As free healthcare for the elderly runs aground one wonders how the finances actually work. It costs around £5.50 o £6.50 per hour for personal care. This could be ten minutes spent making a cup of tea or an hour performing personal care, or twice that if the service user requires two people to lift and manoeuvre.
Patient Centred Holistic Care and Prevention of Hospital (or otherwise) Acquired Infections are the watchword from the Executive. A carer’s aim is to enable the service user to attain as high a level of independence as possible.
Far too many carers seem to draw the line at cleaning / tidying up - surely an important part of the task of helping individuals to maintain good health, high spirits and independence. Changing bedding, clothing and proper clean up after an accident is more often avoided (usual explanation is "bedding is changed once a week" as if that is sufficient explanation. ) This leaves patients living in bad odours, which is not conducive to adequate breathing – the body tends to reduce breathing when the air is bad, not o mention discouraging visitors and therefore adversely affecting social life and spiritual welfare. I am always in trouble for smartening up/cleaning the environment, being told by co-workers that this is not my job - well who the ^^^ 's is it then?
As far as I am concerned it IS the carer's job, especially if there is no other domestic in evidence, to ensure that the patient’s environment is healthy and accessible (cupboards and drawers sorted instead of jammed shut with clothes not so much as tidied away, but often stuffed into cupboards and chests of drawers any old how making it very hard for those with impediments to open) Looking after the elderly is no different from looking after a small child. Rooms can be planned to facilitate independence. This is all part of caring, and if that means supporting any live in carer that may find their position overwhelming, then so be it . Personally I should rather spend a few extra minutes a couple of times a week that deal with ensuing infections (diarrhoea etc)) and that includes wiping out the nasties to be found under the microwave, draining board; around the sink; in the fridge and definitely the toilets and bathrooms. (I witnessed another “I’ve-been-a-carer-for-15-years” pick up a basin from a very dirty floor and place it, for lack of space onto the food prep surface without a second thoughtt)
Many people don’t even get proper personal care - a quick flannel wash. I came into one lady's room to find the wash bowel a carer had just used, floating with excrement. The carer had not bothered to go get clean water for rinsing. Feet are rarely washed properly, toe nail infections are rampant and never reported to the doctor for treatment – even though this condition is usually caused by thrush.
Meanwhile far too many carers are NOT caring - they will do the shopping, heat up a ready meal, prompt medication and change the odd pad. Until these people are shown how to clean a kitchen and bathroom, unblock a Hoover, and generally clean up after an accident, a good deal of money is being spent very very badly. As it is his general lack of care is building up over time to serious neglect for our vulnerable members
Oh dear. When are we, as a scoeity, going to realise that there uis a cycle here? When we are babies our parents look after us and when they get old..... anyone want to fill in the blank?
If older generations are able and willing to live alone (like my 94 year old gradmother who is in fine fettle, then great. If not then families or societies need to take responsibility.
not just the elderly, people with learning disabilities, mental health problems, dual diagnosis (and the lack of diagnosis), children with Autistic spectrum syndrome disorders. the whole care and health service needs revamped.
Originally posted by dandini: not just the elderly, people with learning disabilities, mental health problems, dual diagnosis (and the lack of diagnosis), children with Autistic spectrum syndrome disorders. the whole care and health service needs revamped.
I can't complain about the care for my autistic son, as he has all the help and assistance he could possibly get.
I am pleased for you hypnotic. I have worked in schools with autistic youngsters and I feel they could be vastly improved and the children diagnosed appropriately sooner. Total respect.
Originally posted by dandini: I am pleased for you hypnotic. I have worked in schools with autistic youngsters and I feel they could be vastly improved and the children diagnosed appropriately sooner. Total respect.
Not saying it was easy, I got him diagnosed when he was 2 1/2, when he turned three the nursery didn't believe in his diagnosis and messed up the SEN thing, a year later they came back and said he needs more help, he has a social worker, speech and language therapist, OT, one to one sessions every day, one hour messy play every day, clinical and educational psychologist and will be going to a speech and language school in the Summer. I had words with his HV and Doctor before finally being refered so he could be assessed, all involved agreed that he was indeed autistic. I guess I am a fighter and I don't listen to jumped up GPs and HVs who accuse me of being a bad mum.
The care of the elderly is a conundrum now because of the different views of the generations.
Today's elderly are from the pre-WW2 days when it was normal for families to look after their own where at all possible. It was expected of the younger generations to care for those who had cared for them. State care was neither sought, wanted or very available because it was the company and care that was thought most important. The other things like heat and eat would be there if the other was in place.
Things have changed. Care of the elderly now is all heat and eat. The assumption has turned on its head. Today's younger generations have neither the experience nor the willingness to provide the care and company aspects and they assume that they have done their bit as long as the elderly are warm and fed. To them it does not matter if this is at home or in a home. If the elderly want company then someone should provide it in the same way as they provide the food and warmth.
To an old person loneliness is the hardest thing to bear. Just because they may be in a home or some sheltered dwelling surrounded by people does not mean they are cared for and it does not cure loneliness. This misconception is the cruellest of deceptions. It is also the worst self-delusion that families can make.
Of course there are the familiar arguments - "we don't have the time", "we have our own lives to lead", "he/she doesn't want us", he/she is a cantankerous old so and so", "the kids don't like her/him because they can't make a row" ....
It's a selfish world when people prefer to get out of caring by paying. Worse still when they expect someone else to pay.
There are not many things that we would wish to go back in the "good old days" to revive but if we could do it then the old style family grouping with its responsibilities, duties, care and love would be the part that would do society most good.
If one thing is glaringly apparent from how this country scandalously discards its elderly is that it will be us next. Make provision for yourself if you can and/or desire or enjoy it all while you can and go out in a blaze.
It's my day to be awkward but I think there is going to have to be a serious debate about what can be expected.
Nobody wants to be horrible to vulnerable sections of society and the aged, with failing health and likely crumbling homes, can definitely be very vulnerable.
But think about the practicalities: someone works for 30-40 years but, at 65, could easily live another 15-20 years or even longer as an increasing proportion do. In the same way that education, even university, was provided free and the original NHS was totally free or notional prescription costs, care and pensions were provided. But can 15-20 years of NI (and that's assuming they were workers) really be covering the pensions, subsidised services e.g. transport, benefits such as a fuel payment, much greater need of health services AND a care home when they get too frail to look after themselves. Remember all this provision comes out of about twice as long working.
There isn't an insurance company in the world that wouldn't fall about laughing if you said you expected that level of provision from the length of time you were "paying in".
It sounds hard - but harder decisions are already being made. No - that middle aged woman with breast cancer can't have that drug to allow her to be there for her family until they grow up. No - young people WILL have to pay for their higher education and can't even have a grant towards living costs, as their parents got. No - we can't provide social housing for all low paid people in this society: go private even if that takes every spare penny you've got.
BTW not all societies adored their elderly. The Greeks suggested poisoning but the Greeks also approved of slavery and pederasty so I'm not holding them up as a shining example.
Why can't we admit that the dreadful nasty people in society get old too and could be just too vile to cope with?
It's not in my interest to post this as I'm a darn sight closer to retirement than I'd like but I am sick and tired of the open cheque book expectations of some older people.
Sorry - spotted typo: I meant to ask whether 30-40 years of NI contribution could cover all the payments and benefits needed for 15-20 years or longer.
Originally posted by Lurker: It's my day to be awkward but I think there is going to have to be a serious debate about what can be expected.
Nobody wants to be horrible to vulnerable sections of society and the aged, with failing health and likely crumbling homes, can definitely be very vulnerable.
But think about the practicalities: someone works for 30-40 years but, at 65, could easily live another 15-20 years or even longer as an increasing proportion do. In the same way that education, even university, was provided free and the original NHS was totally free or notional prescription costs, care and pensions were provided. But can 15-20 years of NI (and that's assuming they were workers) really be covering the pensions, subsidised services e.g. transport, benefits such as a fuel payment, much greater need of health services AND a care home when they get too frail to look after themselves. Remember all this provision comes out of about twice as long working.
There isn't an insurance company in the world that wouldn't fall about laughing if you said you expected that level of provision from the length of time you were "paying in".
It sounds hard - but harder decisions are already being made. No - that middle aged woman with breast cancer can't have that drug to allow her to be there for her family until they grow up. No - young people WILL have to pay for their higher education and can't even have a grant towards living costs, as their parents got. No - we can't provide social housing for all low paid people in this society: go private even if that takes every spare penny you've got.
BTW not all societies adored their elderly. The Greeks suggested poisoning but the Greeks also approved of slavery and pederasty so I'm not holding them up as a shining example.
Why can't we admit that the dreadful nasty people in society get old too and could be just too vile to cope with?
It's not in my interest to post this as I'm a darn sight closer to retirement than I'd like but I am sick and tired of the open cheque book expectations of some older people.
Fire away
Would the billions we dish out in foreign aid be better spent on our own people? Might help.
Originally posted by Lurker: Sorry - spotted typo: I meant to ask whether 30-40 years of NI contribution could cover all the payments and benefits needed for 15-20 years or longer.
A little unfair as the NI contributions should have been wisely invested all those years ago.
Originally posted by Lurker: It's my day to be awkward but I think there is going to have to be a serious debate about what can be expected.
Nobody wants to be horrible to vulnerable sections of society and the aged, with failing health and likely crumbling homes, can definitely be very vulnerable.
But think about the practicalities: someone works for 30-40 years but, at 65, could easily live another 15-20 years or even longer as an increasing proportion do. In the same way that education, even university, was provided free and the original NHS was totally free or notional prescription costs, care and pensions were provided. But can 15-20 years of NI (and that's assuming they were workers) really be covering the pensions, subsidised services e.g. transport, benefits such as a fuel payment, much greater need of health services AND a care home when they get too frail to look after themselves. Remember all this provision comes out of about twice as long working.
There isn't an insurance company in the world that wouldn't fall about laughing if you said you expected that level of provision from the length of time you were "paying in".
It sounds hard - but harder decisions are already being made. No - that middle aged woman with breast cancer can't have that drug to allow her to be there for her family until they grow up. No - young people WILL have to pay for their higher education and can't even have a grant towards living costs, as their parents got. No - we can't provide social housing for all low paid people in this society: go private even if that takes every spare penny you've got.
BTW not all societies adored their elderly. The Greeks suggested poisoning but the Greeks also approved of slavery and pederasty so I'm not holding them up as a shining example.
Why can't we admit that the dreadful nasty people in society get old too and could be just too vile to cope with?
It's not in my interest to post this as I'm a darn sight closer to retirement than I'd like but I am sick and tired of the open cheque book expectations of some older people.
Fire away
There is much in what you say. Perhaps the point is that "the elderly" are not an homogeneous group. That is what makes for difficulties in providing "care" because one size cannot fit all.
The hijacking of the term "care" is also a problem. To me it implies something quite personal and nothing at all to do with cash. Caring for someone is really giving of yourself.
I agree about the open cheque book mentality but there again it does not apply solely to the elderly does it? Then there is the fact that much more money would be available for the elderly (and the NHS) today if the NI funds had not been criminally mismanaged and plundered in the early years of the welfare state. Much of what was paid in by today's pensioners went straight out again instead of being properly invested.
I don't think there is any likelihood of a return to family values as they were up to the 50s. Rightly or wrongly the notion of individual self-determination took over with the 60s and the family unit idea went out of the window.
Today extended families happen but not with birth relationships and patriarchal or matriarchal figures at the core. They are fragmented, second or even third families that connect sideways rather than through the generations. Shared care of the elderly is therefore much harder to arrange and accept.
In the end there is no answer but my prediction for what it's worth is that the problem will get worse because people are getting more selfish by the day.
Originally posted by Anonimouse: The care of the elderly is a conundrum now because of the different views of the generations.
Today's elderly are from the pre-WW2 days when it was normal for families to look after their own where at all possible. It was expected of the younger generations to care for those who had cared for them. State care was neither sought, wanted or very available because it was the company and care that was thought most important. The other things like heat and eat would be there if the other was in place.
Things have changed. Care of the elderly now is all heat and eat. The assumption has turned on its head. Today's younger generations have neither the experience nor the willingness to provide the care and company aspects and they assume that they have done their bit as long as the elderly are warm and fed. To them it does not matter if this is at home or in a home. If the elderly want company then someone should provide it in the same way as they provide the food and warmth.
To an old person loneliness is the hardest thing to bear. Just because they may be in a home or some sheltered dwelling surrounded by people does not mean they are cared for and it does not cure loneliness. This misconception is the cruellest of deceptions. It is also the worst self-delusion that families can make.
Of course there are the familiar arguments - "we don't have the time", "we have our own lives to lead", "he/she doesn't want us", he/she is a cantankerous old so and so", "the kids don't like her/him because they can't make a row" ....
It's a selfish world when people prefer to get out of caring by paying. Worse still when they expect someone else to pay.
There are not many things that we would wish to go back in the "good old days" to revive but if we could do it then the old style family grouping with its responsibilities, duties, care and love would be the part that would do society most good.
Fair points but this theory treats the elderly as one group, who are all nice people who would like company.
Sadly, for many elderly people, the people they would really like to share company with are now dead - their spouse, their friends etc. It's tragic but it's a fact of life.
I don't think it's fair to suggest that it is selfish of younger people not to spend time with the elderly. If they have good relationships with their older relatives then spending time with them will come naturally. If they have a bad relationship - or no relationship - with them then it's a pretty random concept to think they will benefit from each other's company.
I speak from the arrogance of youth of course, but I'm a self reliant person and I can't bear the thought that when my hair turns grey people will forget I have a personality, opinions etc and just saw 'aww, bless the old dear' as if I'm interchangeable with any other old dear.
And as far as caring for the elderly in our own homes, how will that work in practice? Most adults need to work, not stay home and care for relatives.
In the past it was women who were lumbered with caring for their own parents and/ or their parents in law. Now most women work, it's hardly fair to suggest this is selfish.
Many adults with elderly relatives will also have growing families of their own, university fees to pay etc.
I have already told my mum that when she retires in 3 years I will be giving her a certain amount per month. I believe that my brother and sister will do the same. Between each of us giving her a bit we can share the burden. To me it is just a no brainer. The woman cleaned up our sick. She fed us. She came to pick us up from our mates late at night before we could drive. She has lent me I don't know how much money over the years. I know that not everyone can afford to do this sort of thing. But often people can afford to do it...and just choose not to.
I do not know if the programme ahs been on yet but there has been an advert recently showing a couple walking on the beach with a voicover, "Isn't it time you enjoyed your retirement..." and then pans out and it is some poor old guy in a crummy bedsit and then the lights go off. it is all about how old people really live.
Apparently indebtedness is growing fastest among people over 65. I mean wtf is going on?
Originally posted by ShoppingGirl: And as far as caring for the elderly in our own homes, how will that work in practice? Most adults need to work, not stay home and care for relatives.
In the past it was women who were lumbered with caring for their own parents and/ or their parents in law. Now most women work, it's hardly fair to suggest this is selfish.
Many adults with elderly relatives will also have growing families of their own, university fees to pay etc.
I know a family who are selling their homw. teh two grandmothers are also selling. together they plan to buy a really big nice place where the grandmothers can have autonomy but the family will be there on hand if and when.
I am not suggesting for a second that anyone who cannot anr will not look after their elderly relatives is doing somethign wrong. But we must admit that this is a serious and growing problem.
My gran lives in self imposed poverty becuase she 'hates waste' ie turning on the heating, and is determined to leave all her money (what little she has) for my mum and my uncle.
It's absolute madness, as they both have a far more comfortable lifestyle than my gran does, and they don't need or want her money. It's just the way that generation grew up.
Originally posted by ShoppingGirl: My gran lives in self imposed poverty becuase she 'hates waste' ie turning on the heating, and is determined to leave all her money (what little she has) for my mum and my uncle.
It's absolute madness, as they both have a far more comfortable lifestyle than my gran does, and they don't need or want her money. It's just the way that generation grew up.
My mum is forever arguing with her about it.
Oh my grandmother and mum are both like that. Obsessed with leaving cash. This despite the fact that my grandmother is a millionaire at least.
Originally posted by ShoppingGirl: And as far as caring for the elderly in our own homes, how will that work in practice? Most adults need to work, not stay home and care for relatives.
In the past it was women who were lumbered with caring for their own parents and/ or their parents in law. Now most women work, it's hardly fair to suggest this is selfish.
Many adults with elderly relatives will also have growing families of their own, university fees to pay etc.
I dont get your point. Sorry, if it wasnt for the elderly you might not have any of those things to care less about those who made it possible.
