Media drive for U-turn in carers respite budget measure

jonniebgood1

I have been amazed at the almost wall to wall media coverage of the carers protests against the cut to respite allowances.

I have a couple of queries:

Are people aside from those directly affected genuinely against this measure. As I see it everyone is cut in some way- My PRSI will be effected and I will have to contribute through this. I am not protesting this, just noting it. Starting with a caller on Pat Kennys show yesterday this issue seems to be a bit of a jump on the bandwagon issue with the media. The caller in question lost my sympathy with a comment regarding Michael Noonans wife who of course died after his care for her. At this stage I have heard many interviews with carers and I do not see any reason why they feel they should not 'share' the pain with the rest of us. Am I a heartless b...tard or what do others think on this?

EricPraline

Not directly affected at this point in time, but it does seem a strange area to make savings, given other areas where greater savings could be made.

Even if you were to ignore the difficult job that carers take upon themselves, it seems like an odd decision from a purely financial point of view. Every patient who is cared for at home is one less patient who is taking a bed in a public hospital or nursing home - the phrase "bed blockers" is often unkindly used to refer to these kinds of patients. However, most carers are likely to reach a point where it is financially infeasible for them to look after a relative, even if they wish to.

So I'm not particularly surprised at the coverage, particularly when then cut (20%) is proportionally larger than budgetary cuts in other areas.

AlekSmart

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I have been amazed at the almost wall to wall media coverage of the carers protests against the cut to respite allowances.

I have a couple of queries:

Are people aside from those directly affected genuinely against this measure. As I see it everyone is cut in some way- My PRSI will be effected and I will have to contribute through this. I am not protesting this, just noting it. Starting with a caller on Pat Kennys show yesterday this issue seems to be a bit of a jump on the bandwagon issue with the media. The caller in question lost my sympathy with a comment regarding Michael Noonans wife who of course died after his care for her. At this stage I have heard many interviews with carers and I do not see any reason why they feel they should not 'share' the pain with the rest of us. Am I a heartless b...tard or what do others think on this?

No jonniebgood,I don't see any heartlesness in your post.

I do share your unease at just how the "Media" seek to apply a tag to something and then use it to pursue their own agendas.

The term and concept of "Carer" is a relatively new one in Ireland and has a somewhat broad interpretation it would seem.

Not all "Carers" would appear to fit the classic mould of looking after a totally incapacitated family member,and there is some evidence that securing the DSP's recognition as a "carer" was regarded as a key to further benefits in cash or kind.

Just as Old Age Pensioners make up less than 50% of DSP Free Travel Scheme members,yet the scheme itself is universally referred to as the Old Age Pensioners Free Pass,so too would I suspect a similar arrangement here.

Nobody wants to have allowances or incomes cut,but if there's no money to pay them I struggle to see an alternative ?

20Cent

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I have been amazed at the almost wall to wall media coverage of the carers protests against the cut to respite allowances.

I have a couple of queries:

Are people aside from those directly affected genuinely against this measure. As I see it everyone is cut in some way- My PRSI will be effected and I will have to contribute through this. I am not protesting this, just noting it. Starting with a caller on Pat Kennys show yesterday this issue seems to be a bit of a jump on the bandwagon issue with the media. The caller in question lost my sympathy with a comment regarding Michael Noonans wife who of course died after his care for her. At this stage I have heard many interviews with carers and I do not see any reason why they feel they should not 'share' the pain with the rest of us. Am I a heartless b...tard or what do others think on this?

Since you asked, yes you are a heartless b..tard if you think being down some cash is comparable to the cuts in carers allowance which gives a small bit of dignity to people in terrible situations.

Its right that the media are picking up on this its outrageous.
Could well see it being overturned.

As well as being totally heartless it doesn't even make economic sense as carers save the state a fortune.

hatrickpatrick

It's like a lot of things in the Irish economy, it's about context... To cut these people while some others are still getting exorbitant amounts from the taxpayer which they in many cases neither deserve nor need, is injustice.
It'd be different if it truly was "everyone sharing the pain", but what we're getting is, "everyone sharing the pain, but some people proportionately sharing a lot less than others". And that latter category tends to magically include most of the political and banking class who bear a large proportion of responsibility for the situation we're in.

Individually it might not seem so bad, but put in context, it's injustice. And injustice pisses people off. It's not the cut itself, it's the "why am I being cut to poverty while he's getting a bonus, and he's getting an expenses account".

Head The Wall

20Cent wrote: »

Since you asked, yes you are a heartless b..tard if you think being down some cash is comparable to the cuts in carers allowance which gives a small bit of dignity to people in terrible situations.

Its right that the media are picking up on this its outrageous.
Could well see it being overturned.

As well as being totally heartless it doesn't even make economic sense as carers save the state a fortune.

Absolute rubbish, the medias job is to sell papers. The reason for disproportionate cuts to services is because of the inability to streamline or make other savings in govts costs. 7,500 admin and HR staff surplus to requirements in the HSE that they can do nothing about and they then try and say "real" savings are being made via the Croke Park Deal.

The likes of those situations is why services are being decimated. You can't be feeding at the trough and then be complaining about the resultant actions of keeping your pay levels and still collecting pay rises.

ParkRunner

The cynic in me believes the government agreed to this cut in the budget with the full intention of reversing it in the not too distant future for the purposes of political gain. The media is swallowing the story and the government will come out of it looking like they are protecting the vulnerable when it is reversed.

It makes little economic sense to cut the carers respite, but there is much political gain from reversing such a cut, even if it was never implemented!

20Cent

Lads a bit of empathy wouldn't go astray these days. Any one of us could end up needing some of these services. There are plenty of cuts that need to be made and could be made elsewhere. The cut to carers is the most cynical I've seen yet. It makes no sense economically either as cares save the state a fortune. Its immoral, wrong, cynical and stupid.

There is a big backlash against this, if you're not outraged check your pulse you might need a carer.

Wibbs

Speaking as a carer, though luckily so far not requiring SW support, yes I do think it was a daft cut to make. Purely from the practical standpoint too. As EricPraline put it above "Even if you were to ignore the difficult job that carers take upon themselves, it seems like an odd decision from a purely financial point of view. Every patient who is cared for at home is one less patient who is taking a bed in a public hospital or nursing home". It's significantly cheaper for the country and for taxpayers if such people can be treated at home and out of the health service as long as that is feasible. How much do carers get in SW payments 200 quid a week?(I genuinely don't know I'm afraid). Compare that to the cheapest cost of nursing homes where a couple of grand a month is the start point. Hospitals are even more expensive. If every home carer threw in the towel and each patient/person was dropped into the health service costs would go up by many millions I suspect. That's before we look at the human factor. I have it pretty easy compared to some who have very hard lives and whose lives are effectively on hold, sometimes for decades looking after relatives on behalf of the rest of us and our pockets.

tonidub72

im a carer im also a single mum ive not only been cut bye 650 euro in the respite care grant im cut 58 euro in my child benefit every month a further loss of 200 to my back to school allowance and a further 16.50 month on my telephone and electricity so how can anyone say its fair its so unfair on so many levels

tonidub72

tonidub72 wrote: »

im a carer im also a single mum ive not only been cut bye 650 euro in the respite care grant im cut 58 euro in my child benefit every month a further loss of 200 to my back to school allowance and a further 16.50 month on my telephone and electricity so how can anyone say its fair its so unfair on so many levels

Not singling you out, but somebody has to pay for all those allowances you are getting, lots of people are working to pay for your allowances and benefits. Lots of people who are working have less money left at the end of the month than you do. Im not familiar with the carers allowances but i do think it should be graded as per degree of care needed. Full time care should not be cut, especialy for those caring for children. But there is too many people conning the system, some i know who are getting carers allowance to look after their parents while their parents are perfectly capable and the carer is a full time farmer.

Nobody likes to get cut, but people need to realise it is not even economical for some to go to work at the moment because the benefit system is so large and generous compared to getting up and going to work everyday. You can only only go to the workers pocket so often.

Personally i think there should only be child benefit for the first two children. It would discourage people having having large families for social benefit reasons. It would also allow the government to re-direct the saving to proper childcare and education. If people want more children they can just work and pay for them themselves.

The country is still spending 1 billion a month more than it takes in, and that is nothing to do with banks or bondholders. Bertie Ahern doubled spending in a ten year period to buy votes and the lemmings followed and voted for that traitor. We have to get spending back on track before the country will recover.

Manach

I would respect the OP's opinion on many matters and he does raise some valid points to do with the massive overspend of the State. However being in a semi-carer role myself role it does not seem to better to target via a means test those in receipt of Social Welfare payments to ensure those who are the most vulnerable are protected.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody likes to get cut, but people need to realise it is not even economical for some to go to work at the moment because the benefit system is so large and generous compared to getting up and going to work everyday. You can only only go to the workers pocket so often.

I'd tend to agree. For quite a number, I emphasise not all SW payments are too high and are little incentive to work. It shouldn't even come up as an either or.

Manach wrote: »

I would respect the OP's opinion on many matters and he does raise some valid points to do with the massive overspend of the State. However being in a semi-carer role myself role it does not seem to better to target via a means test those in receipt of Social Welfare payments to ensure those who are the most vulnerable are protected.

This. We need more means testing across the board. We need to cut our cloth to our measure. We have one of the highest, if not the highest SW payments in the EU and it's simply not sustainable.

mike65

Every budget contains one measure that is latched on to by the media (and pressure groups that are not even directly linked to the issue at hand). The smart thing to do would be to concede it was an error quickly and cut elsewhere. On the one hand the government is seen to be listening while on the other hand they can chop something else to greater cost cutting effect without getting hammered.

tonidub72

i get a payment of lone parents which is 300 a week and half rate carers of 158 i pay for everything ive not availed of home help ever the carers are the only social welfare payment that is earned i have worked my whole life my daughter is non verbal shes 15 she has only recentley got an apple ipad so now shes learning to use it as her voice its 500 euro for the software she needs anything my two children with special needs need i will buy myself . i have no problem taking a hit like everyone else but on 4 payments and if i could work i would in a heartbeat but as a carer your on call 24/7

Rodin

It is an absolutely disgraceful decision to make by the govenment.
Financially senseless.

To the poor worker complainging about his taxes going towards this, you'd pay more in taxes were the carer unable to look after the cared for, and instead foisted the person on the state who has a legal obligation to look after them.

Not everyone has to share in the pain. Why on earth should a genuinely disabled person have to take an economic hit when they were never in a position to do anything about their own circumstances.

When we hear of society's most vulnerable, people might not like to hear it, but it's not the single mums, or those on job seekers, or those struggling to pay a mortgage which was far too much for them to take on initially. It's those in wheelchairs and nappies who in some instances can't even talk or understand just what a country,budget, economic crisis is.

The MOST vulnerable should be looked after. The rest can form a queue

tonidub72

rodin that is so true i was paying for my daughters nappies up until last week and as to my poisition as me being a lone parent well that wasnt a decesion i made but such is life im a single parent and not only do i pay for everything my daughter needs my son whos autistic i pay for everything for his social training too

Rodin

Rodin wrote: »

It is an absolutely disgraceful decision to make by the govenment.
Financially senseless.

To the poor worker complainging about his taxes going towards this, you'd pay more in taxes were the carer unable to look after the cared for, and instead foisted the person on the state who has a legal obligation to look after them.

Not everyone has to share in the pain. Why on earth should a genuinely disabled person have to take an economic hit when they were never in a position to do anything about their own circumstances.

When we hear of society's most vulnerable, people might not like to hear it, but it's not the single mums, or those on job seekers, or those struggling to pay a mortgage which was far too much for them to take on initially. It's those in wheelchairs and nappies who in some instances can't even talk or understand just what a country,budget, economic crisis is.

The MOST vulnerable should be looked after. The rest can form a queue

I agree completely, those that can't look after themselves should be looked after either by the state or indirectly through payments.

They should also stop giving carers allowance to those that do not need a carer and just use it as an additional income.

Rodin

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree completely, those that can't look after themselves should be looked after either by the state or indirectly through payments.

They should also stop giving carers allowance to those that do not need a carer and just use it as an additional income.

Unfortunately yes people will abuse the system. It is up to the government to make sure on the actually eligible get the necessary funds.

But no, everyone in society should not have to contribute.

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree completely, those that can't look after themselves should be looked after either by the state or indirectly through payments.

They should also stop giving carers allowance to those that do not need a carer and just use it as an additional income.

Is there any evidence of this happening?
It is extremely hard to get a carers allowance.

tonidub72

20cent it's extremely hard to get careers my son is 6 he got diagnosed with autisim at the age of 2 I got awarded half rate careers total was 103 a week for my daughter a few yrs ago social welfare told me I was getting everything I was entitled to it wasn't until last yr that I found out I was entitled to an extra 50 for my autistic I only got this payment a few weeks ago I went 4 yrs without it

hmmm

It's about choices in any budget. Labour have chosen to protect the PS and "core social welfare rates" at all costs, and everything else is a target as a consequence. That includes carers, low paid workers and the recently unemployed.

Kinski

People voluntarily caring for elderly, seriously ill or disabled relatives need to start "sharing the pain" with the rest of us? Honestly, some people...

RGS

The cut is cruel and totally unjust, the carers provide a service a a fraction of the cost it would cost the state to provide the care.
Two cuts in this years budget:
The carers respite allowance is cut by 19%, the leaders allowance paid to opposition parties is cut by 10%.
That shows where our governments concern lies.
An non essential allowance of €41,000, which should be abolished, is cut 10%.
An essentially allowance of €1750 is cut by 19%.

To save €28million the government could have found the money through a proper means testing of the childrens allowance.

tonidub72

have no problem talkng a 58 euro hit on my child benefit along with every other parent thats a fair 696 a year along with every other parent but i got hit almost 2000 in cuts a year

Godge

tonidub72 wrote: »

i get a payment of lone parents which is 300 a week and half rate carers of 158 i pay for everything ive not availed of home help ever the carers are the only social welfare payment that is earned i have worked my whole life my daughter is non verbal shes 15 she has only recentley got an apple ipad so now shes learning to use it as her voice its 500 euro for the software she needs anything my two children with special needs need i will buy myself . i have no problem taking a hit like everyone else but on 4 payments and if i could work i would in a heartbeat but as a carer your on call 24/7

According to your figure, your total income from the state is €458 euro.

You probably have a medical card and travel pass as well.

The €458 euro translates into €23,900 a year approximately.

I am not trying to be harsh but there are a lot of people out there working for that kind of money and paying tax, prsi and usc on those earnings to ensure that those payments can be made. They are the people who will have to pay more if the cuts are reversed. Is that fair?

tonidub72

do not avail of home help which i am entitled too also am working for my social welfare you tell me how much t would cost to keep my daughter and son in a home for a year

Pappacharlie

Firstly let me say I am a carer who together with my sister (alternate weeks) looks after my father who is a 90 year old man who has been suffering from Alzheimers and Parkinson's for the last 4 years. He has a catheter in place and is incontenant also. I do have home help in place 2 hours a day. I pay a very good lady to mind my Dad 5 hours a day. I applied for carers allowance and was refused after 16 months waiting. That said I have a good income myself and I can continue to work with the system I have in place.
I am personally aware of an individual who is on an invalidity payment who is no more an invalid than I am, and his wife gets the carers allowance for looking after him. The respite care grant is automatic for them. The system is being abused by lots of people and there are genuine carers who cannot get the assistance they deserve.
I think there should have been a separate means test for the respite care grant. Give it to the genuine cases and cut the rest altogether!!

tonidub72

so agree there papa the carers payment is so screwed up did you appeal it and do agree it all should be means tested a couple of yrs ago i applied for a job late night job but because i couldnt commit to it as in if i wer needed had to go home as you well no yourself so i didnt get the job but i wish yours a very happy christmas

rodento

Can't help but wonder if the cut to the respite grant was a political masterstoke by Fine Geal

http://www.thejournal.ie/fine-gael-burton-respite-708164-Dec2012/

TD Regina Doherty said she was “sickened” by the cut and will be meeting with the minister on Tuesday to discuss it

Fine Gael Senator Fidelma Healy Eames joined her colleague in criticising the cut of over €300 to the respite care grant.

http://www.herald.ie/news/burton-refuses-to-back-down-on-respite-grant-cut-3318657.html

Junior finance minister Brian Hayes had appeared to open the possibility of amendments, adding that if the government "got something wrong" it could be changed.
"I recognise that that is quite a drastic cut for people who are dependent on respite," he said

While we get this from Labour

http://www.herald.ie/news/burton-refuses-to-back-down-on-respite-grant-cut-3318657.html

JOAN Burton today (Friday) ruled out the possibility of reversing the highly controversial measure to slash the respite grant for carers.

Good loser

20Cent wrote: »

Since you asked, yes you are a heartless b..tard if you think being down some cash is comparable to the cuts in carers allowance which gives a small bit of dignity to people in terrible situations.

Its right that the media are picking up on this its outrageous.
Could well see it being overturned.

As well as being totally heartless it doesn't even make economic sense as carers save the state a fortune.

You're on here night, noon and morning defending every aspect of the Public Service that's being criticised. A bit rich then attacking the 'carers cuts' when one of the chief reasons for it - and the other welfare cuts - was to protect the CPA. Perhaps you can give a good reason why it should not be doubled?

Last year apparently four 'cuts' were reversed after a media led bandwagon, as they were deemed to be attacking the most vulnerable. It now appears the 'most vulnerable' is a definition whose life expectancy can be less than a week.

I know little of the detail of the carers allowance, that it was a once off annual lump sum. Just like all social wefare it is probably not half enough in some cases and twice too high in others. What can the Govt do but trim it for everyone and re examine entitlements. Presumably they examined every cut and had no reason to choose one that wasn't fair. My preference would have been an across the board cut of 5%.

This Govt seems finally to have got the good sense to stick with their budget decisions and not be put off by a media circus and flaky backbenchers. This is more important than any individual measure. We must remember the figure being reduced was plucked from the wall by some FF populist with shedloads of money to give away; you can bet there was no science involved in its computation.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Folks, let's keep it civil - overly personal comments, in particular, are not welcome here.

20Cent

Looking at the Sunday papers the backlash is more than just the media, several FG and Labour backbenchers are pushing to have the carers allowance cuts overturned. The weekend after a budget is always a difficult time for TD's since they have to go back to their constituancies and face their voters.
They will have been inundated with email, phone calls and visits. The facebook pages of a few Labour TD's they are certainly getting a lot of flak over it. Hopefully the madness of these cuts will be recognised and they will be dropped.

jonniebgood1

20Cent wrote: »

Looking at the Sunday papers the backlash is more than just the media, ....

The Sunday papers are media.

jonniebgood1

Rodin wrote: »

Not everyone has to share in the pain.

I don't see why financial pain of the sort everyone is experiencing should not be shared.

Rodin wrote: »

To the poor worker complainging about his taxes going towards this, you'd pay more in taxes were the carer unable to look after the cared for, and instead foisted the person on the state who has a legal obligation to look after them.

Not everyone has to share in the pain. Why on earth should a genuinely disabled person have to take an economic hit when they were never in a position to do anything about their own circumstances.

Workers do pay taxes to help the vvulnerable and that is correct and proper. If the balance is continually tilted against the worker in the favour of benefits for social welfare people will have no incentive to work. that is the bottom line.

bmaxi

It's unfair to criticise the media for jumping on the bandwagon to sell papers. The media is also the "fourth estate", and fulfils an essential role in holding Government to account, something it appears the electorate are incapable of.
If it were the case that these cuts were being exaggerated in the press then there might be a case to answer but as far as I can see everything reported is factually correct.

Sierra Oscar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The Sunday papers are media.

I think 20Cent means the political reaction amongst backbenchers.

jonniebgood1

bmaxi wrote: »

It's unfair to criticise the media for jumping on the bandwagon to sell papers. The media is also the "fourth estate", and fulfils an essential role in holding Government to account, something it appears the electorate are incapable of.

If we follow this line we must also point out that the media had this role which you rightly identify, during the Celtic tiger. Hardly a ringing endorsement of their capabilities! I don't remember any full on media protest against the reliance on construction in the 2000's, certainly not with any voracity.

jonniebgood1

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I think 20Cent means the political reaction amongst backbenchers.

I understand this but it is still the choice of media to push this as a headline or put in on page 10. The backbenchers reaction is all to predictable giving the reporting of this from Wednesday onwards. Perhaps they are just performing their role but I am just querying it.

20Cent

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I understand this but it is still the choice of media to push this as a headline or put in on page 10. The backbenchers reaction is all to predictable giving the reporting of this from Wednesday onwards. Perhaps they are just performing their role but I am just querying it.

Whats the query?
Do you think the reaction is over the top?
Ministers walking out of cabinet in protest, a backbencher revolt, the public outcry, all sounds like fronpage worthy news.

bmaxi

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If we follow this line we must also point out that the media had this role which you rightly identify, during the Celtic tiger. Hardly a ringing endorsement of their capabilities! I don't remember any full on media protest against the reliance on construction in the 2000's, certainly not with any voracity.

Certainly there was concern in the media about the housing boom and the economy's dependence on it. Economists like David Mc Williams, writing in the press, voiced their concern on many occasions. Were these not among the people Bertie Ahern suggested should "top themselves"?

jonniebgood1

20Cent wrote: »

Whats the query?
Do you think the reaction is over the top?
Ministers walking out of cabinet in protest, a backbencher revolt, the public outcry, all sounds like fronpage worthy news.

Yes reaction is over the top IMHO, particularly given that this cut was leaked in the week before the budget day. In the context of the whole budget the reaction also seems disproportionate. Before the budget I was not aware that carers even got a break in this way. It is a good thing that they do.

Would there be any support for replacing this cut to respite care with a general reduction to Social welfare rates paid to everyone. I would imagine that a small reduction in the general welfare rates would raise the same amount.

jonniebgood1

bmaxi wrote: »

Certainly there was concern in the media about the housing boom and the economy's dependence on it. Economists like David Mc Williams, writing in the press, voiced their concern on many occasions. Were these not among the people Bertie Ahern suggested should "top themselves"?

I wouldnt call it full on protest or anything approaching it.

Rodin

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I don't see why financial pain of the sort everyone is experiencing should not be shared.



Workers do pay taxes to help the vvulnerable and that is correct and proper. If the balance is continually tilted against the worker in the favour of benefits for social welfare people will have no incentive to work. that is the bottom line.

If carers aren't helped, your pay packet will be lighter as more is taken to care for the most vulnerable by the state

tonidub72

rodin wish more people thought like yourself my daughter has to be cared for 24/7 and someone else asked before about rates of carers i get 158 a week for two special needs kids dont think it would even cost 158 for one child to be cared for by the state for one night

bmaxi

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I wouldnt call it full on protest or anything approaching it.

No offence but what you'd call it is immaterial.

jonniebgood1

Rodin wrote: »

If carers aren't helped, your pay packet will be lighter as more is taken to care for the most vulnerable by the state

Nobody has suggested that carers "aren't helped". Or indeed that they should not be helped. I stated this clearly:

Before the budget I was not aware that carers even got a break in this way. It is a good thing that they do.

jonniebgood1

bmaxi wrote: »

Certainly there was concern in the media about the housing boom and the economy's dependence on it. Economists like David Mc Williams, writing in the press, voiced their concern on many occasions. Were these not among the people Bertie Ahern suggested should "top themselves"?

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I wouldnt call it full on protest or anything approaching it.

bmaxi wrote: »

No offence but what you'd call it is immaterial.

Lost me?

Knine

Godge wrote: »

According to your figure, your total income from the state is €458 euro.

You probably have a medical card and travel pass as well.

The €458 euro translates into €23,900 a year approximately.

I am not trying to be harsh but there are a lot of people out there working for that kind of money and paying tax, prsi and usc on those earnings to ensure that those payments can be made. They are the people who will have to pay more if the cuts are reversed. Is that fair?

You do realise Godge that 23,900 for providing 24/7 care for a disabled child/adult is very little?
That equipment/supplies which are not all provided are also very expensive as is extra heating/esb that many disabled people need.

tonidub72 is actully working very hard to look after her children with special needs. There is no lunch break, no annual leave, no Christmas Holidays, Bank Holidays are the same as any other day. Often you get up in the morning after having very little sleep.
The only other adults she may see are therapists and doctors.

Give me a job any day.

How do I know all the above? Well because I worked full time in an extremely well paid job but I had to give it up to become a full time Carer for very little money.

Any one of those workers you are talking about could end up becoming a carer or indeed needing a carer themselves.

This issue is not just for Carers but for everone as god only knows when you need these services yourself or end up having a child with a serious disability.

jonniebgood1

Knine wrote: »

You do realise Godge that 23,900 for providing 24/7 care for a disabled child/adult is very little?

How much should be paid?
Should same be given to all on welfare such as disabled, elderly,etc?

Rodin

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

How much should be paid?
Should same be given to all on welfare such as disabled, elderly,etc?

This money goes to the carER not the carEE.

It is absolutely, overwhelmingly costeffective