So, to those for who private sector is invariably better...
Discussion
...fancy retiring to a home run by Southern Cross?
or you could always try Staffordshire Hospital - people are dying to get there....
Pupp said:
...fancy retiring to a home run by Southern Cross?
Nope but would want assisted suicide to be legal when I would want it.It isn't really the private sector, is it. Their customers are the Councils.
In the real private sector, you prepare for your old age during your working life. In other words, you don't go out every Friday night and spend your wages on booze. You put a bit away for when you are unable to earn enough to pay your costs.
Most, if not all of, Southern Cross's "clients" are actually supported by the state. It isn't really the private sector at all.
Think about it, if there was no provision for care for the elderly, then people would realise that they had to save for their retirement. You would then get a market driven system of care homes, and only the best providers would survive.
The problem with the current system is that the council is the customer. If the Elderly were the customers then the service would be much better. They would have the freedom to move to another home. They cannot choose where they are cared for because the state is involved.
Don
--
In the real private sector, you prepare for your old age during your working life. In other words, you don't go out every Friday night and spend your wages on booze. You put a bit away for when you are unable to earn enough to pay your costs.
Most, if not all of, Southern Cross's "clients" are actually supported by the state. It isn't really the private sector at all.
Think about it, if there was no provision for care for the elderly, then people would realise that they had to save for their retirement. You would then get a market driven system of care homes, and only the best providers would survive.
The problem with the current system is that the council is the customer. If the Elderly were the customers then the service would be much better. They would have the freedom to move to another home. They cannot choose where they are cared for because the state is involved.
Don
--
don4l come back when you understand the market mix, funding arragements and the 'user choice' in the residential and Nursing care homes marketplace ...
for permanent placements there is very definitely a market and choice , it's only intermediate care and health funded rehab that has limited choice ...
for permanent placements there is very definitely a market and choice , it's only intermediate care and health funded rehab that has limited choice ...
mph1977 said:
don4l come back when you understand the market mix, funding arragements and the 'user choice' in the residential and Nursing care homes marketplace ...
for permanent placements there is very definitely a market and choice , it's only intermediate care and health funded rehab that has limited choice ...
Why do I need to understand complicated things like "market fix"?for permanent placements there is very definitely a market and choice , it's only intermediate care and health funded rehab that has limited choice ...
If I am old, and I have saved for my retirement, then I will just go to a place where I will be cared for.
Don
--
don4l said:
Why do I need to understand complicated things like "market fix"?
If I am old, and I have saved for my retirement, then I will just go to a place where I will be cared for.
Don
--
Your assertion was that people with any aspect of 'council' involvement in finding a residential or nursing home place were somehow deprived of choice is incorrect, therefore i suggested that you return to this thread when you actually understood what happens in this field...If I am old, and I have saved for my retirement, then I will just go to a place where I will be cared for.
Don
--
mph1977 said:
Your assertion was that people with any aspect of 'council' involvement in finding a residential or nursing home place were somehow deprived of choice is incorrect, therefore i suggested that you return to this thread when you actually understood what happens in this field...
Rather than coming across as a know-it-all t
t by very rudely dismissing Don's argument, why not explain to us how it DOES actually work?mph1977 said:
don4l come back when you understand the market mix, funding arragements and the 'user choice' in the residential and Nursing care homes marketplace ...
...
Well, I don't know about the market etc but IIRC from my degree all those years ago, the law determines that a care home (even if "private sector") is supplying a state service and accordingly is bound by the Human Rights Act.... Therefore in law it is deemed to be the public sector....
don4l said:
Why do I need to understand complicated things like "market fix"?
If I am old, and I have saved for my retirement, then I will just go to a place where I will be cared for.
Don
--
What will you do if you have dementia, and can't figure out anything for yourself?If I am old, and I have saved for my retirement, then I will just go to a place where I will be cared for.
Don
--
What will you do if the organisation holding your savings does a runner and you end up with no money? What will you do if your bank trades into a crashing loss?
What will you do if you've been in a care home for a long time, you're very frail and the thought of moving is so dreadful that you'd rather die and the people running the private company that supplies your home has decided to spend its money on parties with Rod Stewart instead?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Exactly right Tonks, this scandal had its origins about five years ago, Private care was the darling of Private Equity, you bought an asset (the house) which was rising in value by around 5% per year, you had an income stream from the asset (the residents) and it was scalable.... easy money. But someone like BUPA - were historically paying quite low money to buy out private one man bands, were suddenly bid OFF the market by PE houses like southern cross (blackstone) paying roughly double what long term players thought the businesses were worth.
Blackstone flipped the property side to exit their cash (or borrowed further against the assets) and low and behold in a falling market they can't service the rents/debts.
some fvcking geniuses in PE houses.....
Pints said:
Rather than coming across as a know-it-all tt by very rudely dismissing Don's argument, why not explain to us how it DOES actually work?
you or your Attorney can choose essentially freely, although LAs would prefer you do choose nearby homes on their list and where funding stuff is set up ... if you recieve State funding you receive it up to a certain price per week the exact source and price will depend on whether it;ssocail care funding , social care funding + nursing funding or NHS continuing care ( which unless it;s terminal care or you are a high lesion quad / have a degenerative neuro condition that lkeads to you being ventilated / have something like huntingdons is very unlikely) , if the fees are greater than that you have to find the top up ... t by very rudely dismissing Don's argument, why not explain to us how it DOES actually work?Jasandjules said:
Well, I don't know about the market etc but IIRC from my degree all those years ago, the law determines that a care home (even if "private sector") is supplying a state service and accordingly is bound by the Human Rights Act.... Therefore in law it is deemed to be the public sector.
it's only providing a 'state service' if the care is NHS or LA funded ... and for some people unfortuantely this point is never reached , especially if they went into the home at the top of the property market ...Gargamel said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Exactly right Tonks, this scandal had its origins about five years ago, Private care was the darling of Private Equity, you bought an asset (the house) which was rising in value by around 5% per year, you had an income stream from the asset (the residents) and it was scalable.... easy money. But someone like BUPA - were historically paying quite low money to buy out private one man bands, were suddenly bid OFF the market by PE houses like southern cross (blackstone) paying roughly double what long term players thought the businesses were worth.
Blackstone flipped the property side to exit their cash (or borrowed further against the assets) and low and behold in a falling market they can't service the rents/debts.
some fvcking geniuses in PE houses.....
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Nail, head.Massive sale and leaseback at punchy rents, property subsequently sold on at the stupidly keen yields they were attracting 5 years ago.
Falling income means the Southern Cross business struggling to pay the high occupation costs, and the Arabs looking down the barrel of a chunky value drop in their care home prop portfolio and the prospect of unpaid rent.
The business may be bummed but at least Blackstone guys stripped out a few hundred mill.
What concerns me is where the proceeds on the disposal of all those properties ended up. My expectation is that they were, inconvoluted ways perhaps to save tax, extracted out of the operating company and found their way, eventually, into the personal hands of the proprietors/owners of Southern Cross.
They therefore turned bricks and mortar assets into a cash assets and then stripped the cash from the company leaving it with insufficient working capital to cope with contingencies, such as a drop in income.
They therefore turned bricks and mortar assets into a cash assets and then stripped the cash from the company leaving it with insufficient working capital to cope with contingencies, such as a drop in income.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff