Vote totals:
Yes:
100%
No:
0%
Neutral:
0%
DEBATE: SHOULD CARERS GET PAID FOR THEIR EFFORTS?
SHOULD CARERS GET PAID FOR THEIR EFFORTS?
Carers receive a fraction more than sixth formers in benefits, whilst having far more financial responsibilities and outgoings.
For those in need of care, and for those that provide that care, there is almost no chance for a break, and even less chance for part time work which would provide carers with enough money to live comfortably, pay for a mortgage, buy private health care, pay for childcare, or go on holiday. Though some of these things listed are less essential than others, many people in Britain regard these items as such. ‘Although (the role of carers) is estimated to save the state £87bn a year, many are living on just over £50 a week, plus other meagre benefits’.(1)The exact amount of allowance for a carer is £50.55, only £20 more than the maximum amount of educational maintenance allowance (EMA) granted to sixth form students by their respective local educational authorities. Though the EMA scheme has proved successful in increasing the number of students staying on in education past the age of 16, it must be noted that studying for A-Levels (or equivalent) is not a 24 hour job, whereas many caring positions are exactly that. Carers do not have the chance to work on a weekend as students do, and they do not get to relax at the end of the day, yet they only receive £20 more per week with which they are expected to live on. As a result of the ‘around the clock’ nature of a carer’s work they should be regarded as vital cogs within an aging society. Without the work of such people palliative care institutions would be inundated with patients, which would then require even more spending on behalf of central and local government.
(1)Benjamin. A. (2008) Does the government’s new strategy for carers live up to expectations?, Guardian, June 11, p. 3. Society and News
In Britain there is a substantial gap between the rich and the poor and this gap needs to be closed down so we can truly call Britain a meritocratic state. The government should be spending money to help the poor, the underclass, gain qualifications. By giving poor children the opportunity to attain qualifications, the government is in effect saving money. The qualifications will enable the poor children to gain better employment and so they will be less likely to claim benefits later in life and will also pay more by way of income tax.
Paying for family carers has no such benefits for the government. It is cheaper to have 10 of the infirm in a home than to pay 10 individual families a substantial wage. Therefore, if families choose to care for their family members then that is their choice and they should not expect to receive a full wage for doing what they want to do.
SHOULD CARERS GET PAID FOR THEIR EFFORTS?
The state must recognise that illness and infirmity are unavoidable – if the family opt against care homes then they must be compensated accordingly.
In a case where a son or daughter chooses to care for a parent the government must recognise that this scenario is the best for all involved in terms of peace of mind. Though unsuitable financially under the care package of allowances provided by the government to carers, the situation is far less painful than sending a sick family member into care against his/her wishes. If all elderly/sick/disabled people were admitted to care homes the government would be facing an increased health bill. Therefore this possible ‘cost’ should be taken as a given and dispersed whether or not people choose to take up the offer of state care or not.
Our capitalist and welfare society has truly produced a spoilt nation if we expect compensation for looking after our own family members. Compensation? Carers are nursing their own flesh and blood, not a broken leg after a work accident. The government give carers enough money to cover the ill individual’s food and health equipment, but why should they also pay compensation?
Britain hates the idea of the nanny state so much when we talk of taxes and speed cameras, yet when it comes to benefits people want something for nothing.
SHOULD CARERS GET PAID FOR THEIR EFFORTS?
Family members cannot be sure as to whether their loved ones will receive the attention and appropriate care that they require in a state run institution.
The reputation of Britain’s care homes, and their staff, have been brought into disrepute since the turn of the 21st Century. In a June article in the Times, it was revealed that the government is employing foreign migrants to work in care homes without undergoing criminal record checks (2)As a result the British people are losing faith in care homes, and in the government’s ability to provide substantial and suitable care for those in need. In 2004, the Channel 4 despatched team ran a documentary which highlighted failing children’s care homes in Britain. Though 3 years have passed since then, the image remains in the minds of many adults in Britain that going into a ‘home’ marks the end of a dignified life. If this is the way that Britain’s care homes are thought of, and if the government cannot reverse such views, then it is only right that the families of the sick/elderly/disabled have the option to refuse state care and instead take on the role of carer themselves, at the expense of a government which has ultimately failed to satisfy the minds of the family in question.
(2)Ford. R. (2008) Care home workers go unchecked, police warn, June 2, p.16
What about family reputation? In a day and age where benefit fraud is rife how do we know that the carer is actually taking care of the ill individual? The money could be going to a family who are undeserving. At least care homes have some dimension of accountability. They are checked and monitored. As stated, Dispatches made observations about care homes and this has tainted people’s views. However, it is because of the public nature of care homes that they are able to be investigated and consequently corrected. Families will have no such public check on them and so could potentially be more harmful to the ill than state run institutions.
SHOULD CARERS GET PAID FOR THEIR EFFORTS?
Local government run care facilities could provide care for the elderly or disabled at the government’s expense.
The government run care homes in the UK do not provide a high enough standard of care to be a viable alternative for many families with a sick or elderly relative. Furthermore, the separation from their loved ones can cause already vulnerable people undue amounts of stress that can worsen their condition. Most people do not ‘wish’ to be carers, but they do it because it is the best thing for their loved one. They should be praised, rather than punished, for this level of selflessness.
It is common to hear stories of family members caring for other family members. The desire to provide care to loved ones is the reason why so many carers find themselves in financial trouble. Such desire, coupled with a belief that state care is of a low quality means that sick or elderly people remain at home at the wishes of their family. Though carers save the government over £80bn a year, the government does not encourage carers to take up such a role. All sick and disabled people are entitled, as part of Britain’s welfare state, to reside in palliative care institutes within their local district at the government’s expense. As a result, the undervalued carers would then be able to re-enter employment and maintain the lifestyle that they are expectant of.
SHOULD CARERS GET PAID FOR THEIR EFFORTS?
Carers should be qualified individuals – it would be inappropriate to provide a salary to somebody who had none
If the government allocated resources to provide professional support to carers, then they would receive training to improve their ability to care for their loved one. Benefits are not the same as a ‘salary’- otherwise why are we paying unskilled jobseekers to go to the job centre occasionally? Do they have any qualifications in that area? Why do we pay child benefit to people who have no formal childcare qualifications?
To call carers ‘dangerous’ is also unfair; euthanasia cases are few, and considering it in a moment of desperation is not the same thing as actually carrying it out.
When a doctor is accused of malpractice there are serious repercussions for his/her career and for the institute in general. If such accusations are proved then it is only right for the general public to assume that the government, or private company in question, moves to stamp out such actions creating a better environment for care/rehabilitation etc… If carers are unpaid individuals it is more than likely that the amount of stress will be huge, due to emotional attachment of a family member, meaning that the effectiveness of the care provided may decrease. Furthermore, a patient may require very special attention that a carer may not be fully aware of. The stress and the lack of knowledge is possibly one of the main reasons as to why many carers have been ‘considered helping their loved one to die’ (3). Despite the arguments for and against euthanasia, a topic which is far to vast to be explored in this proposal, the fact remains that it is illegal in the United Kingdom and as such carers would face prison as a result. To give these carers a salary would be wrong because pay would validate their position as an unqualified, and possibly dangerous, carer.
(3)http://news.bbc.co.uk health section (2001), Carers ‘tempted by euthanasia’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1351215.stm [27 May 2001]
SHOULD CARERS GET PAID FOR THEIR EFFORTS?
Carers are also entitled to claim further benefits
As it stands, "if you receive Carer’s Allowance or have underlying entitlement to it, you will qualify for the carer premium in Income Support and income-based Jobseekers’ Allowance. The current rate is £27.75 per week." Carers who live with the person whom they support are also eligible for council tax reductions. There are further premiums for those who care for disabled children.
