Comments on: Understanding the need for change

By: Wilf Austin

Wilf Austin — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:59:15 +0000

Now that you've given way on the threat to remove DLA from it's recipients leave AA in the hands of the recipients. It never makes sense to interpose public authority employees, no matter how well intended, between the need and the delivery of services to the public, particularly the disabled. Disabled people know best what they require and do not need the help of interferring bureaucrats.

By: fed up disabled person

fed up disabled person — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:19:06 +0000

i do not want strangers assessing me i do not want strangers in my home i do not want strangers controling my life when are the sick and disabled going to be listened to we are human beings with minds of our own and feelings who can honestly say they want some stranger in an office deciding on how much help they get how much dignity and self respect they can keep and what time of day they can bathe and eat i know i dont there are numerous ways the goverment can fund extra services for those who actually want them but robbing the sick and disabled is the easiest for the goverment and the most lucrative for stakeholders

By: Dave Turner

Dave Turner — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:01:25 +0000

The Green Paper as a consultation document needs to be exactly that!
This is as important a change as when care management came in ,in the 90's
Yes there is too much bureaucracy in social care and there needs to be a root and branch reform in how the assessment process is made less cumbersome, personalization may help ,in the short term
Also however I for one middle Englander would not be prepared to sell my home or pay for the care of the feckless in the next room through personal insurance, but how else are we to find resources

By: Joan Smith

Joan Smith — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:17:03 +0000

What a cop out! this government is still trying to change the law to make it right for the fat cats who own care homes to charge the most vunerable people in our society who have Dementia ect: exorbiant amount of monies for ship-shoddy care in return.

This needs to change! any one who thinks differently, should remember NHS care should free! Dementia is a disease not mental Health and these people should not be got at because they have fallen ill.

Remember these people are too old to change their circumstances, wouldn't you say the government should be talking to younger people still at work etc.

It amounts to Fraud!

By: P Gardener

P Gardener — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:32:28 +0000

It sounds like a bargain for me - my mother is paying that much each year for her care (acute mental health for 20 years plus and dementia), with the prospect of selling her home. At least it would be fair. My late father and mother both worked full time until retirement (mining and pottery industries, paid all of taxes, never claimed benefits but managed to save really hard to buy their home. I would be in favour of a flat rate payment of £20k for everyone going into care - at least that might be the maximum payable, whereas there is no maximum in my mothers case until her home has been wiped out.

By: Peter J S Ashley

Peter J S Ashley — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:55:12 +0000

In my local town (unnamed for the moment) Health and Social Care have implemented major changes to the detriment of patients and carers when told to consult by the DH before taking action. Changes are now underway and cannot be reversed so they the Trusts and Social Care now decide to consult retrospectively.

We all know this is meaningless and purely a political ploy so they think they can say "we talked to 'them' anyway" - well they must think again.

For a fact I know that the Mental Health Trust are seeking Foundation status and for a fact I for one will be objecting to them getting it.

By: Jenny Ure

Jenny Ure — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:43:03 +0000

Patients (and carers) on the ground have little input into the decision making about services on the ground, in their local practices for example. have you every been asked by your local practice what you feel is right or worng with what is offered?

Having interviewed many, there are often clearcut, clearly voiced needs but no vehicle to communicate these to policy makers. (A closed

By: Brian Harding

Brian Harding — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:00:44 +0000

This latest green paper seems to focus mainly upon the elderly and sidelines the special needs section of our society. My concern is twofold:- for those with special needs who have no incomes and are incapable of leading the 'idealism' of independent lives, what bricks and mortar provisions will be made in concert with care provision? Secondly, for those of us carers who are at present providing free, non-stop, twenty four hour care for the above category, where will provision for us be in the overall scheme of things. At present there is much talk of caring for carers, but we see virtually little, if any proactive results.
If the definition of elderly is that of people reaching pensionable age, then how long must we carers, imminently to be in that age group, continue to shore up what the government is failing to do right now,
I might add that as someone who has paid national insurance all his working life, I find it an insult to hear that a) it was used for general taxation matters and b) that it counted for very little towards any care I might require. I certainly won't have £20,000 to spare when I am older still.
An earlier blog above mentioned too many managers and not enough ground workers. The same could be said about the chronic waste in all areas of the NHS and local government. Why do very highly paid managers need to pay large sums in consultancy fees, surely they should be up to the job without help from outsiders, if not then the interview and employment procedures need a serious and effective rethink.

By: jane gould

jane gould — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 05:53:41 +0000

haven't we heard all of this before? particularly this emphasis on joined-up services. I seem to remember that it was a recurring theme in 1997.
Despite the billions thrown around on layers of inefficient, self-serving and incomprehensible bureaucracy, little has been achieved - aside from a whole new language,
Anyway, having listened to news items and read everything that has been published thus far, I can see that hard-working middle England will be squeezed yet again. Who will actually make sure that they HAVE the requisite £20,000? responsible middle England. Who will suffer from subsequent means-testing? responsible middle England. whose families will have to prvide additional support? responsible middle England.

Yes - the basic reasoning is correct and something radical must be done. But this has been neither thought-through nor costed.

I hope that enough people will attend debates and roadshows to show how fed up we are with words and jargon and really set this vital legislation on the right path.

By: Marilyn Wragg

Marilyn Wragg — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:36:53 +0000

The idea that people on retirement will pay £20,000 for care they may or may not need is nothing short of a tax on growing old. This would be the time when people would be less able to pay !