you, imo its your turn to be there for them when they are vulnerable, I don't think any parent wants their kids to be burdened, but it is not a burden when you love them and that is what families are all about, looking out for each other especially when the going gets tough, I sound like a Disney movie

Not a Disney movie, just the way it is in some families.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Cherie

that seems like a long list of excuses to me than more anything else, if people have a good relationship with their parents and they needed care for a few weeks post op which seems to be one of the main reasons for bed blocking in the the NHS, I am sure a lot of people could work around it, particularly if it is a two parent family unit, not everyone has to up sticks and move, just one adult would do for starters, and if it is only for a matter of weeks, not a permanent arrangement it is doable, as Smudgie said it is up to the individual what they want to sacrifice but it seems to be a lot of people don't want to sacrifice anything they want the state to pick up "because they have paid in".

Surely when I said, "They are in a relationship and have a mortgage that requires two full time salaries. They have an established business". It was obvious I wasn't talking about just few weeks?! Social care is often a permanent thing and therefore, from what I said, I was meaning on a permanent basis.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I would agree with that Smudgie, if you had a happy upbringing and your parents were there for you, imo its your turn to be there for them when they are vulnerable, I don't think any parent wants their kids to be burdened, but it is not a burden when you love them and that is what families are all about, looking out for each other especially when the going gets tough, I sound like a Disney movie

That leaves out all those who didn't have a happy upbringing.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I can only speak from my own experience, and things like the NHS are great for some aspects of care, and absolutely dreadful for other aspects. Family members are the only ones that can provide certain types of care at its best, public services just can't do it. So there just isn't a generalised solution for everyone, and many just wouldn't want it. Of course there should be some default level of care that the state provides, but beyond that its up to individual families

The problem with social care is, its hugely variable. Social care for children and adults with learning disabilities is quite outstanding. Gone (or at least almost) are the days when LD children and adults were put in institutionalized environments where they didn't even own their own clothes. Now its mainly supported living with a very holistic team. The government grants for these people is fantastic. They often own their own cars (which are driven by their key worker). The housing complexes are modern and personal to each individuals requirements and so on. everything is geared around empowering such individuals to be as independent as they possibly can. Just like any of us, they enjoy family popping round but like the rest of us, they often enjoy living independently too and why wouldn't they?

Unfortunately there isn't the same amount of money or anywhere near enough safeguarding available for people with mental illness or the ailing elderly. Health teams recognize that a person centered approach is the way forward, which is great, but they aren't given anything like the same funds to train staff or facilitate those needing good support.

[DemolitionRed]

Everything needs to be geared around promoting independence. Yes, its lovely for families to step in or to even go and live with their adult children but many elderly people don't want that, regardless of how well they get along with their children, because its giving up their independence.

After my grandma died, my grandfather went to live with my parents. They had enough room to set up an on-suite bedroom and a small living room for him. What they did though, was take him away from his familiar surroundings. The very surroundings where he'd lived, loved and laughed with his life partner. He never complained and he was grateful but he only lived for one more year and that year was filled with a sense of loss and sadness. No matter how good family are with an elderly parent, taking away their 'sense' of independance isn't always in their favor.

[Kizzy]

Right let's have a real life scenario, your mother in law just got diagnosed with dementia at 79, she wanders and has been brought home by the police 4 times in 3 months it is made apparent she can no longer live independently.

Your daughter is working in new Zealand and your son at uni in Newcastle. Your husband just got promoted to floor manager at marks and spencers homewares a 34 mile round trip from home, you work as a doctors receptionist a 16 mile round trip away. you remortgaged the house 3yrs ago for uni fees an extension and a cruise.

The only other relative lives in Devon and you live in York.... what do you do?

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Right let's have a real life scenario, your mother in law just got diagnosed with dementia at 79, she wanders and has been brought home by the police 4 times in 3 months it is made apparent she can no longer live independently.

Your daughter is working in new Zealand and your son at uni in Newcastle. Your husband just got promoted to floor manager at marks and spencers homewares a 34 mile round trip from home, you work as a doctors receptionist a 16 mile round trip away. you remortgaged the house 3yrs ago for uni fees an extension and a cruise.

The only other relative lives in Devon and you live in York.... what do you do?

Then you would need the help of a secure care home.
If she can no longer live independently then her dementia will probably mean she needs 24 hour care.
Regardless of who lives where and works whatever hours.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Right let's have a real life scenario, your mother in law just got diagnosed with dementia at 79, she wanders and has been brought home by the police 4 times in 3 months it is made apparent she can no longer live independently.

Your daughter is working in new Zealand and your son at uni in Newcastle. Your husband just got promoted to floor manager at marks and spencers homewares a 34 mile round trip from home, you work as a doctors receptionist a 16 mile round trip away. you remortgaged the house 3yrs ago for uni fees an extension and a cruise.

The only other relative lives in Devon and you live in York.... what do you do?

Obviously they are people who CAN'T who might be helped by more people who CAN it's not rocket science

Although there does seem to be some issues understanding the word CAN

It's not any different to people working to support those who are unable to work

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Obviously they are people who CAN'T who might be helped by more people who CAN it's not rocket science

Although there does seem to be some issues understanding the word CAN

It's not any different to people working to support those who are unable to work

So who can?... These elderly people have worked, and paid national insurance all their lives are they now expected to be treated like a burden on their family or whoever?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

So who can?... These elderly people have worked, and paid national insurance all their lives are they now expected to be treated like a burden on their family or whoever?

Why would they be a burden? what a negative way to look at it, just bizarre rationale

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Why would they be a burden? what a negative way to look at it, just bizarre rationale

They feel like a burden, it's documented now that the elderly are concerned about becoming a burden, I don't deny it's damning for our 'civilised' society to have it's aged population feeling this way but it doesn't make it any less true.
It's not a bizarre rationale, that's just a way of curbing the debate by inferring one side is being irrational... I'm not in the scenario I painted earlier should an elderly or infirm relative be dependent on them as a family how would they cope?... That family is not dissimilar to 1000s of families across the UK.

Is is such an ask to have a fully functional social care system to take the stress from both the elderly and the families?

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

They feel like a burden, it's documented now that the elderly are concerned about becoming a burden, I don't deny it's damning for our 'civilised' society to have it's aged population feeling this way but it doesn't make it any less true.
It's not a bizarre rationale, that's just a way of curbing the debate by inferring one side is being irrational... I'm not in the scenario I painted earlier should an elderly or infirm relative be dependent on them as a family how would they cope?... That family is not dissimilar to 1000s of families across the UK.

Is is such an ask to have a fully functional social care system to take the stress from both the elderly and the families?

The bizarre rationale is to not fix the hole in the bucket. This shouldn’t and can’t be about an individuals moral obligation but about the government properly funding local council so they can balance the needs of the suffering.

The elephant in the room here is about the drop in living standards for those unfortunate enough to need ongoing care.