Did anyone watch this programme I think although  not keen on Tony Robinson that he is right you know we systamaticaly ignore our old people. It apears people get £250 a week for caring for foster children  but only £45 a week if you are a carer 24/7 that includes night allowance.
And it is terrible, we will all one day get old or someone we love will so why don;t we take more notice of our old people.

oh no!!!!!!! Rats :(
Have I missed it?? I wanted to watch this programme, its part of the 'trouble with old people' season.

>It apears people get £250 a week for caring for foster children  but only £45 a week if you are a carer 24/7 that includes night allowance.

Thats just terrible :-(

Ooh! I really wanted to see that too. Maybe they will repeat it??? It's an outrage the way this country seems to disregard the elderly, and the people who care for them. It's crazy when you think we are all going to be old one day. It's as if they've done something wrong by getting old!!! Why can't we have more respect for them and what they can give us, in terms of life knowledge and experience. Grrrrr, feel myself getting all uppity, better go and get ready for bed. Night , night all.

Repeats
Today on S4C at 23:05.   
Wednesday 5th April on More4 at 21:00.   

I didn't watch it as having been a full time carer for my Mum who died in January it was just a bit too recent. £45 a week is right though

I know a couple of foster carers (they do a good job though) that have 5 foster kids, £250 x5, nice income !!!!!

Does it really cost £250 a week to look after a child ?  It's no wonder Council Tax is high !

so you would rather put kids in care into state run orphanages?

Isn't the assumption that as an elderly person you should really pay for your own care and not rely on the govt - including perhaps paying a carer to look after you? Children who are unwanted don't have that luxury - but perhaps their parents should pay toward their foster care?

I agree ChloeH, plus caring for foster children is a job of care in my view and those doing it should be rewarded inn those terms but caring for your own relatives is something else.

Caring for your own elderly relatives is extremely stressful and not something that can be done in combination with a full-time job, so your own pension goes up the Swanee. A basic state pension, which is the only income of many elderly people, won't pay for a full-time carer. Would you work 24/7 for less than £100 a week?

Yes and 8it isn't unusual for the person needing care to ahve been a carer themselves so do not ahve any income to pay for theri own care.

You would be even less likely to do it for someone else child though wouldn't you? :)  In fact I understand that is why these money incentives were introduced because so many woman now go out to work and expect that sort of income so most areas had tremendous difficulties attracting foster parents.
You can do it in combination with a full time job though, my father managed to keep his full time job during the two years he was the main carer for my Mother suffering from MND because NHS nurses called mid morning and mid afternoon supplimenting his return at lunch time (Cycling by the way :)).  They paid for domestic help.  Of course it still took tremendous sacrifice on his part, completing all her hygience needs and dressing before leaving for work after a night spent setting the alarm every 2 hours to move her limbs to prevent pressure sores plus all the cooking, washing and ironing.  He also developed a double hernia with the lifting which he did not let on about until after she died :(
I think this level of social input though is generally only available in areas where the elderly population is not too demanding so I would definately recommend retiring to Aberdeen rather than Morecambe or Southend on Sea :)

As far as I am concerned - if I ever get to the point that I can't wash myself or use the toilet they can put a pillow over my head and be done with it.

My Mother was a lot more than a body and continued to contribute to the home and family.

I didn't say she wasn't.
I have lived through my aunt dying of stomach cancer at 100. I witnessed my mother having to drag her onto the commode. I witnessed her lying in bed with no quality of life, being refused treatment because of her age. A dog would be put down under such circumstances and I would choose the same for myself. I would never want to be a burdon on my children.

You are entitled to those views but saying them immediately after I had described my Mothers difficulties was perhaps not the most tactfull time to express them as it did rather appear that you were indicating her life wasn't worth it although I appreciate now you did not mean that :).  Actually she suffered very little phyically although, concious of her prognosis, it was a sad time for the family but as I say she continued to be the hub of it, determining still what went on the house and continuing with a social life and remaining the linchpinch between many members of the family.  Certainly none of us wished her gone despite the heavy burden on my father that he would not let us carry much of and I don't believe she every wished to hasten her departure from us.

I was replying to JG's post ;) one of the board gremlins must mean it appeared as a reply to you :(

Its difficult, because not only did I witness my aunt living with my mum and dad for 20 years and really dominating their lives, my own mother nursed her mum for the first 40 years of her own life - literally from a young child because her dad died very young and my nan was crippled with arthritis - she literally couldn't move - so I have barely seen my parents for elderly relatives :( My mum used to have to stay at my nans overnight and spend every morning there looking after her.

Every situation would be different.  You don't know yet if you will be that poor suffering person that is perhaps taking others away from people that need them or someone in the bosom of a family that finds your care a loving act and values your continuing place there so don't go putting the pillow on until it becomes obvious which you are ;)

:D

It's not only the physical deterioration of the elderly that needs to be considered. They can be physically fit but mentally incapable of looking after themselves, so need a full-time 'minder'.

Some friends of ours do it and it's not easy, the last baby they had came to them when she was a couple of days old suffering from drug withdrawl.  They had her for a year and she's now been adopted. 

It doesn't get any easier as they get older either, they currently have a brother and sister (5 and 10) whose father is not sure if he wants them or not! The mother is apparently not an option, so these poor kids have been in and out of care for half their lives and have parents who may want them but possibly not.  It's not suprising that these children come to foster carers with problems that make it difficult to look after them.

Fostering young children like this is a 24 hour a day job I'm not sure I'd want to go back to those sleepness nights!  It also means that our friend can't work.  So £250 a week is not a huge amount considering what the foster carers have to do.

Of caring for elderly people, I think the real scandal is the way that medical care is being neatly re-classified as social care. Thus putting the responsibility for paying for it onto the individual who, in reality actually has the sort of medical conditions that require the sort of nursing that those of us lucky enough to be younger would get on the NHS.

In no way do I think children in care don't deserve the love and stability that a foster home provides.  I was just asking whether it costs that much to look after them.
Looking after any young child is a 24 hour job isn't it ?

20 odd years ago they got nothing!! Amazing how times change isn't it. 

Foster parents and to a different extent adoptive parents have assumed the burden of the state - if you believe in the principle of the welfare state that the able collectively care for the less able then you pay for this through taxes regardless of whether they are contributed to the traditional institutionalisation of children or to individuals who care for these children in a less intimidating and less damaging environment.

The implication in both your and marguerite's posts was that these individuals have assumed this burden in order to receive an "income" or a nice little earner which is deeply offensive to people who make a very valuable contribution to the care of children not least of which is the reparation of attachment and other disorders which may not be familiar to those with their own birth children.

Where the £250 a week comes from I have no idea and I would question its accuracy. Foster parents in my borough receive £450 per month. Adoptive parents do not receive financial support unless they require it. 

It doesn't cost £250 to look after them but I think the payment is designed to cover some of the sacrifices made, as I said our friend cannot work because of the children she looks after so there is a sacrifce on her part there. 

Looking after any young child is a 24 hour job but it's slightly different when you are looking after someone elses child especially when that child may well have other problems.

But in what way is that different to someone who gives up work to look after an elderly person and also has to give 24 hour care with possibly very little respite until that person dies?  I think the larger amount of money should be given to both types of carers - they are both making sacrifices which benefit the state.

No different at all, I was not trying to justify why foster carers get more than someone who cares for an elderly relative, just that they deserve what they get.

I agree that carers for the elderly should get more, in some ways (most ways) looking after an elderly person is much harder than looking after children.

Absolutely - children develop and become less dependent over the years - with the elderly the process is reversed and the work becomes harder as time passes. Also lifting a child is physically easier than lifting an elderly person.