- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Disabled people in Bristol could be forced to live in care homes if it is cheaper than providing support for them in their own homes.
Bristol City Council’s proposed Fair and Affordable Care Policy says disabled people whose in-home care exceeds the local authority rates could be placed in nursing or residential homes under a new scheme.
The policy is currently out for public consultation until 31 January 2024.
Bristol City Council has stressed that should changes come into effect, discussions will be had with the disabled person they impact, before decisions are made.
However, the proposal has been fiercely challenged by disability equality organisations including Bristol Reclaiming Independent Living (BRIL).
Mark Williams, from BRIL, said he was ‘stunned’ when he first saw the draft policy.
He told ITV West Country: "At the moment the main people that we’re really worried about are autistic people and people with severe learning difficulties because they are more likely to have high support needs and so risk having their support cut and being moved to care homes.
“It is very worrying if Bristol is bringing the policy that other councils would do the same.”
BRIL is holding an open online meeting about the threat the new policy poses to independent living on 5 January.
The policy also received significant backlash from Disability Rights UK when it was first discussed in April 2023.
The charity said: "[We] believe that the policy fails to uphold the rights of disabled people in Bristol to receive the care and support they need based on personal preference. And the right to live independently at home with choice and control over care and support.
“The draft policy, as stated, is incompatible with the rights we are granted under the Care Act 2014.”
A spokesperson for Bristol City Council said the proposed policy was co-developed with the Bristol City Council Adult Social Care Equalities Forum and the policy stresses that all decisions will be made in collaboration with the disabled person they impact.
The consultation: https://www.ask.bristol.gov.uk/fair-and-affordable-care-policy-consultation
You misunderstand what taxes are. Or you view taxes the way Americans view them perhaps.
Taxes exist to achieve two things individual humans are not good at achieving on their own:
Forcing people to invest in essential stuff they don’t want to pay for, like roads, sanitation, research… As in, you might live in a nice secluded cul-de-sac in the boonies, but you’re going to fund repairs to the interstate system like all your fellow countrymen.
Forcing generosity out of people - including the mutualisation of health costs, environmental risks… People are not good at being generous on their own. They will let their next door neighbor live in squalor and poverty if they’re disabled and can’t work because it’s “not their problem”. Until it is when they grow old and/or disabled themselves…
Taxes are modern secular states’ way ot forcing you to be generous with others less fortunate than you, like the Church once did when they collected tithe and (at least in theory) used your tithe to build hospices for the indigent and help the poor.
By definition, taxes pay for stuff that don’t make money. Otherwise you wouldn’t be forced to pay taxes: you’d voluntarily invest in whatever scheme the government is proposing.
By definition, the sick and the disabled are money pits. They use the taxes you were forced to provide to have a shot at having as good a life as you. The idea being that if you’re healthy all your life, you’ll have lost quite a bit of money paying for someone else’s better living but you’ll also have been one of the luck ones. But if you’re not lucky, you too could have benefitted from one of the lucky healthy people’s forced contributions.
Me, I’m happy to pay taxes. Even high taxes. I know what I get: I get the assurance that I’ll never end up broke and destitude because I fall on hard times with my health. I know that wherever I decide to go, the roads won’t have potholes. They paid for my kids’ education, and now they’re all grown up and paying back their debt twice over because they have a good situation, a good salary and they pay twice as much taxes as I do.
When you say “they can stay if they can afford it”, it says a lot about your mindset. You don’t value what your taxes brought to you and your family indirectly, and you’re probably healthy enough at the moment that you don’t realize what good taxes will do to you when you’re not anymore.
For what it’s worth, I’m disabled. But I’m still on my own two feet, I still work full time and I still pay taxes. You know why? Because the free healthcare system in the country I currently live in paid for top-notch surgery, paid for my rehab for a few months, and now they don’t pay me anymore because they fixed me up good. If they hadn’t, I’d be a full time non-productive person by now. Do you not see how taxes benefit everybody in my case? It’s in your best interest as much as mine that you pay for my healthcare!
But I suspect all that flies right above your head, sadly…
My brother. It’s all fair and good. I’m not saying not to help. But if you can make it more efficient, then why don’t make it more efficient? Instead of nurses having to drive hours and hours around you can provide for and handle more people with less hours and make sure that people get what they need asap. Rebuilding your home to make it viable for you? Or you living in a place that’s made for you? Having a doctor and nurses in the same building 24/7, able to deal with any complications that might come up? Sounds like a pretty good deal.
Because you can’t make it more efficient without impacting the person’s autonomy and integrity.
That’s what you don’t understand: the point is for society to pay for the support or technology that a disabled person needs to live a life similar to yours in terms of autonomy, dignity and productivity. It’s NOT ABOUT SAVING MONEY!
When you start thinking about ways to save money by corralling disabled people in one location so the support staff has fewer miles to drive, the inevitable conclusion is euthanasia - because hey, no more disabled people means no more disability benefits to pay out. Right? They couldn’t afford their own care anyway right?
If 1% of the population costs more in benefits than the other 99% provide in taxes, it means 100% of the population can lead a decent life. You don’t throw people in care homes because it costs less to take care for them, anymore than you throw people in jail because they live in a high-crime neighborhood to save on policing. It costs what it costs.
The only savings you should be considering are structural - like providing electric vehicles that cost less to run to the care workers, or perhaps subsidized housing so they live closer to the majority of the people they care for. But you don’t touch the integrity of the people who need the care. That’s off-limits. If it’s not off-limits to you, you’re a terrible person.