Homecare "One million older people in need 'struggle alone' "

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Guinness

Would that be the good old days of rickets, polio and smallpox? Where children were sent up chimneys and a working week consisted of six days and you died from a minor illness because you couldn't afford a doctor?

I think you will find that it was a conservative government (under thatcher), that massaged the unemployment figures year after year by encouraging people to go long term sick and pushed early retirement.

Yes welfare has to be paid for...but economically speaking, if a government specifies a rate that I should pay so that I can be supported at the end of my working life and I do so...pray tell why I should have to rely on family or my personal savings to supplement my basic needs?

Oh and if this government stopped cutting funding to county councils and thus allowed them to pay decent wages to carers, the wheat could easily be separated from the chaff and MargaretR wouldn't be losing her carers to Aldi.

Kinda sucks that Camerons version of 'big society' values people more for sitting at a checkout than providing for a decent quality of life to those who paid their taxes and national insurance throughout their lives, expecting to be comfortable in their twilight years

No, I am talking about the days when I was growing up.
I do not remember anyone with Rickets.....we got free cod liver oil(yuk) and orange juice(yum).
Yes there was polio.....we got a vaccine on a sugar lump to prevent it.
None of my peers were shoved up chimneys....nor did we do half time in the mills from the age of twelve.
The NHS came into being the year I was born, so none of us were denied access to medical care.

I am quite well aware of governments massaging figures.....all of them still do it.
As for asking you to pay more for your retirement.....I can just imagine the howls of pain there would be at that suggestion.....and previous governments would have been hard pressed to predict the burgeoning welfare state, and get enough in their coffers to ensure that they could remain solvent. The position we are in was caused by governments spending money they did not have......not a sensible economic policy because someone has to pay it back

Perhaps if some previous government had had the cojones to plug the loopholes which allow companies and individuals to avoid paying their share of dues, there would be enough to fund all welfare needs....but none of them have....not one of them, of any persuasion.
Politicians do not have to worry about being old and infirm because the make sure they have enough money(courtesy of us) to ensure a comfortable life out of office.
None of them care about you and your needs, or me and mine...they look out for themselves.

[Margaret Pilkington]

As for your comment about the Big Society, and how society values certain sectors of the work force.....well, Guinness I am sorry but that is quite plainly a ridiculous statement(and I mean that with respect).
Firstly the 'Big Society' was a sound bite. Probably dreamed up by some Public Relations company who thought it sounded like what the electorate would fall for......just because a politician mentions something does not make it happen. Why would young people do something for old folk for nothing?
As for the comment about the way society values people on the job they do.....well that is risible. If that were the case then firemen, the police, doctors, nurses, teachers would be on the salaries that footballers get and footballers would be on a heck of a lot less.

Old folk, disabled people are not a priority of society.....as we get older and as our health fails we become invisible.....disposable almost. But then if you remember the Dickensian times you call the old days you will already know that.
Why should a carer hoof from one old persons house to another's to cook clean and deal with personal needs for a pittance? Even if you liked what you were doing, the economics of doing such a job make impractical and uneconomic......gratitude from society goes nowhere when you are trying to pay the electricity bill with a cheque from the Bank of Thanks.
So if ALDI or some other supermarket pays more.....then pure economics will dictate that that is where you work.....especially if you are the sole provider.
How long will it be before the old and infirm are encouraged to shuffle off this mortal coil?
Just so the their house can be given over to some family to live in.
Society in general does not value the old and infirm.........so they are not going to pay much to keep them comfortable in their dotage........so if you really want to be comfortable in your old age then either save up now and be prepared to spend your savings on care, or suffer the consequences.

[cashman]

The welfare state would not be burgeoning no where near as much, if people that hadn't contributed into it, were disqualified from taking out!!

[Rowlf]

You are spot on there Cashman. We are a soft touch for the ones who have not contributed but the folk who have paid in all their working lives cant get owt.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by cashman

The welfare state would not be burgeoning no where near as much, if people that hadn't contributed into it, were disqualified from taking out!!

Yes, you are right, but we also have a group of claimants who won't work because they see no need.....they can get more for sitting at home than they can get from hauling their carcass out of bed at stupid o clock to go and earn a living......it is these people that I object to sustaining.
It cannot be sensible to make working for a living impractical and uneconomic.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Yes, you are right, but we also have a group of claimants who won't work because they see no need.....they can get more for sitting at home than they can get from hauling their carcass out of bed at stupid o clock to go and earn a living......it is these people that I object to sustaining.
It cannot be sensible to make working for a living impractical and uneconomic.

Well to be perfectly honest, even though i always supported em, Labour have made it that way, more than anyone else.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Yes, but there are some who cannot see this.
It was a cynical ploy to widen Labours voting base. They believed that those who were dependent could be guaranteed to vote for them....they stifled aspiration and ambition and made it too easy to live off the backs of others.
The welfare state was never meant to do this, it was meant to be a helping hand, a safety net, not a life plan.
My dad fought for this country, but when he was made redundant at 58 he was on the scrap heap. He was ineligible for benefits because Ma earned ten bob over the threhold......he was advised to move out of the family home so that he would be able to claim.
He did not claim...he got a part time casual job...no security, but he worked rather than claim.

[Guinness]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

As for your comment about the Big Society, and how society values certain sectors of the work force.....well, Guinness I am sorry but that is quite plainly a ridiculous statement(and I mean that with respect).
Firstly the 'Big Society' was a sound bite. Probably dreamed up by some Public Relations company who thought it sounded like what the electorate would fall for......just because a politician mentions something does not make it happen. Why would young people do something for old folk for nothing?
As for the comment about the way society values people on the job they do.....well that is risible. If that were the case then firemen, the police, doctors, nurses, teachers would be on the salaries that footballers get and footballers would be on a heck of a lot less.

Old folk, disabled people are not a priority of society.....as we get older and as our health fails we become invisible.....disposable almost. But then if you remember the Dickensian times you call the old days you will already know that.
Why should a carer hoof from one old persons house to another's to cook clean and deal with personal needs for a pittance? Even if you liked what you were doing, the economics of doing such a job make impractical and uneconomic......gratitude from society goes nowhere when you are trying to pay the electricity bill with a cheque from the Bank of Thanks.
So if ALDI or some other supermarket pays more.....then pure economics will dictate that that is where you work.....especially if you are the sole provider.
How long will it be before the old and infirm are encouraged to shuffle off this mortal coil?
Just so the their house can be given over to some family to live in.
Society in general does not value the old and infirm.........so they are not going to pay much to keep them comfortable in their dotage........so if you really want to be comfortable in your old age then either save up now and be prepared to spend your savings on care, or suffer the consequences.

‘Big Society’ is far more than a sound bite…..this government is actively pursuing the tenets..I suggest you look at Camerons TED talk from 2010

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_cameron?language=en

Why is it ‘risible’ to suggest that people who care for the weak and vulnerable should be valued? And valued at least as much as someone who slides shopping past an electronic eye?

I argue that the government should ensure that people are cared for once they cannot contribute..and that should mean paying a fair and equitable wage to those carers.

This is the crux…….

ALDI can pay £8+ an hour because of their profit margin…in fact they could probably pay £12+ an hour and still make a considerable profit. This government could quite easily ensure care funding was adequate…however…

Care funding has been reduced every single year since the tories gained power…and they envisage further cuts until 2020…from next year companies who provide care are expected to pay the living wage despite the fact that they have less incoming funding, higher training costs, an insidious Care Quality Commission who look at ticking boxes and no longer care about the actual quality of care provided…

You are correct that anyone who can should save for their dotage….because this government do not give one fig!

[accyman]

after surviving 80s tories and trying to survive this lot its become clear to me that if you are not in poverty but not wealthy a tory government will do its damn best to tax you into poverty and if your are vulnerable , disabled or poor they will not only target you but make your life so miserable by stigmatizing you poverty is the least of your problems ..

this current lot in power isnt all the tories fault though its in their nature to be scum ..I blame labour for putting forward an un-eltectable leader and compounding that sin more so by putting their current joke of a leader in charge who is even more un-eltectable

the tories have no opposition their biggest fear from labour is that labours leader might ask a few awkward questions

the tories and the poor are united in one thing and that is that as long as labour have their current leader the poor and vulnerable are fecked

want to know why i keep saying labour leader ?

because i cant remember his name and he aint worth the effort of a google search

thats how effective he is

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Guinness

‘Big Society’ is far more than a sound bite…..this government is actively pursuing the tenets..I suggest you look at Camerons TED talk from 2010

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_cameron?language=en

Why is it ‘risible’ to suggest that people who care for the weak and vulnerable should be valued? And valued at least as much as someone who slides shopping past an electronic eye?

I argue that the government should ensure that people are cared for once they cannot contribute..and that should mean paying a fair and equitable wage to those carers.

This is the crux…….

ALDI can pay £8+ an hour because of their profit margin…in fact they could probably pay £12+ an hour and still make a considerable profit. This government could quite easily ensure care funding was adequate…however…

Care funding has been reduced every single year since the tories gained power…and they envisage further cuts until 2020…from next year companies who provide care are expected to pay the living wage despite the fact that they have less incoming funding, higher training costs, an insidious Care Quality Commission who look at ticking boxes and no longer care about the actual quality of care provided…

You are correct that anyone who can should save for their dotage….because this government do not give one fig!

Oh dear, this seems to be a circular argument(although, I prefer the term'discussion')

It is wrong to equate the care of the old and the disabled with groceries.
People who need care should not be seen like tins of beans, and have a business model applied to them.

As I said in an earlier post, the old and the vulnerable are seen as 'disposable'.
They do not matter.
Recently there has been mileage made of the fact(not sure it is actually a fact, as facts go) that the elderly are taking up care that should be apportioned to younger working members of society.....medicines, operations.....that kind of thing.
Then there was some woman who suggested that those old folk with their own property should move and let a family have somewhere to live.....I think the term she used was 'move somewhere more appropriate'.
Is that like the practice of the Inuits? They take their granny and leave her on an ice floe when she has lost her teeth and can no longer chew and soften the leather for clothes.....once she becomes unproductive she is cast out.

What we pay into National Insurance is for the health service, welfare benefits and a portion of it goes to make up our pension.
Now, how much do you think is needed for these services?
I cannot tell you, I have more important things going on in my life than to research such things just so that I can post it here....but what I do know is that it is nowhere near enough.
Especially so,since there are people coming to this country and claiming these benefits without having contributed anything.....and some who come and have no intention of contributing.

The NHS treats people from all over the world without seeking if they are entitled to treatment, without getting a penny.
Who pays for their care? We do. Those of us who have worked all our lives and contributed, and are still contributing.

Personally, I do not want the goverment to take responsibility for aspects of my life that I can deal with myself.
If they take responsibility, then I lose any control that I might have had.
And it is no good telling me that we are paying for something that we are not getting, because I don't buy it.
To pay for proper healthcare, social and welfare, then we would have to put in half of what we earned, we would have to make sure that only those who have paid in could draw benefits.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Oh and if you look again you will see that my comment about the value of caring for the old and the weak....the risible bit was that of comparison with other skills.

As I said previously if society were to put true values on the work of those essential members of the community.....footballers would come somewhere near the bottom, those who provide health and social care would be at the top of the scale.
Work isn't just about money(except we should not expect people to work for nothing).....work is about job satisfaction, self esteem, social worth.....but try paying the electric bill with a cheque from the Bank of Thanks...you won't get very far.
And that is why some people give up looking after the elderly to work in a supermarket.....because economic needs outweigh the job satisfaction needs.