Shard

Ok...it's a UK issue, but there are still a few Brits knocking about here last time I checked. Basically, Mother Theresa, being strong and stable, has decided to U-turn on her new manifesto policy relating to social care. Press are loving it!

Tricky issue though. At what point should the state be paying for care? The current regime is that the local authority pays for home carers regardless of assets, but will only pay for residential care if assets are below £23K; the Tories want to up this to £100K, but, require the individual/couple (?) to pay for home care within their estate. It doesn't apply to individuals receiving NHS treatment for terminal diseases, but does apply for dementia type diseases, hence the label.

Piff Poff

This is a difficult one. I see a couple here, she is in a home, he is still self supporting. Their combined state pension covers the costs of her in care. Thankfully they have savings. I don't like the way 'we' take care of our old'ns. I don't like the way that those that didn't save for their retirement get the identical care of someone that did. Makes you wonder why we don't all live the high life and spend every penny we have rather than cherish and save pennies for a better ending.

Shard

My understanding is that (in the UK, at least) it's not identical (council provided care tends to be less frequent and less 'lavish').

spouse of scouse

The soundbite 'dementia tax' gives me the irrites. Not all older people get dementia, and not everyone with dementia is old.

May is insisting that her latest announcement of capping the cost people will have to pay for care isn't a back down. Like hell it isn't - she saw how much opposition there was to the original manifesto proposal, including from her own party and traditional Conservative voters, and is madly back peddling.

Shard

Good point, but personally, I like the soundbite.

Normally I don't have any issue with politicians doing U-turns, I think it's a healthy part of democracy; I think it's the media that are over-dramatising situations for ratings. But in Theresa's case I make an exception. Glad she is getting skewered on it. Definitely back peddling. Don't know why she doesn't just admit a change of tack, instead of insisting it would come out in the green paper.

Piff Poff

Our friend is in a Alberta Health services care home, like a council run one, it's certainly not lavish. If you want a TV in your room you have to pay for the cable. The WiFi only works in one tiny spot if your standing on your head with a finger up your nose. Quite often the group TV is playing a DVD that has finished.

This costs a little under 2k per month, if she was to be in a private facility then the costs would be at least double.

If it weren't for those that can afford to pay for care, then those that can't will suffer.

Almost Canadian

What is the U turn? All I have heard is that they will have to pay for their care from their assets once they are dead, but they will be allowed to keep at least 100K.

If that is still the case, I fail to see what is wrong with it, unless one believes that taxpayers should have to fund your care simply so that you can leave a larger amount of money to your beneficiaries.

Shard

The U-turn is in relation to a as yet undefined cap on the amount of social care costs one would have to pay. Up until today, no cap was mentioned, and was implicitly denied in a number of interviews.

Almost Canadian

OK, thanks.

Is there anything wrong will lowering the burden to taxpayers?

Shard

The burden needs to be reduced, on the other hand, those who have accumulated wealth might not be happy with it being appropriated. Hard balance to strike, I think.

scilly

it certainly isn't identical here ............ people depending on provincial care get less of everything, from reduced amounts of care (too few care aides), over medication (to keep them quiet), lack of personal hygiene (lack of care aides), little stimulation, etc etc etc

Oh, and basically forget about being able to even be in the same care home as your spouse, let alone in the same. You could even be 60 or more km away.

It is the very lucky person depending on that funding who gets good care.

If you want good care for your parents or for yourself, it has to be self-funded at high cost. I think the current rate is in the region of $6,000 - 10,000.

bats

Not everyone has spare cash to save for when they are old. Dementia care needs to be recognised as healthcare and funded accordingly.

Piff Poff

If that is going on it needs reporting. A local one is having some issues http://edmontonjournal.com/health/seniors/ahs

scilly

It is the very rare care home that can actually care properly for a dementia patient.

I know of one place in the Lower Mainland that has been getting superb recommendations for the last 4 or 5 years.

Other palces take in dementia patients, but then put 2 in a room, don't always have full stimulation activities, rely too much n sedation, etc etc.

I notice a couple of homes in the area where I live have set up gardens and outside walks suitable for dementia patients, but others have not.

An outside walk (also indoor corridors) should never have corners or end blindly .......... ideally they will be curved gently around the garden of the facility and end up back where the walk started.

scilly

easy to say, very hard to do and to get any action from our current government. And relatives don't always have the energy, or the knowledge, to face up to the powers-that-be.