I agree the Government have not ‘forgotten’ about any disabled people because they do not care and disability is outside their perception.
The Government view disability as a problem that they do not wish to consider and decry disabled people for not fitting in with the Government ‘norm’.
The Government see disability as a drain the the UK resources and would really wish that disabled people did not exist and they are going out of their way to put barriers up to ensure disabled people do not exist, or exist with much difficulty.
This can be seen to their whole approach to ‘welfare benefits’ and Social Care, where both have seen reductions on the financial benefits to disabled people and others who are disabled.
The UK needs to get behind supporting disabled people, but with the attitude of this Government and some in the media of classing disabled people and others who are vulnerable as ‘scroungers’ and some members of the public use this to decry disabled people and others who are vulnerable and believe that if the Government and media put this forward then it must be true and reinforces their own views.
The Government needs to be there for everyone and not just certain sections of the UK.
Social Care is just as important as Health Care, but does not receive the support is should do.
With this in mind please could I mention that the forthcoming Budget is an important opportunity to address the crucial issue of funding for Social Care, but will it.
Boris has promised, but will he keep his promise and even if money is made available will it be sufficient.
Boris has now mentioned it will take 5 years to get the funding, Social Care can not wait that long.
Boris needs to be told this is not good enough, so it is essential we keep the pressure on Boris and my petition ‘Solve the crisis in Social Care could be the means.
Please see below
We now have the New Year 2020.
However, if the ‘Crisis in Social Care’ is not Solved soon there will not be many more New Years for the care, required for persons in need of care, to be provided by Local Authorities due to their lack of funding. This will then have a much greater impact on health care provision, which is itself in crisis.
I have therefore created my latest petition, please follow the link
In its ongoing efforts to make life just that much more difficult and humiliating for vulnerable people, the Trump administration is floating a new rule that would add in layers of bureaucracy for some people receiving Social Security Disability Insurance. The administrative costs for that added level of review would basically zero out any savings to the program, proving once again that cruelty is the point for Donald Trump and team.
But now that plans to introduce such a cap have been scrapped and the social care consultation is rumoured to have been delayed until next summer, it seems that the government has followed previous administrations and kicked social care funding into the long grass.
Such a decision is worrying and flies in the face of public opinion. A cap on care costs will increase the fairness of social care, so it’s risky to turn our backs on this idea without an alternative plan in place. There are too many vulnerable older people at risk.
Following an election campaign full of confusing messages about social care, Anchor, England’s largest not-for-profit provider of care and housing for older people, conducted a public poll to gather insight into people’s understanding. Our research found that 70% of British adults believe there should be a cap on social care costs, while almost half believe that social care – including dementia care – should always be paid for by the state.
The question of how we fund social care remains unanswered, and the most recent suggestions fail to get to the crux of the issue.
Jackie Doyle-Price, the social care minister, suggested that older people should sell their homes to fund their care. But this doesn’t take the full picture into account. There is a perception that all or most older people are well-off and own their own home – this isn’t the case. For those older people who are home owners and are, to quote the minister, “sitting in homes too big for their needs”, we know that two thirds would like to downsize but can’t due to a lack of suitable options.
Whichever direction the future of social care funding is heading, and whether a cap is introduced or not, the government must be open and honest about how social care will be paid for so that everyone can plan for the best possible life in older age. At present, this is far from the case.
More than a fifth of people wrongly believe the state pays entirely for care needs in later life, and more than half underestimate social care costs by up to 20%. Considering these misconceptions, it’s no wonder that just 14% of us are currently saving for our care in later life.
We’re approaching a perfect storm where the future of social care funding is unclear, the population is getting older, and most of us are unprepared for the future. We need a transparent and sustainable long-term strategy that integrates social care, health and housing. Recognising, and acting on this, is our only option.
I agree that social care and related health should be administered by one just one authority, but should it be health or social services or should a completely new authority be formed.
As to whether independent social care providers are profiteering from the system I am not too sure for to have quality care does cost.
If Andy Burnham is stating that these social care providers should be run by either social services or health rather than independently, this I would seriously contest. The reason being than generally the most expensive providers are run by these authorities as the lowest paid would generally be paid no less than the Living Wage as opposed to the National Living Wage, their pensions would generally be better as these may still be based on final salaries as to contribution as is the newly created work portable pensions which are being rolled out to all employees who are currently not in a pensionable employment.
The management structures will generally be more expensive to run than in a private provider, but this would depend on the extent of the profit being extracted by the owners from their care company. But with the current state of social services and health finances due to Government austerity cuts the scope for excessive profits are being restrictive.
With regards to zero hours contracts and I agree that they should not used in practice, Local Authorities do use these for some of their workforce, but I am not sure about health.
What should be occurring is zero contracts should be outlawed, everyone should be paid at least the Living wage, which would make the National Living wage redundant. In addition retain the independent providers, but insist on a effective quality control system, which should be independently monitored outwith the care provider, be they independent, Local Authority or health.
There are currently local independent HealthWatch organisation in all localities who do, at present, monitor Care home, GP surgeries, Pharmacies, Dentists and Opticians. Their remit should be extended to day services and all other care providers and their powers should be strengthened, for at present they can not insist to look at records kept by the respective organisations, unless the organisations offer them to the Enter and View representatives. Also they can only state recommendations, but these should be extended to be more than voluntary for the care providers to follow them.
Then the HealthWatch visits would be more on a par to the CQC (Care Quality Commission) inspections.