Uk Weighs 20,000 Pounds Charge For Elderly Care

[cashinmattress]

UK weighs 20,000 pounds charge for elderly care

Britain may introduce a compulsory charge of up to 20,000 pounds ($33,000) per person to pay for care in old age, health minister Andy Burnham said on Tuesday.

The proposal, which would see everyone who can afford it paying between 17,000 and 20,000 pounds, is one of the three options being considered alongside a top-up payment system and an insurance-based approach.

"We are proposing a radical reform of care ... we need a system that's fair, simple and affordable for everyone," Burnham said.

Under the current system, some people have to pay tens of thousands of pounds, or sell their house, to pay for care in old age, since those with homes or savings worth more than 23,500 pounds must pay for their own care.

On average, Britons spend 30,000 pounds for care but 20 percent pay more than 50,000 pounds and those who develop serious conditions like Alzheimer's can pay more than 200,000 pounds.

Caring for the country's ageing population is a big and growing business for operators of care homes, such as Southern Cross, Care UK, Nestor, Claimar Care and Mears Group.

Experts say the current system of paying for care is a lottery and not sustainable in the long-term.

"With the ageing population and a diminishing workforce to support the elderly there's going to be a significant shortfall," said Gris Glasper, an industry analyst at stockbroker Brewin Dolphin.

"Either the price of care needs to come down significantly or something else needs to be addressed, and that is an increased burden on the individual."

But the opposition Conservative Party said Burnham's so-called green paper on care simply started another debate rather than taking hard decisions now.

In addition to the idea of compulsory payments, the two other options proposed are a partnership arrangement, where the state would provide between a quarter and a third of the cost of care, and a voluntary insurance scheme, which would cost individuals 20,000-25,000 pounds.

£20,000pp is not going to even remotely close to the cost of maintaining the boomers health. Not at all.

This number will go up and up...

[juvenal]

£20 K will fund less than 12 months residential care in the UK.

[HPC001]

These care homes pay their frontline staff **** all (the usual rate for roles I've applied for is £6 an hour), so I suspect most of the money goes to CEO\Senior manager ****wits.

[Minos]

UK weighs 20,000 pounds charge for elderly care

£20,000pp is not going to even remotely close to the cost of maintaining the boomers health. Not at all.

This number will go up and up...

It's not being introduced for that reason silly.

[Mega]

Fighting overseas is not cheap you know.

Mike

[SarahBell]

400-600 a week for care that is purely "social" and not medical.

So 20k is about a year of cheap care.

Is that all we'll all get?

[Snagger]

most people don't go into care, but everyone pays the 20K so the maths sounds about right.

[mikthe20]

£20 K will fund less than 12 months residential care in the UK.

It's like an insurance policy - most people will keel over before they get into a home. Only a minority will actually get into a home, and only a minority of those will stay alive for more than 12 months after arriving there.

There's quite an interesting article in today's Guardian in the supplement where the author spend's a few days in an old people's home. Staff there say 10 years ago people would go there and be in relatively good health and mobile - they would even allocate parking spaces to residents. These days, new residents are barely mobile and almost unable to walk, let alone drive. Also, since they're in such a poor state, only a minority make it past the first year.

Edited July 14, 2009 by mikthe20

[markinspain]

Even more reason to blow your dough down the boozer!

[cells]

The government cannot magic away the cost of care. It costs what it does and will likely cost more if the state gets involved.

So the option is to let the individual pay for it or to get the collective to pay for it.

If the individual pays for it.

Family will often look after the old to sae money

Individuals’ families will look for the best value care home.

If the collective (government) pays for it.

Everyone will take the option. Why change dads dippers when the state will do it.

Should you be fit an healthy you still pay for care through tax

Value will go out the window, we will want the most no matter the cost.

[cells]

Personally my option would be to legalise euthanasia and encourage the old to take that option up. If you cannot look after yourself and your mind is goo what exactly is the point in extending your life from 85 to 95.

A cost effective alternative would be to ship them all off to India where we can pay £5k a person per year and get top class care instead of £35k for the same here.

[cells]

most people don't go into care, but everyone pays the 20K so the maths sounds about right.

Most people don’t go into care right now because family often helps enough so it isn’t required. It could be the children and even grandchildren helping out.

Just as visit a week from their kids/grand kids helping out a bit is usually enough.

However with this implemented everyone will rather have their parents in a care home as it is “freeâ€.

Thus the numbers will swell massively.

[Minos]

Personally my option would be to legalise euthanasia and encourage the old to take that option up. If you cannot look after yourself and your mind is goo what exactly is the point in extending your life from 85 to 95.

A cost effective alternative would be to ship them all off to India where we can pay £5k a person per year and get top class care instead of £35k for the same here.

God will surely strike you down for that young man.

[Johnny Storm]

However with this implemented everyone will rather have their parents in a care home as it is “freeâ€.

Thus the numbers will swell massively.

I think you'll find most old people do not want to go into a care home.

[cells]

Another feasible option imo is to get our old to care for our very old.

Say you are 60-65 and want to prepare for the time you can no longer help yourself. You have no great savings or don’t want to sell your house.

Instead you help out part time (perhaps 3 days a week, or some 20 hours a week) until you are aged 75 or need a home yourself. That way you earn a free place in a home should you need it. That would keep the costs of homes down (as you would only need a couple of paid staff and the buildings should be government owned so no rent etc to pay).

For every 2 years you help you are entitled to 1 year in a care home should you need it (also transferable to your husband/wife).

[cells]

I think you'll find most old people do not want to go into a care home.

Yes but they will have little choice if the family are unwilling to help them.

And many more families will be unwilling to help if they see a free slot in a care home.

Plus the more people that go, the lower the stigma and the more people that will go.

[Democorruptcy]

The government wants to create a "National Care Service".

It sounds a bit like the "National Health Service" doesn't it? You know, the one they have poured fortunes into but lots of it has been gone to managers via excessive pay and MP type second home allowances etc. instead of towards improving the the service provided.

e.g.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/media/200...home-perk-.html

http://www.employeebenefits.co.uk/item/865.../366/pg_ftr_art

They say we have a £6bn shortfall in future funding for care. If the NHS wasn't a giant executive gravy train would there be enough money in it already perhaps?

[cells]

God will surely strike you down for that young man.

No, he will give me brownie points.

He used to strike the old down but we learnt how to build lightning conductors so his strikes became less effective. So now when he strikes them with a heat attack or stroke or cancer we are just about able to save them.

There is nothing wrong with death. Our bodies are not built to last longer than a certain time. Why prolong the inevitable, if you’re physically unable to wipe your **** or cannot remember what your families names then it is time.

We are still ruled by our many generations of evolution to fear death and will do anything to prevent it. However we should rise above those animal instincts and decide how and when we die.

[Minos]

No, he will give me brownie points.

He used to strike the old down but we learnt how to build lightning conductors so his strikes became less effective. So now when he strikes them with a heat attack or stroke or cancer we are just about able to save them.

There is nothing wrong with death. Our bodies are not built to last longer than a certain time. Why prolong the inevitable, if you’re physically unable to wipe your **** or cannot remember what your families names then it is time.

We are still ruled by our many generations of evolution to fear death and will do anything to prevent it. However we should rise above those animal instincts and decide how and when we die.

I don't disagree with you. I was just trying to bring balance by including the views of the God squad.

[Guillotine]

Hows about we tell Andy Burnham to stick it at next years General election.

None of us has to accept working ever harder for the state for less and less in return.

[PunK BeaR]

A few people i know work in these homes and they charge around £700-£800 per week. I appreciate the high costs when the residents require 24hr nursing care but many in these homes do not require this level of care and are still charged these eye-watering fees.

The homes are often very short staffed (well below the govt requirements) leading to a poor level of attention and care for many. The food is supposedly sh!t in many of them aswell. However the regulatory body, the Care Commission in Scotland, does next to nothing to remedy these problems. All the time, the owners are making an absolute fortune.

[grizzly bear]

It's like an insurance policy - most people will keel over before they get into a home. Only a minority will actually get into a home, and only a minority of those will stay alive for more than 12 months after arriving there.

There's quite an interesting article in today's Guardian in the supplement where the author spend's a few days in an old people's home. Staff there say 10 years ago people would go there and be in relatively good health and mobile - they would even allocate parking spaces to residents. These days, new residents are barely mobile and almost unable to walk, let alone drive. Also, since they're in such a poor state, only a minority make it past the first year.

Sounds about right. My grandma spent her last 7 months in a home. Only went in when she couldn't be looked after at home - when carers during the day wasn't enough and she needed someone there the whole time. However others in such a condition if for example they lived with a family member who could do the caring.

It was obvious when she went in that it was near the end, and even though she was in Scotland, she paid for the care from her pension (she was a doctor so had a good pension). When I went to visit the other people in the home were in a similar way.

[Laura]

A cost effective alternative would be to ship them all off to India where we can pay £5k a person per year and get top class care instead of £35k for the same here.

Why not go further?

Outsource an even bigger drain on the nation, education.

Though what would we do with all the redundant educational psychologists?

[okaycuckoo]

A few people i know work in these homes and they charge around £700-£800 per week. I appreciate the high costs when the residents require 24hr nursing care but many in these homes do not require this level of care and are still charged these eye-watering fees.

The homes are often very short staffed (well below the govt requirements) leading to a poor level of attention and care for many. The food is supposedly sh!t in many of them aswell. However the regulatory body, the Care Commission in Scotland, does next to nothing to remedy these problems. All the time, the owners are making an absolute fortune.

Down south it's different ... a few big drains on private homes resources:

1. Keeping up with H&S standards from local authorities. The mid-level homes who only do a bit of nursing have to bring in very wasteful professional management agencies because they're the only ones who know the ins-and-outs of the LA's labyrinth. The agencies recruit their key staff from ... LAs.

2. Homes that do specialise in nursing have to shell out £60-70,000 pa for an agency nurse (a big chunk of which goes to the agency).

3. Servicing the massive debts for upgrading the homes to LA levels!

[PunK BeaR]

Down south it's different ... a few big drains on private homes resources:

1. Keeping up with H&S standards from local authorities. The mid-level homes who only do a bit of nursing have to bring in very wasteful professional management agencies because they're the only ones who know the ins-and-outs of the LA's labyrinth. The agencies recruit their key staff from ... LAs.

2. Homes that do specialise in nursing have to shell out £60-70,000 pa for an agency nurse (a big chunk of which goes to the agency).

3. Servicing the massive debts for upgrading the homes to LA levels!

Similar standards exist in Scotland but from what ive heard, the day to day running is cut to less than a bare minimum to maximise profits. Unfortunately, the regulatory body dont seem to have enough clout to enforce.