Cost of social care. Aibu

[Onlyifyouknewthetruth2026]

My son gets overnight respite 2 nights a month. Not a great amount but still respite. I have attached a pic showing the annual cost which is alot. Just for reference.

Got me thinking about social care and money.
With a aging population and more calls for social care no wonder it's on its knees
Im curious what others think about the cost.

Well indeed, but if we're looking to cut costs, care for our own population is not where it should be. Our politicians need to do their jobs and actually run the country properly, not throw our money around like there's an endless supply.

Might be very partly but decisions were much, much. more political than that.

The crisis in social care ( and other previously state provided services) is the direct result of ideological Conservative policies designed to destroy public services and smash trade unions, not a response to care home abuse.

During the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher’s administration was driven by free-market zealots like Sir Keith Joseph who launched an aggressive war on local councils.

This carried through until the last Conservative government were voted out. My local LA had many millions every year to save, year on year. It did, but not without closing much needed provision, selling buildings and offices.

To break the power of trade unions and shrink the state, the Conservative government legally forced councils to put care (and other) services out to open tender.
Private firms undercut public teams by slashing staff pay, conditions, and union rights, forcing the shutdown of many state-run care homes in favour of a privatised market. Market force and increased demand means costs rise, profits go back to the private company/investors. This is not put back into council services.

Apply this to many of our once public services, school and housing maintenance, children’s social care, adult residential, school catering….

Arguments like this risk a certain portion of vocal posters to start posting about how undeserving the poor/disabled/elderly are. I think we should reframe this as how shocking it is that critical elements of society are criminally underfunded (and have been for a significant period of time, with no inkling of that improving), combined with the complete lack of cohesion between related services and the determined effort to see every element of society as separate rather than interconnected.

If we valued this country's future, we would act as others have done, and consider what is necessary for the country to succeed over the next 50-100 years. We then need to have a political system where all parties agree on fundamental issues required to make the country succeed, whether it be investment in education (which touches on healthcare, parental leave, childcare, flexible working environments, working hours, salary and training for staff etc), healthcare, particular skills etc., rather than scrapping plans every time there's an election.

Instead, the government (all, regardless of which party it is), piss around the edges making change for change sake (no long term planning, no effective implementation, review or adaption) and encourage divisive attitudes so that citizens focus on how 'unfair' it is that their next door neighbour might be eligible to something slightly different than they are.

@C152 Arguments like this risk a certain portion of vocal posters to start posting about how undeserving the poor/disabled/elderly are
I really dislike it when comments like this are made in attempt to police threads like this one. A poster has every right to comment entirely factually that caring for children/young people with disabilities is enormously expensive and also that one person requiring that amount of state funding over decades is an immense cost. The average UK citizen pays just over £11k in tax in each year. The costs discussed on this thread should be viewed in this context and keeping in mind that every single citizen will have their own needs that they would want the state to fund.

Right now we are in the position where if you fund something then you aren't funding something else. The days of cheap borrowing are over. We need to have honest conversations and discussions where the public are made aware of the costs associated with social care and what funding this would mean for other budgets and departments. We also need to be honest about the tax rises that would be needed to raise more than £11k per person to fund the costs like the one in the OP where 3 whole citizen's worth of tax are being spent on a few nights of restbite care for one person.

I'm not saying that there isn't work to be done in looking at interdependencies and efficiencies but this will only go so far. Care costs are astronomical and it's very hard to deliver quality care cheaply if you are looking for someone other than the family to deliver the care.

@Itchthescratch This was not an attempt to "police" a thread. Of course a poster can comment on costs and draw their own conclusions. My comment was an observation that from the threads I've read on this type of subject, this type of comment tends to lead to unhelpful remarks about how assistance isn't really needed or deserved by some sections of society. I think it is more helpful to look at the broader picture - which does not dismiss costs, but says that, longer term, they may very well be less if we actually had a long term plan and commitment to its success.

I understand what you're saying and why you find it distasteful or even offensive but I do think the reason why these arguments keep coming up is because there is only so many ways to skin a cat. We currently have huge, largely unaffordable social care bill and other care and support costs associated with specific groups in our society. Really the only obvious ways you can look to bring the costs down in the short or even medium term is to limit the number of people eligible for support or lower the amount of support offered to eligible people. Of course we can look at efficiencies as I mentioned earlier but these will often boil down to reducing the provision of support in some way. For instance there was a thread previously that I read where there was a discussion about replacing some taxi journeys to school with mini buses for eligible children but this was met with outcry from parents who argued that this would be hugely detrimental to their child and a clear worsenment of provision. It's so tricky and difficult, especially when I imagine virtually everyone can appreciate that we are talking about vulnerable groups that often have very difficult lives already. It seems unkind to contemplate limiting assistance but our finances as a countrybdictate that we must. Especially if we want to invest in the more long term plans and commitments that you suggest.

Like the efficient nhs?

I think sadly we need to think of outcomes too. My niece has Sen and a physical disability. The LA paid the equivalent (in the 2000’s ) of £40, 000 a year for a residential school and transport home each weekend. There was no hope or expectation that she would be able to live an independent life but it’s her ‘right ‘ to have an ‘education’ She now lives in a facility with two carers 24hrs a day and will do so for the rest of her life.

And @Monty36 you mentioned similar.

The OP said 1:2 support but the photograph of the paperwork in the OP says “Partly 1:1 support”. Although that is very vague and who knows what it means.

Do you think parents of non-disabled DC shouldn’t receive transport and also have to move? Plenty of non-disabled DC, especially in rural areas, receive school transport. Or is it only disabled DC you object to?

Best
Bells and Whistles

Except the current law doesn’t entitle disabled DC to ‘the best’. For example, educationally an EHCP entitles them to provision that is reasonably required to meet needs and an appropriate placement. That doesn’t mean the best or bells and whistles. It is similar with social care.

I said could. We had 14 years of Tory mismanagement, remember.

And it's not being mismanaged now?

The NHS is being absolutely shredded because of the number of private providers they are tendering out services to. Along with other issues.

Being nationalised is not necessarily the answer, but it's definitely not not the answer. What we need are well run services. Efficiency is also not the be all and end all. Good services which meet needs and are effective and good value for money. Efficiency is one factor in that, but not the only one.

Changes are coming and going in the right direction. It's clear to see that when you are in the system, by how things are being spoken about the attitudes. After which follows policy change

They've only been in a year and they've had to unknot all the mess from the last lot who were, let's face ot, several degrees north of useless.

Labour have less than three years to do anything before the next election. They have sat on their hands for over two years. Attitudes and sentiment doesn't change reality. At the very least, Labour have been incredibly inefficient in introducing any real policies the will make the NHS make efficient...

It takes time to shore up a sinking ship especially when everyone moans all the time about any change

A year? They have been in power almost half a parliamentary term (2 years and 3 months). I stand by the fact they have achieved very little so far and will have less opportunity to deliver change in the last few years of this parliament. They have been woeful.

Yes, but you have to actually have ideas and policies to deliver change. Where are they? Where are the game changers that will make the NHS efficient?

Oh do me a favour.

Don't get angry with me. I'm sorry that you believe they had been in power less than half the time they have actually have been in power. I think it speaks volumes really though about how even their supporters view what they've achieved. You assume they have hardly had time to do anything because so little has been achieved.

Is that facility cheaper than the education she recieved though?

Everytime ive seen someone transition from education to social care the cost hasnt really changed much, it hasnt been huge savings anyway - sometimes its been more.

So im not sure the educating bit is the expensive bit. Maybe it is for some.

Sometimes its cheaper because it goes from 5 days a week to 3 days as the right to full time dissappears so it will be 3 days in a day facility.

I'm sure that sentence had far more words in it than it should have. Would you like to go and wring it out and bring it back when it makes sense.

The OP posted yesterday at 15:48 where she said it is one carer for two patients.