Decent social care must be funded through national insurance

Published on Tuesday, 03 January 2012 16:35
Posted by Scott Buckler

UNISON, the UK’s largest union, today called for a national Social Care service properly funded through national insurance to tackle the growing crisis in elderly care

The call comes in the wake of demands for urgent action and fundamental reform to care and home help services from a broad coalition of government advisers, charities, unions and independent experts.

The union has welcomed some of the proposals set out by the Dilnot Commission as a “step in the right direction” but warned that the commission’s recommendation of voluntary insurance, will not solve the problem of underfunding.

Heather Wakefield, UNISON Head of Local Government said:

Social care is characterised by inadequate funding which has created an unfair and unsustainable system, leading to falling quality care. It’s time to take urgent action but voluntary insurance is not the answer. It will create a two-tier system of care – high quality care paid by insurance and low quality care underfunded by the state.

“What is needed is a national Social Care service properly funded through national insurance to really tackle the growing crisis in elderly care. Without serious public funding there will be the disappearance of these services and an increase in private sector provision. This is not the way to ensure a personalised quality care service or develop a quality well paid care workforce for the future.”

 

The views expressed in the contents below are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of GovToday.

Comments   

 
0 #2 VolunteerKK71 2012-01-03 19:40
Thought might be of interest, refer http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/about/cuts

“There is no alternative.”

We are told that the only way to reduce the deficit is to cut public services. This is certainly not the case. There are alternatives, but the government chooses to ignore them, highlighting the fact that the cuts are based on ideology, not necessity.

One alternative is to clamp down on tax avoidance by corporations and the rich and tax evasion, estimated to cost the state £95bn a year

Another is to make the banks pay for free insurance provided to them by the taxpayer: a chief executive at the Bank of England put the cost of this subsidy at £100bn in a single year

Either the tax avoided and evaded in a single year or the ongoing taxpayer subsidy to the banking industry could pay for all of the £81bn, four-year cuts programme.

“We are all in this together.”

Since the banking crisis:

Average pay of FTSE 100 directors has risen 55%, corporation tax has been cut, the government have not delivered on a manifesto pledge to clamp down on tax avoidance, instead cutting staff at HMRC, bank profits and bonuses are back in the many billions (last year banks paid out over £7bn in bonuses and just four banks made £24bn in profit), there has been no reform of the banks.
Quote
 
 
0 #1 volunteer/resea rcherKK71 2012-01-03 16:54
@HW,

Can I refer you to http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums-keywords/benefits/social-care-rights-responsibilities-entitlements/aids-support-grant-asg and the topics of how HM Government is to spend £53bn and Council Tax freeze.

Also collected and analysed in London anyway is the ABG - ASG, Carers, Direct Payments, Health and Supporting People plus other topics of interest.
Quote
 

Add comment



Refresh