I’m not sure Kent are so unique in this, a survey by the Learning Disability Coalition found that 36% of councils have consulted on raising charges for adult social care services:

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/03/16/116437/most-councils-plan-to-raise-charges-or-eligibility-for-care.htm

Even more worryingly, many councils are raising their eligibility thresholds, meaning that fewer people get social care services at all:

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/03/30/116570/5-fall-in-adults-receiving-council-funded-social-care.htm

If you’ve never read the eligibility threshold criteria, you might be alarmed to know that things like ‘Abuse or neglect has occurred or will occur’, ‘There is, or will be, an inability to carry out the majority of personal care or domestic routines’ and ‘The majority of social support systems and relationships cannot or will not be sustained’ fall into the ‘substantial needs’ category of needs that some councils are no longer meeting.

The Coalition’s policies are undoubtedly accelerating existing chaos in Adult Social Care, but Labour weren’t much better. Between 1997 and 2007, 25% fewer people received adult social care services. Let’s hope the Dilnot Commission proposals offer some sensible solutions – personally, I think it’s hard to see how they can without a compulsory levy or increased taxation. Neither of which are favoured by the Tories.

This is appalling, we really must treat mental health in the same was as physical health – it should all be free on the NHS.

One in four people will have some kind of mental health problem during the course of a year.

But in the consultation it also proposes to charge users the full amount for services such as mental health care. In a letter to residents the council said such a deal was “fair”.

Does it? As I read it Kent County Council is proposing charging for mental health services in precisely the same way as it charges for all other services: i.e. means-tested. So the poorest people will continue to pay nothing for the services they receive.

Charges for non-residential services are discretionary, but councils still have to abide by ‘Fairer Charging’ guidance, issued by the Department of Health. This means that net incomes should not be reduced below defined basic levels of Income Support plus 25%. If councils take disability benefits into account for calculating this, they have to offset disability related expenditure. If they raise the threshold they have to consult properly (hopefully not just a radio-button survey online…) and after the recent Birmingham ruling they’ll need to give a fairly detailed description of the impact the charges will have on service users. Aside from impoverishing people further because of their social care needs, a concern of mine would be that people might stop using services if they were subject to a charge. This could result in more significant health and social care needs, which would have knock-on costs to themselves and to the state.

The council may advance the argument that to charge for assistance to people with physical, but not mental, disabilities or health needs is discriminatory. We see similar arguments being used at a policy level amongst those who want to abolish free after care under the Mental Health Act. It’s very sad to see ‘equalities’ talk used this way.

Hang on, this is already going on. Under the guise of the personalisation agenda, means-tested “co-payment” is happening all over the country. In my neck of the woods (Labour councils, note, and this was driven in part by the last Govt), there is an expectation of co-payment, up to a ceiling, one which varies dramatically. Max expected in one area is c. £90 a week, in neighbouring area it’s as high as £200 per week.
Lucy (point 1) is 100% correct.

I didn’t say it wasn’t going on – but that it could accelerate… thanks for the extra information.

Sorry for info overload – currently preparing some teaching on this very subject. Regarding yr other post, the Dilnot Commission on social care funding will be reporting later this year, but their TOR specifically precluded looking at funding through taxation, including ‘death taxes’… The favoured approach seems to be voluntary one-off payments of £8k; who knows what that would mean for people who didn’t pay it (we can’t really be leaving them without any support, surely?), and I struggle to see how £8k would cover it anyway…

@ Sunny “I didn’t say it wasn’t going on – but that it could accelerate”. Funny use of the word precedent in your first sentence then. Pedantry aside, this has been a long-running issue that has accompanied the bullshit implementation of “personalisation”/self-directed support(SDS): spout rhetoric about susers’ taking control of their packages of care.
Put ‘em through a woeful RAS, where points do mean prizes (although legally they’re not meant to directly correspond and there should be an intervening review to ensure needs are met-a stage that most LAs ignore). See them score pitifully low, as the bar’s been raised and the system is wholly inadequate for some severe problems (esp mental health). Thus tell people that their notional budget is, er 50p a week. See what that buys ‘em. Poof, support vanished. In my neck of the woods, concerned social workers are actually telling many people to hold off being assessed under the RAS for as long as possible, for they know such vulnerable people will get nugatory budgets.
And that’s before the expectations of co-payment as I’ve mentioned, the rake-off of brokerage costs, and the presumption (again w/o legal foundation) that all will have SDS as LAs have targets for take-up. Oh, and if anyone flukes getting a budget of any quantum, there’s pressure to become a small employer (with all the liability etc that entails, inc. the user paying redundancy for employed carers, if their budget from the LA gets cut down in later years…) in order to be a falgship user, ‘empowered’ by the bountiful LA to be subsumed by paperwork and uncertain obligations. Robin Murray-Neill is especially good on the subject. The fine words of the principle of personalisation have been betrayed by the implementation, which covers this Govt and the last, and the policy has been used as a guise for rationing and charging.

Some context on this:

When DLA is replaced by PIP, it will erase two decades of case law and hard-won rights from appeals to the decision making process. This issue isn’t given any coverage. But more than that, the Law Commission have just recommended that the same thing be done to adult social care in the name of simplifying and getting rid of a complicated nexus of rulings. These too represent decades of progress in rights for the sick and disabled that rely on these services; all wiped out if the government decides to base future policy on what the Commission says.

Certain things like this, Conservative-run councils implementing measures which are quite unthinkable under existing common law because they will either be easily challenged but not if the history of precedents is erased from consideration. For example, it was ruled at some point that benefits like DLA could not be refused blankly to anyone in residential care on the basis that they were ‘hospitalised’ when those care placements were their homes. So either the last government or the one before it had to change the criteria so ‘self-funded’ residents were excluded. This is kind of how we ended up with those claiming DLA Mobility paying for their mobility needs in a care home out of their DLA; because ‘self-funded’ doesn’t mean they’re footing the whole bill but a certain amount of it which they can do from DLA. It meant that higher-rate Mobility claimants in particular could use that to class themselves as ‘self-funded’ and also claim the Care component for a degree of personal independence.

It looks like this council has seen some indication that they can safely eat into certain vulnerable peoples care allowances.

2. Tom Chance – “This is appalling, we really must treat mental health in the same was as physical health – it should all be free on the NHS.”

Why? There are two problems here. Real diseases have real causes and can receive real treatments. Well maybe real is not the right word. Objective physical diseases. Mental health issues are usually not the same. There are people who have clear, objective illnesses. Schizophrenia for instance. But they are a tiny minority. The rest suffer from a variety of aliments that have been defined in ever weaker and wider manners. There is simply no end to the number of people who can be diagnosed with something if a doctor needs a few more patients or a pharmaceutical company wants to sell some more drugs. We have seen this pathologisation of normality with things like ADHD and even more with depression. Who is going to exercise some rationing here? The second issue is that there is virtually nothing we can do for most people. Talking therapies, by and large, with the exception of CBT, don’t work. Drugs we have but they have a mixed record. And that’s it. So what do you suggest we do?

“One in four people will have some kind of mental health problem during the course of a year.”

This is just advanced agenda pushing. A tiny percentage of people will ever suffer a mental illness. The rest of us may be a little sad at one point in our lives, but not mentally ill by any sensible definition. However this shows the problem – the term “mental illness” has been defined down to meaningless.

I would suspect that the real victims are going to be older people with the early affects of dementia (an organic condition). Some carers spend 24 hours each day looking after people who require total assistance with dressing, feeding and hygiene. Even in the early stages of this condition, forgetfulness can be high risk for the person and any others within their vicinity, this still requires a great deal of monitoring. My guess is that it will be the small input of care at this stage which will be charged, or am I being cynical in believing that it’s a well known fact that most carers of dementia sufferers are relatives (usually a spouse) and they will either pay for the outside assistance, or go without if they cannot afford to, but still carry on caring.
It’s also worth noting that these carers save the taxpayer thousands each year and many carry-on caring even when their loved ones could be admitted to hospital or residential care at a much greater cost.
It’s also worth mentioning that regular contact with the community mental health services can prevent relapse and a readmission to hospital (very costly)

I meant to say @11 – it prevents the relapse of people with functional mental health problems.

@10 SMFS

“A tiny percentage of people will ever suffer a mental illness. The rest of us may be a little sad at one point in our lives, but not mentally ill by any sensible definition.”

Here’s a direct quote from YOU from another thread on mental illness:

“We all know people with mental health issues. I am beginning to think that there is no regular poster here who does not have some given the number admitting to it. It is not taboo or all that stigmatised. Who here does not have a relative with some sort of mental health issue?”

No surprises that you contradict yourself, in terms of consistency your arguments are like watered-down trifle. So, to prove a point in one debate, sufferers are as numerous as the stars in the sky and grains of sand on a beach, then in another they’re as rare as left-handed albino dwarves. Classy.

I wonder if you have the good grace to admit you’ve just shown how fickle your arguments can be? Nope? Thought not.

Unfortunately Narcissistic Personality Disorder is treatment resistant, a shame, because I’d pay for your therapy myself if I thought it might unburden you (and us) of the world’s neediest ego.

13. herbert – “Here’s a direct quote from YOU from another thread on mental illness: …. No surprises that you contradict yourself, in terms of consistency your arguments are like watered-down trifle. So, to prove a point in one debate, sufferers are as numerous as the stars in the sky and grains of sand on a beach, then in another they’re as rare as left-handed albino dwarves. Classy.”

Sorry but where do I contradict myself? Do you know anyone with a mental illness? Not merely being unhappy but a genuine, traditional, old fashioned, disease that would have got you put in an asylum in the old days? Because I do. Even though people with such diseases are a tiny proportion of the over all population of these United Kingdoms.

“I wonder if you have the good grace to admit you’ve just shown how fickle your arguments can be? Nope? Thought not.”

Because they are not. You simply want to believe they are. You need to believe they are. Otherwise you would have to face reality.

@ 14 SMFS

“Sorry but where do I contradict myself?”

Erm, by saying in one thread that sufferers of mental health problems are everywhere, and then saying in this one there are very few. You can’t see that and you accuse me of not being able to face reality? My God you are delusional! So tragically arrogant that when caught red handed you claim the colour is blue. Then you go on to shift the goalposts claiming you’re referencing two different categories in each post. You are the regent of transparent spin, all hail King SMFS.

“Do you know anyone with a mental illness? Not merely being unhappy but a genuine, traditional, old fashioned, disease that would have got you put in an asylum in the old days?”

Your knowledge of asylums is as sparse as your humility, unless by ‘old days’ you’re harping back to the medieval era. Depressives were always a significant presence in these institutions. And yes I do know several people with a mental illness that would seem to satisfy even your (revised) criteria. My goodness, how could that be? Given the minuscule proportions you assert, it confounds all the laws of probability!

Everyone knows your sophistry only too well and we’re all sick to death of it. I suppose that’s why you carry on serving it up, because you revel in riling people whose ideology you despise. I shall pray that a miracle cure for your narcissistic personality disorder is concocted soon, and whilst it’s kicking in let’s hope it has the side-effect of disrupting fine motor action of the digits so we’re spared your insipid and baseless posts in the meantime.

What would you like to deny next, the spherical shape of the Earth perhaps?

“Because they are not. You simply want to believe they are. You need to believe they are. Otherwise you would have to face reality.”

No fair enough, I must concede that you’re always right about everything. Clearly you’re omniscient and I’ve been very silly doubting your divine knowledge. I worship you, truly I do. Talking of belief, I need to believe in you, O Great Bearer of Reality. I realise now that this is why you post obsessively on LC, it’s because you wish to open our eyes to the truth. You’re a bit like Jesus really, only probably more handsome and better dressed… OR you’re just a hopelessly grandiose idiot with a chip on his shoulder the size of Big Ben who is desperate to win every argument because your tiny wickle ego will shatter if you ever allow yourself to admit that you’re wrong, ever.

In short, you’re the most loathsome wretch ever to besmirch the internet with your egoist filth.

Nighty night x x x

I have a confession to make.

I have a rare and debilitating illness. A real, objective physical disease. Basically, if I don’t spout utter Nazi tripe via my keyboard on this site on a regular basis all my internal organs will collapse and I’ll expire. It’s called Obnoxious-Troll Syndrome. This is the reason why I’m such a complete cunt. I hope you’ll all understand.

…(but I’m still right about everything, always, and I still think the Fukushima disaster provides healthy doses of radiation for all the local kiddies.)

15. herbert – “Erm, by saying in one thread that sufferers of mental health problems are everywhere, and then saying in this one there are very few. You can’t see that and you accuse me of not being able to face reality?”

There are very few. Maybe less than 5% of the population And yet most of us know a lot of people. More than 20 anyway. And hence we all know one as a general rule. I don’t contradict myself. You just need to think so.

And it is very grown up to fake a post from me Herb.

“Your knowledge of asylums is as sparse as your humility, unless by ‘old days’ you’re harping back to the medieval era. Depressives were always a significant presence in these institutions. And yes I do know several people with a mental illness that would seem to satisfy even your (revised) criteria. My goodness, how could that be? Given the minuscule proportions you assert, it confounds all the laws of probability!”

Of course they were. But as I said, illnesses like depression have been applied to a wider and wider range of people until it is next to meaningless. That does not mean there wasn’t, and isn’t, a core of people with a real problem.

So you know several. Good for you. Do you hate them? Despise them? No? Good to hear. So no doubt you will be agreeing with me that the general British community – made up of people just like you – by and large do not hate and fear the mentally ill.

“What would you like to deny next, the spherical shape of the Earth perhaps?”

Well it is more of an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere, but perhaps not.

“In short, you’re the most loathsome wretch ever to besmirch the internet with your egoist filth.”

Got some issues there Herb. I don’t think that chip is on my shoulder.

“Got some issues there Herb. I don’t think that chip is on my shoulder.”

That’s right, you’re the one who, day in, day out, obsessively visits a blog expounding views that are diametrically opposed to yours purely to agitate, disparage and flaunt your self-perceived superiority and I’M the one with a chip on my shoulder! Yes SMFS you’re spot on there, and I’m sure all the pixies and fairies of La-la-land agree with you.

The only issue I have is with someone who isn’t so much interested in engaging in open debate as being pathologically determined to crush any view that differs from the orthodoxy you proclaim as undeniable truth, and in the process to use every opportunity to belittle others. Having an issue with an individual like that is a good marker of sanity I’d say, whereas someone who NEEDS to obliterate the views of others, to perpetually have the last word, who is so desperate to be intellectually triumphant to the degree that he spends every waking hour trawling through articles he loathes just so he can discredit them…. well that is someone with severe issues, and a chip so firmly planted on his shoulder it would have to be surgically removed, just as you would need to be surgically removed from this blog.

“Well it is more of an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere, but perhaps not.”

I knew you wouldn’t let me down. Narcissists are so predictable, and you couldn’t resist attempting to show your flimsy wit. You’re the kind of person who people would laugh at out of politeness at a party, whilst inside they’re devising reasons to excuse themselves from the company of someone so tediously desperate to seem clever and droll. Meanwhile in your narcissistic fantasy your audience are wondering whether you might actually be the reincarnation of Oscar Wilde. That is assuming you actually get any invites to parties any more…

* * *

So why are you here eh? What reason does your narcissistic mind give? Do you think you’re here to educate? To put these odious lefties straight? This isn’t a debating society, but in your egotistical wet dreams you go even further than besting your inferior classmates and put yourself in Cameron’s shoes at Prime Minister’s Questions, imagining yourself swatting away the feeble challenges of the opposition. You reign supreme, not just another PM but one that will go down in history as pre-eminent in the art of oratory and debate.

Meanwhile in the real world everyone sees you for what you are, a self-important, obsessive, narcissistic sophist cretin. Being a narcissist isn’t easy, however, as you’re constantly frustrated by the lack of recognition of your brilliance. People don’t lavish you with the validation your brittle ego craves, and, needing sustenance so badly, you find it through demonstrating your sense of intellectual superiority by trolling here. It angers you that there are upstarts who oppose the ideology you (pathologically need to) identify with, so you can shoot them down and prove your rhetorical brilliance with one action, venting your narcissistic rage in the process. It is impossible for you to acknowledge someone else might be right and you wrong, so cognitive dissonance kicks in and you claim it is the other who has no grasp on reality. Your reality, however, exists in the narcissistic bubble you inflate around yourself to protect you from the agony of being flawed and ordinary. You HAVE to be right. You HAVE to win. You MUST be the best. Despite your arrogance, I feel sorry for you, that’s quite a burden to bear.

You need LC badly for this purpose, which is why you’re always here, but you could never admit that to yourself.

Cue SMFS for a smug reply, determined to have the last word as he always is…

@herbert

don’t feed the troll. just tease him

18. herbert – “That’s right, you’re the one who, day in, day out, obsessively visits a blog expounding views that are diametrically opposed to yours purely to agitate, disparage and flaunt your self-perceived superiority and I’M the one with a chip on my shoulder!”

Yep. That’s pretty much it Herb. Except for the bit about me.

“The only issue I have is with someone who isn’t so much interested in engaging in open debate as being pathologically determined to crush any view that differs from the orthodoxy you proclaim as undeniable truth, and in the process to use every opportunity to belittle others.”

Again welcome to the world of projection Herb. Where have I belittled anyone? Where have I ever avoided, or showed even the slightest desire to avoid, open debate? *I* am not the one smearing you. *I* am not the one that needs to invent posts from people I don’t agree with. *I* am not the one refusing to discuss the issues and resorting to childish personal attacks. By all means, try open debate. See how it goes. It would make a change.

“Having an issue with an individual like that is a good marker of sanity I’d say, whereas someone who NEEDS to obliterate the views of others, to perpetually have the last word, who is so desperate to be intellectually triumphant to the degree that he spends every waking hour trawling through articles he loathes just so he can discredit them…. well that is someone with severe issues, and a chip so firmly planted on his shoulder it would have to be surgically removed, just as you would need to be surgically removed from this blog.”

I am sure it would be. But the problem is this character exists only in your mind Herb. It is your projection. Again *I* am not calling for you to be banned. *I* am not questioning your mental health. The chip here is not mine. Nor do I need to obliterate anyone’s views – although your insistence that my views are not merely views but the dangerous rantings of a deranged mind that should be banned is not merely totalitarian, but also shows where the problem lies.

“I knew you wouldn’t let me down.”

Of course you knew. As I knew you knew.

“You’re the kind of person who people would laugh at out of politeness at a party, whilst inside they’re devising reasons to excuse themselves from the company of someone so tediously desperate to seem clever and droll.”

Wow, Herb, it is like you have known me all my life. But it doesn’t make me wrong does it?

“It angers you that there are upstarts who oppose the ideology you (pathologically need to) identify with, so you can shoot them down and prove your rhetorical brilliance with one action, venting your narcissistic rage in the process.”

Ummm, Herb, you might want to look around. I am not the one who is angry. I am certainly not the one that is incandescent with rage here. I am not calling you mentally ill. Or for you to be banned. Self-knowledge is hell isn’t it Herb?

“It is impossible for you to acknowledge someone else might be right and you wrong, so cognitive dissonance kicks in and you claim it is the other who has no grasp on reality.”

You’re not too bad at the Oscar Wilde stakes either Herb. That was funny.

“Cue SMFS for a smug reply, determined to have the last word as he always is…”

Happy to oblige.

@ 18:

Wow, that’s some skill you’ve got. You mean you can read his mind in such great detail despite never having met him? Why aren’t you out there making a name for yourself as the world’s greatest living psychoanalyst?

Also:

“The only issue I have is with someone who isn’t so much interested in engaging in open debate as being pathologically determined to crush any view that differs from the orthodoxy you proclaim as undeniable truth, and in the process to use every opportunity to belittle others.”

SMFS isn’t the one implying that people should only read blogs which agree with their pre-existing views, or calling other posters narcissistic. Motes, beams, physicians, &c.