The Generation Game
Yesterday, I watched ‘The Generation Game’ on BBC1. It irritated me. The programme seemed geared very much to a comfortable middle class scared of losing their right to their parent’s properties. There was no ‘cutting edge’ in the debate. It was geared towards a particular audience that doesn’t link in with a large swathe of people that I might come across on a day to day basis. Remember, the poor woman who had to sell her mother’s house that she knows she and her brothers and sisters would have inherited, chose a care home which was not on the list approved by the local authority and cost £900 per week. Who exactly does she think should pay the £900 per week? Also, if all care home places were funded that would leave a massive gap in funding and at least the way of ensuring that people who can pay, do, means that more of those who cannot pay can receive services and no, this are not people who have ‘frittered their lives away’ and not paid attention to saving – but people who might have have different circumstances and situations that might have arisen or who have had lower paid jobs. It is not as simple as drawing a line and saying ‘everyone should save’. Not everyone can.
I’m not saying the current system is fair. It needs to change. But the picture painted in the first part of the programme was unrealistic and actually false in some parts.
Where the programme failed was to actually look at support for those who don’t have resources to fall back on.
Yes, the extra-care sheltered scheme was fine but if they were like the schemes in our local authority, they don’t like to take people who have anything verging on what might be considered a ‘mental health’ diagnosis (and yes, that does include dementia – ironically). I have a lot to say about extra-care sheltered schemes in general and should probably leave that for a post in itself…
I wonder if I’m the only person that thinks paying for care needed in life from ones’ estate is actually quite a good idea and has no ethical issues with a ‘death tax’.
Posted on July 27, 2010, in dementia, elderly, local authority, long-term care, old age, older people, personal, politics, social care, social issues, social work, work and tagged death tax, long-term care, panorama, paying for care, the generation game. Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.
You’re certainly not the only one. My logic is that if you’re living in a care home you don’t need a house and you certainly don’t need a house when you’re dead. Though that opinion really annoyed my mother and her response was “well isn’t it lucky I don’t own enough to give you much inheritance!” >.< I'd much rather this country had enough funds to give all the elderly and vulnerable the care they need instead of have to ration that care so those funds can go into the pockets of those who are fortunate to have wealthier parents.
I agree completely!
Would love to read this – “extra-care sheltered schemes in general and should probably leave that for a post in itself..”
I will get around to it but it might be a bit of a rant…
We have some direct experience of this with my wifes parents and I think the dilemma that hit home the hardest was the fact that there is always this big gap in our society between those that have the most, and are able to cleverly manipulate their (known) assets away and those that really end up with nothing at all and you can guess who suffers the most out of these groups in their final years.
Can’t see how things really change, its just another long term example in life of those that are un-affected because of their class and those that have always been affected by their class.
Pauly
That’s a good way of putting it..
I agree about your views of this programme- I watched it with incredulity at some of the comments being made.
I’ve never quite figured out why people object so vehemently to selling a house they can no longer live in as it isn’t suitable for their needs to pay for one they can live in as it is suitable!
If my parents died tomorrow, I’d be very well off due to the inheritance their home would give me- but if they need expensive care in a few more years, I’d far rather the house be used to fund that than the taxpayer, as would my parents actually. But then, we’ve never had enough wealth to become a materialistic family, unlike a lot of others I guess, who consider an inheritance to be a right rather than a luxury.
Must admit, I did wonder how many of the new residents of that extra-care housing place will find it actually is a home for life, should their needs change drastically due to dementia or other conditions needing intensive nursing or social care at some stage.
Quote SW2be:- should their needs change drastically due to dementia or other conditions needing intensive nursing or social care at some stage .Unquote.
Intensive social care? what is that please?
is this an admittance that dementia & other conditions are not social services responsibility? if not why mention it because dementia patients are foisted onto res home status in order to charge.
Quote cb:- ;but if they were like the schemes in our local authority, they don’t like to take people who have anything verging on what might be considered a ‘mental health’ diagnosis (and yes, that does include dementia – ironically);
cb Question:- why do schemes not like to take people who have anythign VERGING on mental health especially DEMENTIA?
When will social workers actually admit that dementia is an organic brain disease, presenting symtoms from an actual brain injury that cannot be ‘put right’ ‘cured’ ‘ controlled’ by mollycoddling do gooders, drugs or any form of counselling for mental psychoses.
It is a HEALTH condition, nothing to do with SOCIAL workers or SOCIAL care.
Social care, described in my opinion by the follow statement.
Social Care = the role is to encourage/ support the service user to maintain independence, support re-enablement, put in place short term respite following a health incident which legally can only involve basic, simple, 30 minute tops, duration personal care such as dressing ‘after CHOICE by service user’, assist with washing ‘after CHOICE by service user’, organise some basic housekeeping chores, ‘after CHOICE with service user’, all takiing no longer than 30 mins x times a day as necessary until the service user has achieved maximum indendpent capabilities.
there must be no gaps between social care and Health responsibilities, when social legal limits end, health starts , no joint working, no halfway house, no halfway measures, one or the other.
Fact:- Healthcare is redefined as social care. Frequently admitted here and within Community Care forums. A tug ‘o’ war situation exists between the two, which is untenable due to job security required by each professional! using ‘models’ of assessment that are intrinsically totally different, justification of roles totally different, the underclass in other words, ‘anyone with dementia caused through a DISEASE’, means or no means, is piggy in the middle of the Don’t Care, Can’t Pay/Won’t Pay brigade within both public bodies.
Dementia is not a mental health problem, it is a physical health problem, long term, permanent, deteriorating with no possibility of recovery, draining resources due to the NATURE of the disease where sometimes people may live for years in the limbo of the disease until the end game, therefore rife for exploitabtion by profit related systems, not heir hunters.
Independence defined as the ablility to make CHOICES, be in CONTROL and have HOPE, people with dementia do not have any of these.
.cb,
I also want to say that as an expert by experience and person just over 60 who has experienced and worked within the national insurance scheme, PAYE scheme, national health services and the emergence of the social system, without receiving any of these services, thank god, since 1948, that people in the UK KNOW THAT PERSONAL CARE IS NOT FREE, AGREE WITH THAT AND EXPECT TO PAY FOR PERSONAL CARE WHEN IT AND IF IT IS DECIDED THAT PERSONAL CARE IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED, IN A THOROUGH NEEDS ASSESSMENT by health professionals who are the only professionals able to decide a health need.
But Health is FREE, and social care/personal care is part and parcel of that when the health need is primary, that is the law the current situation until it is changed by a statute of law.
Everyone is quite willing to pay for personal care, and quite rightly so, but if health is primarily the reason for needing care, then no one should be forced to sell their property to pay for it, if they have a home, it should be delivered to them as 24 hour care, as in Malcolm Pointon’s case, but Mrs. Pointon was the (nurse/social care deliverer) which the services exploited until she went to the ombudsman. In order to deliver the Full CHC she was entitled to.
Tithe ‘authorities’ found a way through the maze of legislation where a clause in the various amendment of acts,allowed provision where the NHS paid monies to the SS, they then paid Mrs. Pointon through a direct payments type of arrangement, she then ‘bought in’ the package of care she needed for Malcolm and her sanity when striving to keep him at home as he had been ‘ abused ‘ or ‘not cared for in the way she required or he deserved’ whilst in a care home, with the usual forms of neglect, malnutrition, dehydration etc that generally follow dementia suffers incarnation within care homes, the latest debacle being regaled in the ‘papers’ today re a home in the new forest, Hampshire and involving so called illegal immigrants also!.
My point once again is that a constant reference to people who think or seem to want PERSONAL CARE free is misguided and wrong, people do not want or expect personal care FREE,
but they do expect health care free until the NHS is privatised off via the Kaiser Permanente system used in the USA, known to be working with the NHS and Social systems for several years now in order to make the separate parts efficient therefore sellable
Thanks for sharing your points on the matter, Gingermoggy.
These pieces are my opinion and I don’t claim to be right or have the answers.
So I appreciate the time and thought in your response.