So very well put.
Why do we need posts like this one when all the help is already available at
Norman
Procedure for 'Nearest Relative' and CHC
- Thread starter Iberian
- Start date
Why do we need posts like this one when all the help is already available at
1948NHSBaby, you ask: Why is this a problem? Because it is downright discourteous. It is not a "healthy opinion", it is less than helpful and spurious.
I shall have to revisit the "Sooz" thread as I can't remember off the top of my head what "attacks" were made on Iberian.
I do not intend to respond again to this thread or get drawn into a protracted ping-pong of views, but I shall continue to request that people treat other members with respect wherever I see rudeness and discourtesy.
Keep the british fighting spirit up!
I love this forum,I love the support you all give to each other,I am facinated by all the useful information here,I love all the internal gripes,keep on arguing,everyone on this site are here because they want to make things better,I am well and truly hooked!
I love this forum,I love the support you all give to each other,I am facinated by all the useful information here,I love all the internal gripes,keep on arguing,everyone on this site are here because they want to make things better,I am well and truly hooked!
I ask again what is the problem with this person putting this information on the forum?
What does, 'why do WE need posts like this' mean?
Is the AS site the absolute authority and only the 'right' place for help?
It is merely someone's opinion and attempt to help, it can be ignored by anyone, so what is the problem?
You say "when all the help is already available" what help is that 'A Leaflet' is not all the help a person needs to acquire CHC funding nor is it helpful for someone who has won CHC not to want to explain how they won or the scoring which all goes to help others seeking CHC.
I have not read anything on TP from winners other than 'I won', do they not want to share their information or is it a case of 'I'm alright Jack'.
I suggest you read this recent thread by a new member, AdrianW where a number of members who had loved ones awarded NHS CC gave him useful advice and support:
http://forum.alzheimers.org.uk/showthread.php?t=20050
Actually, I think that thread shows the real strengths of TP, there are references both to leaflets and detailed policy documents, but there is also feedback and support from real people.
1948NHSBaby, thank you for your support. I was shocked when I first read posts on here on how little there was on acquiring fully funded NHSCC. The ones who had gained it were thunderously quiet on how it was gained. The fact is, in essence my original post in this thread comes down to one point. Everyone whose primary need is a health need is entitled to NHSCC at the point of need. It is a matter of law which was set in stone my the Coughlan Judgement and supported by the Grogan Judgement. The LA/SS have NO right to be involved unless the care provided is ancilliary and incidental to the provision of accomodation. Many of the 2000+ posters on this site seem more concerned in helping people cope with the worries of the loved ones in care homes nursed by unqualified staff, rather than telling them that there was no need to use their life savings and sell their houses in the first place. That their loved ones should be being nursed by qualified NHS nurses at the point of need as is everyone else with a health need in the UK. Remember, Pamela Coughlan, under the NHS's eligibility criteria, would not have qualified for NHSCC since she was medium band on with regards to RNCC. The Court of Appeal ruled that Miss Coughlan was entitled to NHSCC, so since the Court could not be wrong, the eligibility criteria was.
Last edited:
It appears that the 2000+ posters have had a communal mental block with regards to this.
Please can anyone tell me what happened to the web site that was run by people who tried to get others to apply for NHS Continuing Care and had articles and things about Pamela Coughlan and what she had done. I was looking for it but it seems to have disappeared.
Thanks
Clive
Thanks
Clive
I'm not alright Jack
I'm not sure if the 'I'm alright Jack' barb is aimed at me, amongst others. Yes we were successful in obtaining CC for my dad and although we had a sense of victory, the main feelings were of sadness and relief. Sadness that my dad's condition was so bad that he qualified, and relief for my mum that the financial needs of his care would be paid for.
I would like to thank those members of TP who helped us. Many people offered support but I would single out Jennifer and Sandy for their specific refences to relevant legislation and Jan who gave me the benefit of her personal experience.
The most important lesson is to take a non-aggressive approach and to work within the legislation. I'm not for one moment saying that I agree with the legislation, but the people applying the legislation are not the people to condemn. If they fail to apply the current guidelines correctly then they should be challenged, but rationally and in a non-confrontational manner.
Evidence is the most important weapon you can have, not the minutiae of legislation.
I don't for one minute claim to be an expert, but if I can share the benefit of our experience, I am here for anyone who cares to PM me.
I'm not sure if the 'I'm alright Jack' barb is aimed at me, amongst others. Yes we were successful in obtaining CC for my dad and although we had a sense of victory, the main feelings were of sadness and relief. Sadness that my dad's condition was so bad that he qualified, and relief for my mum that the financial needs of his care would be paid for.
I would like to thank those members of TP who helped us. Many people offered support but I would single out Jennifer and Sandy for their specific refences to relevant legislation and Jan who gave me the benefit of her personal experience.
The most important lesson is to take a non-aggressive approach and to work within the legislation. I'm not for one moment saying that I agree with the legislation, but the people applying the legislation are not the people to condemn. If they fail to apply the current guidelines correctly then they should be challenged, but rationally and in a non-confrontational manner.
Evidence is the most important weapon you can have, not the minutiae of legislation.
I don't for one minute claim to be an expert, but if I can share the benefit of our experience, I am here for anyone who cares to PM me.
Sue,
I have not been involved in any personal struggle for NHS CHC, but have been helping a few people to achieve it. Outside of this forum, and not all connected with dementia.
For me, if I may so so, the legislation is seriously flawed and seriously abused by those who are applying it to the circumstances of many people, struggling to cope.
The fact that the 'professionals' are not working within the legislation is the main problem. So there's little point in us doing our best to work 'within the legislation' if they aren't doing likewise.
And I would differ with you: the people 'applying the legislation incorrectly' are at the centre of the problem that most people are encountering.
NHS CHC has not been mentioned on TP for long - it is a relatively new discussion topic. And that is the main problem: the existence of NHS CHC has been concealed out of view, and also by Talking Point.
Until less than a year or so ago.
And for some strange reason that I cannot fathom, whenever a newcomer to TP mentions Continuing Healthcare funding, and tries to contribute in their own particular way, then it has to turn into a confrontation.
Why should that be? I watch and observe it all, but it is a mystery. Almost as if for some reason it is not considered 'politically correct' to discuss the ways and wherefores of it all, in a public forum.
Why should it all be hidden behind the PM facility?
Yes, of course the individual manifestations of dementia are personal, but so are many of the individual manifestations of dementia that are openly discussed on the forum.
It is important to many people, as it was to your own Mum, to achieve the financial comfort of knowing that "the financial needs of his care would be paid for".
Why can that not be talked about as openly on the forum as can incontinence, aggression, temper tantrums, illusions, delusions, hallucinations and so on.
They are all dementia-care-related, so must surely be of equal importance to some people reading, but not necessarily posting on Talking Point.
Just my own personal thoughts about this all. I do not understand why the very mention of NHS Continuing Healthcare funding should cause such uproar.
It should be discussed openly in the main body of the forum, rather than via PMs only. If only because otherwise all those people who read but don't sign up to TP, and therefore don't/can't post will be denied that knowledge.
Good for you JPG1.
Maybe many others, like myself, have been doing the same thing.
My own efforts in this field are mine...........
Who decrees what we should or should not decide to post about.
That's part of the point I was making, Connie.
If it's ok to talk about many of the manifestations of dementia, then surely it's ok for everyone who chooses to talk about the way in which they were fortunate enough to achieve Continuing Healthcare funding.
And to pass on their knowledge to others, without condemnation. And that's what I have seen recently on this particular thread.
I know, Connie, that you were fortunate enough to achieve that for Lionel, and I know and appreciate that others have also been able to achieve it.
But my question remains: what is so special about having achieved fully funded NHS CHC that requires it to be considered a secret.
I do not understand why.
Of course your efforts in this field are yours.... but again, what is so special about it all?
All I was hoping was that anyone who does decide to post about NHS CHC should be treated with kindness.
Unless there is more to it than is comfortably acceptably discussable in public. And I am not suggesting for one moment that there is anything in your own circumstances that makes it such.
If it's ok to talk about many of the manifestations of dementia, then surely it's ok for everyone who chooses to talk about the way in which they were fortunate enough to achieve Continuing Healthcare funding.
And to pass on their knowledge to others, without condemnation. And that's what I have seen recently on this particular thread.
I know, Connie, that you were fortunate enough to achieve that for Lionel, and I know and appreciate that others have also been able to achieve it.
But my question remains: what is so special about having achieved fully funded NHS CHC that requires it to be considered a secret.
I do not understand why.
Of course your efforts in this field are yours.... but again, what is so special about it all?
All I was hoping was that anyone who does decide to post about NHS CHC should be treated with kindness.
Unless there is more to it than is comfortably acceptably discussable in public. And I am not suggesting for one moment that there is anything in your own circumstances that makes it such.
Hi
I also cannot understand the mystery about NHS CC.
Why do members have to PM each other, to discuss this subject?
Isn't TP about trying our best to help and support others in the same, or similar situation?
My Mum was was given NHS CC, but sorry everyone, I can't help, because I didn't apply for it.
I didn't have to and really at the time, NHS CC was the furthest thing from my mind. I only wanted Mum back with Dad in the residential home.
Mum was in the assessment unit of hospital,for 3 months, because of challenging behaviour. Lots of drugs were tried in various combinations, with terrible results, eventually the consultant told me Mum didn't have long and he was transferring her to a Bupa managed NHS facility (which didn't cost anything)so therefore, I think this is what you would call NHS CC.
In this facitily, Mum lived for approx another year and after she was weaned of a lot of the drugs, she was at least concious.
If I can help anyone, please let me know, because I believe, the more informed carers are, the better we can understand the system and therefore, then can demand, with knowledge, what we and our cared for, are due
Alfjess
I also cannot understand the mystery about NHS CC.
Why do members have to PM each other, to discuss this subject?
Isn't TP about trying our best to help and support others in the same, or similar situation?
My Mum was was given NHS CC, but sorry everyone, I can't help, because I didn't apply for it.
I didn't have to and really at the time, NHS CC was the furthest thing from my mind. I only wanted Mum back with Dad in the residential home.
Mum was in the assessment unit of hospital,for 3 months, because of challenging behaviour. Lots of drugs were tried in various combinations, with terrible results, eventually the consultant told me Mum didn't have long and he was transferring her to a Bupa managed NHS facility (which didn't cost anything)so therefore, I think this is what you would call NHS CC.
In this facitily, Mum lived for approx another year and after she was weaned of a lot of the drugs, she was at least concious.
If I can help anyone, please let me know, because I believe, the more informed carers are, the better we can understand the system and therefore, then can demand, with knowledge, what we and our cared for, are due
Alfjess
Actually members don't have to use the PM system to discuss this, and in fact, there are quite a few threads about this on the forum. I'm not sure how this misconception arose. Of course if people want to share specific private details it may be more appropriate to use the PM system, bearing in mind that we have a policy regarding the naming of nursing homes and NHS facilities. I'm not certain how knowing that a specific person scored this or that on the national framework is particularly helpful but no one would have a problem with someone sharing that information (as many have already done). In fact information sharing is always welcome. Of course it's helpful if you explain where you have sourced the information from so that its accuracy can be judged, and so that we can be certain that a poster is not, possibly inadvertently, breaking copyright.
Please everyone - feel free to discuss it but don't be rude to other posters otherwise the thread will have to be closed. You may believe yourself to be right and that's your prerogative but let that nice warm glow of superiority be your reward.
My final comment on this thread is to direct posters to our T & Cs with particular reference to
Please everyone - feel free to discuss it but don't be rude to other posters otherwise the thread will have to be closed. You may believe yourself to be right and that's your prerogative but let that nice warm glow of superiority be your reward.
My final comment on this thread is to direct posters to our T & Cs with particular reference to
Last edited:
Well, I've held back from contributing to this thread because of the overwhelming sense of deja vu - each year at Christmas we have what appears to be pretty much the same group posting their opinions, in very much the same way. We are spared the website references this time, fortunately.
This is absolutely fine (to contribute), of course, but the majority of members of this forum are active carers, wishing to help other active carers, and most do not have to cut and paste large tracts of someone else's text to do that. Their experience and obvious empathy is enough.
That being said, the text editor of the forum software does accept large numbers of words, so, some may wish to fill it up. There is a saying that comes to mind: "more is less".
Because there are so many words, I guess there needs to be some bolding to highlight relevant parts.
However, people shouldn't be upset if members don't choose to read what they write [and this goes for all authors of text here, and all readers] don't become upset; it is a free country after all.
If the fractious tone of someone's posting turns readers away, the poster shouldn't become angry, after all it has been done with intent, to gain attention. The fact remains they are simply posting their views, and nobody has either to read them, or to agree with them. The sad thing is that most would agree with much of it; the flaw is in the inappropriate presentation.
At the start of this thread, Iberian stated "I clicked off as soon as I read the words 'Eligibility Criteria'." Why therefore be offended if others click off when they see the annual incursion has started?
Members of this forum are, in general, a pretty special bunch providing powerful support to each other, throughout the year, through times good and bad.
They are not, however daft and can quickly spot pyrites among their gold.
This is absolutely fine (to contribute), of course, but the majority of members of this forum are active carers, wishing to help other active carers, and most do not have to cut and paste large tracts of someone else's text to do that. Their experience and obvious empathy is enough.
That being said, the text editor of the forum software does accept large numbers of words, so, some may wish to fill it up. There is a saying that comes to mind: "more is less".
Because there are so many words, I guess there needs to be some bolding to highlight relevant parts.
However, people shouldn't be upset if members don't choose to read what they write [and this goes for all authors of text here, and all readers] don't become upset; it is a free country after all.
If the fractious tone of someone's posting turns readers away, the poster shouldn't become angry, after all it has been done with intent, to gain attention. The fact remains they are simply posting their views, and nobody has either to read them, or to agree with them. The sad thing is that most would agree with much of it; the flaw is in the inappropriate presentation.
At the start of this thread, Iberian stated "I clicked off as soon as I read the words 'Eligibility Criteria'." Why therefore be offended if others click off when they see the annual incursion has started?
Members of this forum are, in general, a pretty special bunch providing powerful support to each other, throughout the year, through times good and bad.
They are not, however daft and can quickly spot pyrites among their gold.
