Elderly care homes

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.express.co...are-home-giant-closes

Isn't it time that our politicians of all parties started to provide for our elderly?

We have 'Children's Homes', 'refuge for battered women', 'Dog's Homes' and other 'Animal Sanctuaries', all these are necessary, but why do we seem to shy away from providing for our elderly in their last years?

Perhaps the politicians should take elderly care out of the hands of the profit mad private sector and provide more state subsidised homes for our elderly.

Where would the money come from?

Well the elderly person would give up their state pension, and the rest could be taken out of the huge overseas aid we dish out, surely our elderly should come first?

[emmie]

Not all of those listed are publicly funded. So if a person goes into a home, no pension at all, what do they do for a treat, or say cigarettes,
elderly should come first, but they don't, and the ones like my mother, have largely been ignored. You have to fight for everything from the state.

[evil__sheep]

trouble is the figures just don't stack up. ONE provider of care homes has 31000 spaces. It probably costs £30-40000 each year for one space. Even if the entire pension budget for those people plus all overseas aid were taken into account it probably wouldn't cover the costs. Also i have no idea how many spaces there are country wide but if 31000 are just one provider, i presume there are a hell of a lot more

[Maydup]

Many of those things you list are run by charities and not by "the politicians"; womens refuges, dogs homes, animal sancturies, facilities for disabled children are all run on donations.

I wonder sometimes what the heck our taxes do go on, so yes, lets have some comfortable and safe places for the elderly but perhaps they could keep at least some of their pension just in case they need to escape for a day or heaven forbid, buy a newspaper.

[Gromit]

You want people to stand outside supermakets collecting for the elderly?

[emmie]

Don't get old in Britain, seems to be the motto, because i have seen first hand the often shabby treatment and disregard of the elderly, and with the best will in the world, while you would prefer to look after your folks in their old age, it isn't always possible.

[Ankou]

well there was in the national care service. seems it was quite costly.

http://www.telegraph....delayed-by-peers.html

[emmie]

i know some who are being charged up to £1,000 a week, if you had to sell your home to pay for care, the money wouldn't last long.

[anotheoldgit]

Perhaps I should have been clearer.

When I said "their pension" obviously I didn't mean all of it, just a contribution towards their care.

[VHG]

Well the problem is likely to get worse.

In the 2001 census we had nearly 10 million people over 65.
We had about 40 million between 15 and 64.
We had about 11 million under 15

So the 40 million between 15 and 64 have to pay (via taxes) for looking after the elderly (as well as paying for the educaton of those under 15).

But of those 40 million many will still be in education (those between 15 and 21+), many will be at home looking after children, others will be out of work, or disabled etc, and some (such as many over 50s) may have been forced into early retirement because they cant get a job at that age.

So how many of the 40 million are actively working and paying taxes, perhpas 30 million?

So 30 million people are expected to pay towards the care of 10 million people over 65.

That is 3 "workers" for each single person over 65.

And note that one of the largest groups of people in the country are the "baby boomers" (those born between 1946-51) and they will all start retiring soon.

Which means they will stop work (if they can) and stop paying taxes, and there will be even less people in work to pay for the elderly.

This is a huge problem that most western countries have, and it is going to get worse.

[Ankou]

as part of that national care service....... "ministers have been consulting on radical plans to impose charges of up to £20,000, payable on retirement, to fund the 400,000 elderly people who live in care homes"

[VHG]

Below is a population pyramid for the UK.

Note the huge bulge in the middle (for those aged between 40 and 55). They will all start retiring in the next 10 to 15 years. And becuase of improved health, medcine etc most of tose will survive into older age.

But note that the "pyramid" is narrower at the bottom. So there are actually LESS people coming up towards working age than those who will retire.

So who is going to pay for all these old people then?

http://en.wikipedia.o...k.pop.pramid.2010.jpg

As an example here ar the population pyramids for Nigeria, where you have a HUGE number of young people who will pay for a reltively small number of older people

http://www.nationmast...ria/Age-_distribution

[jackthehat]

I often think that in situations such as these the 'powers that be' look through the wrong end of the telescope.....

Just how much, literally, does it cost to keep a roof over the head of one elderly person and make sure they are warm, fed and watered per week?

If the government are insistent that an elderly person can do all of that in their own home on a pension of £ 150pw (or so)....why is this allowed to suddenly multiply three-, four- or five-fold when a Care Home becomes involved?
Of course, I understand about staffing costs and various overheads.....it's just that the entire business seems to be liquid enough for Care Companies like Southern Cross to come to the attention of companies like Blackstone Capital where the sale-and-leaseback scheme raised millions for the money-men and then caused the crisis currently being experienced.
Perhaps it would be better if the industry was better regulated?

[anotheoldgit]

Good post JTH.

[VHG]

>If the government are insistent that an elderly person can do all of
>that in their own home on a pension of £ 150pw (or so)....why is
>this allowed to suddenly multiply three-, four- or five-fold when a
>Care Home becomes involved?

An old person asleep in their own home costs nobody anything.

A care home HAS to have 24 hour care, which means someone has to be there overnight.

An old person living in their own home where the mortgage has been paid off costs the state nothing.

A care home has to pay for rent, cleaning, maintenance for a property.

It all costs money,

[evil__sheep]

i guess in your own home you don't have personal assisstants at your disposal to help with the things you need doing, like cleaning up your pee and bringing your meals and if you did it would be more expensive than £150 pw

[jackthehat]

Erm.....yes.....yes it does.

Which is what I said.

[Jemisa]

evil s, just because one is old it doesn't automaticly mean you pee yourself.
How old is old anyway?

jem

[Ankou]

when i was at school 25 year old teachers were ancient. nowadays i'd say a bit more than that.

[emmie]

going on some of the carers i have come across they weren't worth the money.