Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Elderly to get personal care cash (UK)
BBC ^ | December 10, 2007 | BBC

Posted on 12/10/2007 9:54:44 PM PST by CutePuppy

Elderly to get personal care cash

Monday, 10 December 2007

Elderly people in England are to be given cash to fund their own social care, the health secretary has said.

From April, millions of pensioners will be handed control over how the money is spent, rather than relying on social workers to make the decisions.

Alan Johnson, who officially announced the scheme on Monday, said it was a "radical transfer of power from the state to the public".

Younger disabled people could also be allocated a "personal budget" for care.

Councils will be given £520m over three years to improve services.

"Everyone, irrespective of their illness or disability has the right to self-determination and maximum control over their own lives" Alan Johnson Health Secretary

A revolution in social care?

Individuals will be means-tested to assess their health and personal needs, and councils will then pay the cash into their bank accounts or those of nominated relatives.

According to the government, the changes are designed to create more competition among care agencies.

Mr Johnson said: "Our commitment that the majority of social care funding will be controlled by individuals, though personal budgets represents a radical transfer of power from the state to the public.

"Everyone, irrespective of their illness or disability has the right to self-determination and maximum control over their own lives."

'Real control'

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the measures would give "real control" to individuals.

"These proposals for personal budgets will allow all those who would benefit from a personal budget to receive one, putting real control into the hands of those in care and their carers, leading to far more personal and responsive care."

"This should only be the first step in a complete revolution in healthcare in which local communities hold health managers accountable through the ballot box " Nick Clegg Liberal Democrat

Chairman of the Local Government Association Sir Simon Milton described the change as a "landmark agreement" and said it "should provide the foundation to give people independence, choice and dignity over their lives."

He added: "Given the pressures arising from an ageing population and rising expectations, we are pleased the government has also recognised that change comes at a price.

"The new grant for social care reform will go some way to enable councils to move towards a more personalised and preventative system of care."

But the plan did not go far enough for Liberal Democrat leadership contender Nick Clegg.

"This should only be the first step in a complete revolution in healthcare in which local communities hold health managers accountable through the ballot box, and every one of us is given real entitlements to high standard care wherever we live."

'Challenging'

However, campaign group Age Concern did welcome the scheme.

Director general Gordon Lishman said: "It is absolutely right to put older people's needs at the centre of the care system and to place a clear emphasis on preventive services.

"Older people and their families will continue to need information and support to help them negotiate the best care package at the best price with care providers.

"This will be challenging but we are sure it is something the government will want to address."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: healthcare; nhs; uk
Somebody, call the paramedics for socialist health systems.
1 posted on 12/10/2007 9:54:45 PM PST by CutePuppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy
Cool. This from a Labour Government! Hillary must be having a heart attack about right now.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

2 posted on 12/10/2007 9:56:27 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy
The UK version of Medical Savings Accounts. Which the Dems here have fought tooth and nail. The British instead want to allow individuals to decide how best to manage and spend their health care cash.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

3 posted on 12/10/2007 9:58:43 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy
This doesn’t sound that bad. I could be (and often am) wrong but a cursory reading seems to show a benefit to those who need it.
4 posted on 12/10/2007 9:59:23 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy

I like it. How will they make sure it is spent on health care though?


5 posted on 12/10/2007 10:00:05 PM PST by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
Interesting. It will be means-tested so its not an entitlement program. Labour is shedding socialist nostrums in the sacred state health care service. Britons can only benefit.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

6 posted on 12/10/2007 10:00:53 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

The elderly are what most of these social programs (outside of blatant communism) were originally designed for.


7 posted on 12/10/2007 10:04:05 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
Yes. But the British are realizing socialism doesn't work so they want to inject market competition back into health care. Hillary Clinton wants to do the exact opposite.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

8 posted on 12/10/2007 10:05:49 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

bookmark


9 posted on 12/10/2007 10:07:07 PM PST by nutmeg ("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Clinton 6/28/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy

bookmark


10 posted on 12/10/2007 10:10:40 PM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I live in the greatest health care system in the world. I would be minus one of my brothers without it. Bureaucratic health care is damn near if not at the top of the pinnacle of insanity.
11 posted on 12/10/2007 10:10:41 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy

The government takes all your money and then gives you an allowance? Sounds just peachy.


12 posted on 12/10/2007 10:13:48 PM PST by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

A trial, possibly, slowly moving from NHS to HSA model? Or else, letting the system go bankrupt. There’s only so much all-you-can-eat socialism in any area of human endeavor can be taken before bankruptcy ensues, or cutting certain groups from the buffet table, one by one, to great unhappiness for all.


13 posted on 12/10/2007 10:28:16 PM PST by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy
Gordon Brown has said he wants to get rid of the Nanny State. He's proving it by concrete deeds. The Dems here want to expand it and have offered up plans that have the government make all your health care decisions for you. So which approach is better? I'd sooner vote for Labour than I would ever vote for the Democrats.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

14 posted on 12/10/2007 10:31:35 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
This doesn’t sound that bad. I could be (and often am) wrong

You too? I thought it was just me.

15 posted on 12/10/2007 10:39:44 PM PST by Graybeard58 ( Remember and pray for SSgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Just thought I'd clarify that. You see I was told this fifth gen flamesuit (made in china, had a genuine mexican rub sheeps placenta on it) would protect me. It's so darn hot though. I think I should return it...
:)
16 posted on 12/10/2007 10:47:34 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

If you haven’t seen the movie / docudrama “The Deal” about Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, I highly recommend it.

Gordon Brown comes out as a somewhat pragmatic idealist (not of brainwashed idiot kind), so he actually wants this to “work” or he understands it as the end of Labour policies and therefore the “movement”.


17 posted on 12/11/2007 12:44:16 AM PST by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; CutePuppy

A technical point, maybe, but this isn’t actually anything to do with the healthcare system, ie the NHS in the UK. This is Social Services funding, not healthcare funding, for what the bureaucracies define as the ‘personal needs’ of alderly and/or disabled people, which are treated as quite separate from their healthcare needs. Needless to say, this distinction leads to all sorts of confusions, especially in care for the elderly, whose personal and healthcare needs are often almost impossible to disentangle.


18 posted on 12/11/2007 8:09:08 AM PST by Winniesboy (Caution: Occam's razor carelessly applied can cut your own throat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Winniesboy
alderly people...

...though I do indeed have ancient relatives who live by rivers and tend to sway in the wind, this was a mistake...apologies

19 posted on 12/11/2007 8:46:16 AM PST by Winniesboy (Caution: Occam's razor carelessly applied can cut your own throat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: long hard slogger; FormerACLUmember; Harrius Magnus; Lynne; hocndoc; parousia; Hydroshock; ...
Socialized Medicine aka Universal Health Care PING LIST

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or removed from this ping list.
20 posted on 12/11/2007 10:19:06 AM PST by socialismisinsidious ( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg
How will they make sure it is spent on health care though?

Oh boy. There is the socialist slide that we know and love! The government "gives" (after much taking) and then needs to make sure that the sheople are doing as they should...and let's not forget that they also need to make sure that the "right" people are kept in charge...you know to make sure the utopian plans work out. But don't worry it's for the children and the elderly! sigh.

Has no one learned from history?
21 posted on 12/11/2007 10:27:42 AM PST by socialismisinsidious ( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg
represents a radical transfer of power from the state to the public.

This is a step in the right direction. How will they make sure? Can’t be sure. A conservative doesn’t expect perfection.

Just from a practical point: e.g. There will now be 50 decisions, some very innovative. One bad decision will now NOT affect 50 people. One bad decision will affect one person, or 10 bad decisions will affect 10 people. Power is not concentrated, but distributed. This is how God works with us I think.

22 posted on 12/11/2007 10:28:20 AM PST by PeterPrinciple ( Seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: socialismisinsidious

Wait. Think this thru. What if they are given 100000 dollars of their money back and blow it all on gambling, tvs, cars, drugs etc and then get sick. Am I going to be required to pay twice? If they are on their own and responsible for their actions then I’m all for no safe guards. I don’t see that happening though.


23 posted on 12/11/2007 11:20:42 AM PST by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: socialismisinsidious

What we can learn here is that socialists saw the need to let free market forces save their system from disaster. That is something!


24 posted on 12/11/2007 6:07:33 PM PST by long hard slogger (It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom. -- William Wallace/Braveheart 1995)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg
I like it. How will they make sure it is spent on health care though?

My "flex spend" account account is pre-tax money that I have deducted from my paycheck. Typically $1200 per year. It is for qualified medical expenses. I have to send proper receipts to a company call Creative Benefits to have my claims vetted and my legitimate medical expenses reimbursed from that pre-tax allocation. Any money not claimed with legitimate receipts becomes the property of Creative Benefits at the end of the year. It is important to make a good estimate of what you think will be required to cover expenses. If you underestimate, you'll have to pay the difference from after-tax income. If you overestimate, the money not claimed is confiscated.

That approach works fairly well...as long as the vetting agency communicates how much has been paid, how much has been denied and how much reserve remains untapped. I lost $500 last year because a claim was denied, but that wasn't communicated in time to remedy the dispute.

25 posted on 12/11/2007 6:19:03 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

There is a problem with flex accounts that they don’t tell you though. Most understand they have to use the money by a certain date or loose it but what I didn’t know was that the day I resigned , I only had 30 days to use the funds. I lost several hundred dollars.


26 posted on 12/11/2007 7:41:33 PM PST by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg
The flex account people are hardly forthcoming with respect to the terms and conditions attached to a flex account. Until recently, I had to deal with Creative Benefits via postal mail. They finally have a website where I can query the current status of my account. In general, I have to hold my receipts until the end of the year as they won't disburse any more than they have collected from the paycheck deductions. That's how I lost the $500 last year. My wife sent the claim too early. It was declined, but they failed to notify me. Had I resubmitted the claim later, it would have been paid. Instead, Creative pocketed my money.

Your employer (HR) really dropped the ball by not telling you about the 30 day limit on your funds. Ordinarily, you have until April 30th of the following year to submit all claims from the prior calendar year against the account balance collected in the prior year. Something sounds fishy about the way your funds were treated.

27 posted on 12/11/2007 8:40:12 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg
I agree and know exactly what you are saying. My point is: once government gets involved and takes the responsibility(money and decision making) away from the public then everyone believes the government is justified in making sure that the public is spending wisely (BUT there is no one holding the government to account)...it's a vicious circle that benefits government the most. Government is "paying" with money stolen from me so of course I want for them to watch what is done with it; so I end up encouraging socialism! It is ironic and insidious that b/c of the nature of this system I become a participant of, and even encourage it on some levels, even through it is socialist and I hate socialism!

It certainly is a "smart" system in how it sucks people in from all directions (either by promises and pandering or holding them by the short hairs).
28 posted on 12/12/2007 6:31:34 AM PST by socialismisinsidious ( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: long hard slogger
Yes but that is not entirely what they are doing. The government is still going to tax for health care and decide who should get the money. If anything government will need to expand b/c bureaucracies and audits will need to be set up, receipts will need to be saved, in order to check that the sheople are doing as they should (and the sheople won't do as they should and will abuse the system b/c it is very easy to spend someone else's money).

It's a ponzi scheme much like SS.
29 posted on 12/12/2007 6:45:52 AM PST by socialismisinsidious ( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson