Coronavirus

[ramjet]

And from Australia.

[march]

All the best from deepest darkest Dartmoor.

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

I see today’s focus is on protective equipment for care home workers. Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t a significant number of these privately owned? I only have experience with a couple of these when the FIL was on his last legs a few years ago. What shocked us all was the extortionate weekly fee they demanded. Even so, you considered yourself lucky to get a slot at all, such was the demand. It’s not as if their employees are particularly well paid. Anyway didn’t the Management of these institutions have a responsibility to spend a bit of the colossal profits they’ve been trousering for years and get plenty of PPE in for their staff well before the shit hit the fan?

[ChrisJ]

15 minutes ago, LotusLeftLotusRight said:

What shocked us all was the extortionate weekly fee they demanded.

My Mum's care home was £1300 A WEEK

There was no physio, and once she went into it she went from being relatively active to being very docile, and could hardly walk any distance.

My wife has done a couple of stints in care homes and the pay was minimum wage with as few staff as possible.

 

[Dan E]

This is and I am not making it up, the guy round here house who owns a few care homes! Thats not flats it is one house!! 

Bit disappointing if we are funding his care homes, maybe he could add to his considerable car collection 

[C8RKH]

Care homes can be a massive profit making scam for those that run well them properly - by properly what I mean is that they do the absolute minimum to tick all the correct boxes to maintain their "rating" With the absolute minimum resources they can get away with. Whilst paying their employees the minimum wage. The upshot of this "minimum strategy" is that the owners and shareholders make an obscene profit at the expense and comfort and dignity of the older generation that either need, or are dumped, in their facilities.

A very good friend of mine built and ran a modest care home (61 rooms) in Dundee. He never had an empty room as his care home was in huge demand. He made a good, better than modest income from it, but nothing showy or flashy. He ALWAYS paid his staff over the minimum wage and paid for additional people to come in weekly to entertain the residents etc.  As a result, the number of thriving long term residents he had meant that turnover in rooms was lower than average, and that coupled with the word of mouth reputation of the quality of care was sufficient to make his care home one of the best in the city. One of the exceptions really, too often, they are just run for profit and fook anyone else!

The UK has a long and not very good history of not treating it's older citizens with the best of respect and dignity. Unlike our cousins in Europe say, too many people see their parents and grand parents as an inconvenient "hassle" best farmed out to someone else to do deal with, and that's often before they get dementia or other conditions.

The issue for me is that we rely too much on privately run care facilities.  We need to create a new body, a National Care Service, to sit alongside the NHS, be funded through general taxation, but to provide a similar level of consistent, professional care to those that need it including older people, people with long term conditions, mental health issues or disabilities.  I know it would be expensive. I know it would be hard to do these days. But it should be a basic right of access for all UK citizens and would alleviate the burden of care for many households, allowing them to become more economically active; avoid their own long term health issues; provide good secure employment with prospects and guarantee a decent standard of care for those that needed it.

It would take a huge pair of balls for a Prime Minister to do this. But it would be the right thing to do. Painful at first, yes. But in the long run better for the country and her citizens with less "profits" going to shareholders.  Just my tuppence worth.

 

[Bibs]

I've just had an email through from Sainsburys to say that I'm on the vulnerable list and can get some shopping delivered, woohoo! Almost most 5 weeks into the 12 week period of isolation here, missing the pub! 

[Sparky]

Fortuitous!  Still waiting for my letter...

[andydclements]

1 hour ago, Bibs said:

I've just had an email through from Sainsburys to say that I'm on the vulnerable list and can get some shopping delivered, woohoo! Almost most 5 weeks into the 12 week period of isolation here, missing the pub! 

Aren't the pub doing home deliveries for you? Should be easy, take barrel, place on side and roll it down hill whilst still standing at top of hill.

[oilmagnet477]

2 hours ago, C8RKH said:

Care homes can be a massive profit making scam for those that run well them properly - by properly what I mean is that they do the absolute minimum to tick all the correct boxes to maintain their "rating" With the absolute minimum resources they can get away with. Whilst paying their employees the minimum wage. The upshot of this "minimum strategy" is that the owners and shareholders make an obscene profit at the expense and comfort and dignity of the older generation that either need, or are dumped, in their facilities.

A very good friend of mine built and ran a modest care home (61 rooms) in Dundee. He never had an empty room as his care home was in huge demand. He made a good, better than modest income from it, but nothing showy or flashy. He ALWAYS paid his staff over the minimum wage and paid for additional people to come in weekly to entertain the residents etc.  As a result, the number of thriving long term residents he had meant that turnover in rooms was lower than average, and that coupled with the word of mouth reputation of the quality of care was sufficient to make his care home one of the best in the city. One of the exceptions really, too often, they are just run for profit and fook anyone else!

The UK has a long and not very good history of not treating it's older citizens with the best of respect and dignity. Unlike our cousins in Europe say, too many people see their parents and grand parents as an inconvenient "hassle" best farmed out to someone else to do deal with, and that's often before they get dementia or other conditions.

The issue for me is that we rely too much on privately run care facilities.  We need to create a new body, a National Care Service, to sit alongside the NHS, be funded through general taxation, but to provide a similar level of consistent, professional care to those that need it including older people, people with long term conditions, mental health issues or disabilities.  I know it would be expensive. I know it would be hard to do these days. But it should be a basic right of access for all UK citizens and would alleviate the burden of care for many households, allowing them to become more economically active; avoid their own long term health issues; provide good secure employment with prospects and guarantee a decent standard of care for those that needed it.

It would take a huge pair of balls for a Prime Minister to do this. But it would be the right thing to do. Painful at first, yes. But in the long run better for the country and her citizens with less "profits" going to shareholders.  Just my tuppence worth.

 

Andy, I can't disagree with the general sentiment of your argument but, as one person (and family) massively impacted by having my Mother In Law living on site, I have a slightly different perspective!

I don't for 1 minute think the current system is working and in many cases provides very poor care for 'customers'. I don't think that your suggested solution deals with the main crux of the issue. Why is the provision of all elderly care once again the responsibility of the Government?

Many of the elderly that are now requiring care have grown up through a period of massive wealth growth, a beneficial tax regime that supported house ownership, supported 'normal' families with Married persons tax benefits (which are pretty much now unobtainable to all but the lowest paid). They also, in large part, benefited from a time when their parents didn't live as long and therefore weren't in need of such long term care. Yes, there will ALWAYS be those in need who aren't able to provide for themselves but what we need in this Country is a root and branch change in philosophy.

Largely, ambition and aspiration have become dirty words and there is also now a massive level of expectation that money will pass down from one generation to the next - whilst it is lovely to receive an inheritance (I guess!), any money that someone 'saves' throughout their live should be spent on their own personal care. If there is any money left at the end fair enough. If people have had the where-with-all to provide for later life and have failed to do so, I don't see why tax payers should have to foot the bill. Many people have simply not put enough by to look after themselves in later life. Why should a smaller number of younger tax payers now (many of whom cannot buy their own houses) fund the care of a generation that have had opportunities that many now can only dream of? Most of the people I'm talking about didn't fight in either of the Wars (OK some did National Service and I wish we'd bring that back in some form). 

What is wrong with the current system? Probably the biggest issue currently is cost. How in God's name it can cost £85k per annum to put someone in care is beyond me. This is the simple reason why my MiL lives in the garden, well not literally!!

I detest the woman and always have - she is categorically the most stubborn, selfish and miserable cow that ever walked this planet. For 3 months after Christmas she was particularly unwell and much of her day to day needs (including administering IV drugs and clearing up unmentionables) was down to me. Her health has now improved but efforts that we made to bring in a daily carer ( to help get her up and dressed) have been shunned (by her) to the point that the carers have ceased coming. This puts all the responsibility back on my wife and I. I have now backed off and only shop for her and cook her lunch daily.

She moved here 4 years ago on the assumption that she didn't have long left! How fking wrong can you be!!!! We sold her house when she moved here used 90% of the proceeds to build her an annex. This has limited financial value as we cannot sell it away from the house (nor would we want to) but if she had been in a care home for 4 years, she would now be 2 years in arrears effectively.

I frequently wish that she was elsewhere but that wouldn't help my Wife who would still need to see her, if not daily, at least 2-3 times a week. The emotional blackmail would be hideous - she's already ungrateful enough!

Sorry - not sure the 'rant' element of that answers any questions but I feel better anyway 

[pete]

So the people who have scrimped band saved all their life get nothing in old age where as the script down the road who has saved nothing gets everything.

[red vtec]

indeed.

I've never seen a poor care home owner they always plead poverty and the costs involved. They are modern day highwaymen, I think there are also tax breaks. 

 

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

Sort of related, but off topic, appears to be the situation with child care. Fortunately it’s not something I have had to deal with myself, but I am continually reading about the excessive cost to get someone to look after your kids at a nursery or Kindergarten etc. whilst you go to work. For some parents it’s just not worth getting a job. But again these institutions always seem to be fully subscribed, no matter how much they charge. Many of the workers seem to be school leavers, so probably only on minimum wage. So where’s the rest of the money going? Presumably straight into the bank account of the proprietor. I wonder if parents will be quite so keen to shell out that sort of money when all this is over?

[pete]

1 hour ago, Buddsy said:

At least you will have the pension youve worked hard all your life to save for....what you mean? They've crashed the economy on purpose for this nonsense? 

 

buddsy "Tin Foil hat firmly pulled down tight"

Think you misunderstood what my quote was about. You must have pulled your hat down too tight.😜

[Giniw]

On 14/04/2020 at 17:20, Kimbers said:

Just to let you know MJK isn't very well at present. He's high risk with his chest issues and today his doctor has told him he thinks he has it.

Sadly, with no testing facilities for General Public he's just at home on total rest. Sure you'll send him wishes.

We sure do, I do hope he will get better very soon!

Bon courage !

[PaulCP]

7 hours ago, Bibs said:

I've just had an email through from Sainsburys to say that I'm on the vulnerable list and can get some shopping delivered, woohoo! Almost most 5 weeks into the 12 week period of isolation here, missing the pub! 

Better late than never 🙄

We received our email from Sainsburys Tues last week informing us that they had enabled the delivery option for us again after previously blocking it. We had to register ourselves as vulnerable since we were missed off the initial list. 
Still not received any govt/nhs letter but not really bothered about that since we know what it says. More important is getting access to delivery slots again.

Wish I had a Lotus to tinker with, getting bored twiddling my thumbs😟

[pete]

Daughter in law got hers last week ,didn't help much with Sainsbury's. However Asda were brilliant and have given her the same slot every week

 

[C8RKH]

20 hours ago, oilmagnet477 said:

Sorry - not sure the 'rant' element of that answers any questions but I feel better anyway

Ant, as you may noticed though I admit it was probably just subtle indicators, I am a great believer in the power of a good old "rant" to ease the burden of the mind! So you just rant away buddy. I'm listening

I do disagree with a couple of points:

1. If I've worked my nuts off for 50 years, paid my taxes and NICs, saved into my pension and made the sacrifices to buy a home for me and my family, why the fook should I lose the lot to fund the care I need in my later life when some lazy fooking useless scrote, who has taken from the system all his life will get his care needs fully funded?  How the hell ca that be fair for someone who has contributed nothing, to get MORE, than somebody who contributed significantly?  People should not need to sell their homes to pay for care.

2. It has been proven many times over, that it is better for the individual, and cheaper for the state, for people to STAY IN THEIR HOMES and receive care at home, than to be put into a care home. Obviously, there are some medical/health conditions that make this impossible, but this is the generally accepted truth. The irony though is that to pay for the care at home people need, they need to sell their homes so have to go into a care home anyway!

3. The young people who cannot get on the housing ladder now are no different to the young people of other generations who could not get on the housing ladder. Why do we treat this young generation with such kid gloves?  There are plenty of examples of young people out there who have done it. I work with apprentices who are 20 - 26 years old, many of them (mostly the girls truth be told) work hard, are careful with their money and bought 1 bed flats / 2 up 2 down terraced houses as "do me uppers" to get on the ladder.  It can be, and it is, done often.  The problem is that kids today want 3 bedrooms, a big garden, all mod cons, 2 holidays a year and a nice car but many of them can;t be arsed to get off their arses to easrn the money, through graft, to get there. In 1984 when I bought my first house, a 2 up, 2 down fix me upper, it cost me £22k, my salary was £4.5k a year - so almost 5 times salary to value with interest rates also peaking at around 16%. Yeah, wow, that was fooking easy wasn't it!

Care homes cost so much because the expectation is that people will need to sell their homes so they'll have a few hundred thousand pounds for the greedy bastard care home owners to get their grubby hands on....

[Barrykearley]

Typical right wing capitalist 

[C8RKH]

This virus should be called CoVisa19 as I've just made my 19th non essential purchase!  Looking forward to receiving my new halo rear lights from Gregs Race Parts in a few week. Should really sharpen up the rear end of the 410.

[Barrykearley]

Did you know @Buddsy that actually 10/10 of people whom die - die of not breathing. Interesting and frightening fact of the day that.

[oilmagnet477]

1 hour ago, C8RKH said:

Gregs Race Parts

Have the Bakers branched out to keep going?

[C8RKH]

Yup. They're now doing donuts in the shape of rear lights for the Evora, and their chocolate eclairs now look more like a poodle turd for Pork owners 

[oilmagnet477]

3 hours ago, C8RKH said:

Ant, as you may noticed though I admit it was probably just subtle indicators, I am a great believer in the power of a good old "rant" to ease the burden of the mind! So you just rant away buddy. I'm listening

I do disagree with a couple of points:

1. If I've worked my nuts off for 50 years, paid my taxes and NICs, saved into my pension and made the sacrifices to buy a home for me and my family, why the fook should I lose the lot to fund the care I need in my later life when some lazy fooking useless scrote, who has taken from the system all his life will get his care needs fully funded?  How the hell ca that be fair for someone who has contributed nothing, to get MORE, than somebody who contributed significantly?  People should not need to sell their homes to pay for care. 

If you read what I said, I was arguing against giving people something for nothing on mass but to try and encourage people to put something away. You seem to be contradicting yourself as I thought you were advocating an elderly care system for all?

I categorically do not agree that we shouldn't be responsible for ourselves in old age. Why is it the Gov't responsibility? I totally agree that scotes get everything for nowt and complain when they can't afford life (that applies to all areas of welfare not just elderly care) but unless we sterilise everyone with a low IQ that ain't ever going to change regardless of how much the welfare state hands out.

2. It has been proven many times over, that it is better for the individual, and cheaper for the state, for people to STAY IN THEIR HOMES and receive care at home, than to be put into a care home. Obviously, there are some medical/health conditions that make this impossible, but this is the generally accepted truth. The irony though is that to pay for the care at home people need, they need to sell their homes so have to go into a care home anyway! 

This is exactly why we kept MiL at (our) home. The fact that she makes it 100 times more painful than it needs to be is neither here nor there!

3. The young people who cannot get on the housing ladder now are no different to the young people of other generations who could not get on the housing ladder. Why do we treat this young generation with such kid gloves?  There are plenty of examples of young people out there who have done it. I work with apprentices who are 20 - 26 years old, many of them (mostly the girls truth be told) work hard, are careful with their money and bought 1 bed flats / 2 up 2 down terraced houses as "do me uppers" to get on the ladder.  It can be, and it is, done often.  The problem is that kids today want 3 bedrooms, a big garden, all mod cons, 2 holidays a year and a nice car but many of them can;t be arsed to get off their arses to easrn the money, through graft, to get there. In 1984 when I bought my first house, a 2 up, 2 down fix me upper, it cost me £22k, my salary was £4.5k a year - so almost 5 times salary to value with interest rates also peaking at around 16%. Yeah, wow, that was fooking easy wasn't it!

Buying a house used to be a lot more affordable - my father's first house cost the same as his annual salary. That goes back to my argument about that generation having it easier but it is all relative and never seems 'easy' at the time - I know my folks worked bloody hard and sacrificed much along the way but salaries have not kept up with house price inflation so that argument falls down as well. I totally agree that people should get of their arses, do some bloody work but using your analogy if I earned £25k today (and many earn a lot less), even around here, you ain't buying bugger all for £100k

 

[C8RKH]

16 minutes ago, oilmagnet477 said:

I categorically do not agree that we shouldn't be responsible for ourselves in old age. Why is it the Gov't responsibility? I totally agree that scotes get everything for nowt and complain when they can't afford life (that applies to all areas of welfare not just elderly care) but unless we sterilise everyone with a low IQ that ain't ever going to change regardless of how much the welfare state hands out.

I think we are agreeing - what I am saying is that the current system is unfair as if you do the right thing (save and prepare) you get shafted, but if piss it all away on booze, fags, drugs and kids all over the place, you get looked after anyway. My argument is that a National Care System would "guarantee" everyone the same standard and access to care, regardless of position. Just like with the NHS, those that could afford it, would continue to go private for a "better" standard. Otherwise the people who have been sensible end up being crucified and in the end people will just fook it then, what's the point I'll just blow it! However, a national care system would provide a "leveller" for fee's that could be charged by "private homes" who wanted to be a service supplier. Whereas now, you end up with Mrs Miggins in room1, funded by the local authority through local taxes at £400 per week, and in the next identical room, Mrs Goggins for £1000 a week as she can "afford to pay". It is absolutely just undeniably total fooking nuts how it currently works.

 

Your argument re house prices is very dependent upon where you live. As I pointed out I have apprentices/grads working with me who can do it and have done and are proud house owners at under 26.The South of England, principally the M4 corridor from Reading, around the M25, London and places like Surrey and Sussex are, to someone like me from the North, an abomination. What you guys pay for houses just, if I am being totally honest, makes us piss our pants with laughter. However, let's not forget that these "prices" have been driven by two things. (1) demand - the explosion in population that has been driven by migration from inside and outside of the UK to the London commutable, attracted by inflated salaries and (2) Greed!  Many people positively willed their house prices to go up. They celebrated increases of 5-10% pa in the 90's and most of the noughties to the point that this became the norm for them. It enabled them to remortgage their houses to get cheap (comparatively) debt to buy cars, holiday homes, buy-to-lets, boats whatever and they did not give a second thought as to what this would mean for their kids/grandkids when they wanted to buy!  It was a veritable jamboree and not one that the rest of the country by and large joined in with. Hence, there are still places in the Uk where houses are affordable and young people, and old, can get on the ladder and grow their wealth in a sustainable manner.

Believe me, I am not trying to sound smug, but I left the "London" rat race 26 years ago when I moved up to rural Scotland. I've got the best of both worlds. I get paid a "southern UK" salary and live in a relatively low cost of living area. And best of all, when I start to piss my pants uncontrollably (not through intoxication anyway) and need a care worker to wipe my arse, my personal care will be provided to me "free" thanks to the high earners and tax payers in the South of England that subsidy our services up here in Scotland.

It's bloody brilliant! What a wheeze!....... 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣