Homecare "One million older people in need 'struggle alone' "

[MargaretR]

One million older people in need 'struggle alone' - BBC News
I pay for homecare visits for an hour every day - £12.17 per hour.

I am thankful that my extra income of low rate attendance allowance plus an 'industrial accident' addition to my 'works' pension covers the cost.

I never waste those homecare hours on daily washing and dressing - I never go out so a wet flannel and a change of nightwear I manage myself - I do have help with a weekly shower.

The homecare time is used -
preparing a cooked 'brunch' (usually boiled eggs)
plating up a cooked meat salad for my evening meal
emptying and filling dishwasher and washing machine
unpacking and storing weekly grocery delivery
changing bedlinen weekly
vacuuming and dusting everywhere weekly
taking domestic refuse out weekly
These duties are essential for my survival and dignity
I am aware that others who cannot afford them, don't get them.

A society is only civilised when it takes care of its most vulnerable members.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Many of the chores that you have to pay for, I do voluntarily for my Mum.
She thinks she is an imbuggerance, but I do them because I can.
I am not sure that I would trust strangers with the care of my mum.......this is not to say that there are some good carers out there doing a fantastic job for low wages.
I just WANT to do my bit. It is a privilege to do these jobs...a bit of payback for her sacrifices for us as we grew up.

[Margaret Pilkington]

I also keep an eye on my elderly neighbour......he is a relatively fit 80+.
When I cook a family meal, I plate one up for him too....it is not much more in the great scheme of things to chuck a bit extra food on to cook......and I know he is getting a nutritious meal cooked from fresh.

I hope that if ever I was in need someone would do the same for me.

[Retlaw]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I also keep an eye on my elderly neighbour......he is a relatively fit 80+.
When I cook a family meal, I plate one up for him too....it is not much more in the great scheme of things to chuck a bit extra food on to cook......and I know he is getting a nutritious meal cooked from fresh.

I hope that if ever I was in need someone would do the same for me.

Face Ache used to do that for a neighbour we had, who the children called
Georgie Ben, she also did cook ups for my father on a regular basis when he was alive.

[Margaret Pilkington]

It is just being good neighbourly.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

It is just being good neighbourly.

There's a lot of that in our little neighborhood ... after the snowstorms, we all help one another shovel out ... and the big guy with shovel and snowblower is my neighbor Don ... 83 years old and still shoveling.

And it's not only the elderly that benefit from "being good neighbourly." Here's what one community in Ontario did:


Christmas in October for terminally ill boy celebrated by Ontario town - CBC.ca | Metro Morning

[Margaret Pilkington]

I really like that.
In days gone by communities were made up of extended family....and they all looked out for the elderly and the children......and even people who were not family were 'honorary' aunties and uncles.....this seems largely to have gone by the board.
I know that people have busy lives....but it seems that there is little effort to get to know neighbours these days.
That is the sad part of all this.
We can all find ourselves in difficulties of one sort or another.
And money isn't always the answer. Sometimes the touch of human kindness is worth far more than gold.
A good turn is beneficial to both the giver and the recipient.

[Guinness]

Camerons 'Big Society'.....the young look after the old..so the government doesn't need to!

Regardless of the fact that they have already paid into a government scheme that says they will look after you!

And it's great for those of you that live a mile or so away from your nearest and dearest, buying 'bogof' foods or cooking 3 for the price of 2 meals (be honest, does it actually cost you financially?)..

ain't too bad if you can drop in once a week from 30+miles away (at least they wont starve if you take them to the local 2 for 1 'pub').....

and once a month for 100+ miles away...they won't get too bloated in death to stink the house out before it's noticed!

Margaret was pointing out that she could afford a little help....many others cannot! She is fortunate (if you can call an hour a day for someone who has worked all their life and contributed to the country fortunate)..

This is nothing to do with community or kindness or neighbourliness!....it's an expectation of, after paying into a society for many years and increasing its wealth, being able to live in comfort without having to pay 'again'!!

[Margaret Pilkington]

I understand what Margaret was saying.....but way back when.....you know, those old days, people were proud. Often too proud to ask for help, whether they had paid for it or not.
There is no such thing as the 'Big Society'.....it is just one of those 'sound bites' that all politicians of all persuasions use to bamboozle the electorate.

It is an economic fact that you can only have what you can afford to pay for.....welfare has to be paid for.
The labour government encouraged those on welfare to stay there.....they did not encourage aspiration, they encouraged dependence(this ensures that those on welfare continue to vote for those who give them the money).
We have an ageing population and the pension system is a bit like a Ponzi scheme( I said a bit like) in that those currently working and paying in, are contributing to a system from which they may never actually benefit. By the time the workers of today are eligible for a pension there won't be anything left.

There are a lot of elderly people in our communities who have children who visit only every blue moon.
I do not want the big society to look after my mother. And I have said that there are very many good and capable carers, but there are also those who are slap dash, badly trained and those who are quite frankly a danger to our elderly.
I do not want my mother to be subjected to these. I prefer to take on her care needs myself...no one can look after my mother like I can, because no one knows her like me.
She too, has paid into this support system.....and as such would be eligible for help.

If those of us who can help do so, then there will be more help available for those who have no one.....and isn't that how it should be?
We cannot rely on the goverment for all of our needs. We have to be prepared to take some responsibility for our own lives.....and those we care about.

[MargaretR]

I do not expect my only child (a son) to do for me what Margaret does for her mother,
because he has a 2 hour commute to work every day and has health problems of his own.
His wife also works, and she has parents older and sicker than me.

I agree that some homecare workers do not meet expectations, but when you pay peanuts (about £7 an hour), you get monkeys.
I find that the younger they are the less 'gumption' they have, eg. needing detailed instruction on how to boil an egg , how to 'damp dust' furniture.

As a private (not LCC funded) customer I have the advantage in that I can request (not demand) the carers I prefer.

For most of this year I have been fortunate to have the same two good carers for most of the time.

Staff turnover is high. Recently one of the two fell sick and the other left the job.
For two months my life has been more difficult because carers new to me have been allocated - as many as six different carers in a week. When I have to explain 'where, why and how' ( eg. bedding in that cupboard, nighties in that drawer, how to operate washer and dishwasher) daily to strangers in my home, I do get exasperated often.

So even as a 'private funder' the service falls short of what I need.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Margaret, I agree that it isn't always something that parents want their children to be doing for them...and I reckon it is more difficult for sons..especially if there is an element of personal care(as there is with my mum).

My Mum does not want me doing all this stuff for her but recognises that she needs it to be done...and that with my background and the fact that I like doing it(it gives me the opportunity to spend time with my mum, to chat while I am working) and that she won't be around forever(something which makes me shudder to think about) she has come to the understanding that it is what has to be.

When Ma came out of hospital after her heart attack, I was given plenty of opportunities to get help for her. Lots of agencies(Age Concern, Help the Aged, British Heart Foundation, Diabetes UK) contacted me with offers of help, but I am fit healthy and can do what needs to be done.
I reckon that by me doing this, it leaves people free to go and help those who have no-one....and isn't that a good thing?

Margaret, I feel for you. It must be very difficult to have your care needs dealt with by people who you do not know. I think continuity of care is very important. I also think that carers should have some personal attachment to those that they care for.
If you are caring for someone you like then you do it in a much more personal way...and invariably this means better, with more compassion and feeling.
My mum has a friend who is in her nineties.....she lives in Eastbourne, has no family members close by and her carers are foreign, often cannot speak English and from what she tells my mum, they do a poor job...just the basic minimum...and she pays a private agency for her care £16 per hour. The carers don't get this amount, they are paid at the basic wage......so yes....pay peanuts get monkeys.(maybe monkeys would do a better job of it too)

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

maybe monkeys would do a better job of it too

Especially if it's those smart arse PG tips Chimps & you'd be guaranteed a decent brew.

[Rowlf]

I think Margaret Pilkington has got her priorities right caring for her mother while she can and leaving carers free to help people who have no family to help. I think these days people can be so self centred not caring about anyone but themselves. I had two children and worked part time on evenings while they were young so I was at home if they were ill or during holidays. By the time they were older so were my mum and dad so I stayed on the evening shift so I could do things for them. They lived about 7 miles away from me and I could drive so not too far. They had both had heart attacks so could not do much so I did their cleaning once a week and their weekly shop and ferried them to appointments etc. I lost them both in 3 months several years ago now but I am glad I did what I could while they were here. At least I do not have any regrets as I know I did my best. Today some would rather work full time to get money for fancy cars and holidays instead of having a little less coming in so they could help out more. I might have worked part time for years but I always paid a full National Insurance stamp. Mind you knowing what I know now I would not have bothered but that's another story !!!!

[Margaret Pilkington]

Rowlf, you are right about priorities and responsibilities.
We talk about rights, but with rights come responsibilities. none of us should expect the state to take over our lives...in fact many do not want the state meddling in their lives.

As you say when the inevitable happens I will be able to put my hand on my heart and know that I did what I could.
I don't make any sacrifices so that i can do stuff for my Mum, it is she who made the sacrifices for us when we were growing up......there was no help for her then...unless you wanted to go on the 'parish' or the Nash.

I think today people expect too much and do not want to, or expect to pay for it.

[Guinness]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I understand what Margaret was saying.....but way back when.....you know, those old days, people were proud. Often too proud to ask for help, whether they had paid for it or not.
There is no such thing as the 'Big Society'.....it is just one of those 'sound bites' that all politicians of all persuasions use to bamboozle the electorate.

It is an economic fact that you can only have what you can afford to pay for.....welfare has to be paid for.
The labour government encouraged those on welfare to stay there.....they did not encourage aspiration, they encouraged dependence(this ensures that those on welfare continue to vote for those who give them the money).
We have an ageing population and the pension system is a bit like a Ponzi scheme( I said a bit like) in that those currently working and paying in, are contributing to a system from which they may never actually benefit. By the time the workers of today are eligible for a pension there won't be anything left.

There are a lot of elderly people in our communities who have children who visit only every blue moon.
I do not want the big society to look after my mother. And I have said that there are very many good and capable carers, but there are also those who are slap dash, badly trained and those who are quite frankly a danger to our elderly.
I do not want my mother to be subjected to these. I prefer to take on her care needs myself...no one can look after my mother like I can, because no one knows her like me.
She too, has paid into this support system.....and as such would be eligible for help.

If those of us who can help do so, then there will be more help available for those who have no one.....and isn't that how it should be?
We cannot rely on the government for all of our needs. We have to be prepared to take some responsibility for our own lives.....and those we care about.

Would that be the good old days of rickets, polio and smallpox? Where children were sent up chimneys and a working week consisted of six days and you died from a minor illness because you couldn't afford a doctor?

I think you will find that it was a conservative government (under thatcher), that massaged the unemployment figures year after year by encouraging people to go long term sick and pushed early retirement.

Yes welfare has to be paid for...but economically speaking, if a government specifies a rate that I should pay so that I can be supported at the end of my working life and I do so...pray tell why I should have to rely on family or my personal savings to supplement my basic needs?

Oh and if this government stopped cutting funding to county councils and thus allowed them to pay decent wages to carers, the wheat could easily be separated from the chaff and MargaretR wouldn't be losing her carers to Aldi.

Kinda sucks that Camerons version of 'big society' values people more for sitting at a checkout than providing for a decent quality of life to those who paid their taxes and national insurance throughout their lives, expecting to be comfortable in their twilight years