# Nursing Home HELL



## Aussiejeff (30 May 2010)

The Grand Plan of our political masters encompasses a vision of Next Genners happily self funding their retirement until they die in lavish surrounds?

*POP*

Welcome to Y(OUR) future reality....  

http://www.news.com.au/national/unf...s-living-in-hell/story-e6frfkvr-1225872968031

Sick.

:angry:


----------



## explod (30 May 2010)

Good thread for attention Aussiejeff, my wife and other family as nurses have at times worked in such facilities and it is indeed not a good outlook.

In fact we have consciously discussed the future in our family and will never entertain nursing home care for ourselves.   We keep fit but when a certain time comes hope that faculties allow us to part life under our own terms.


----------



## Aussiejeff (30 May 2010)

explod said:


> Good thread for attention Aussiejeff, my wife and other family as nurses have at times worked in such facilities and it is indeed not a good outlook.
> 
> In fact we have consciously discussed the future in our family and will never entertain nursing home care for ourselves.   *We keep fit but when a certain time comes hope that faculties allow us to part life under our own terms.*




Therein lies the conundrum, explod.

I would bet that each and every one of those currently in nursing home accomodation were hoping for the same outcome before they succumbed to alzheimers, dementia, serious illness etc. Like you, we all hope & pray that we all end up parting life "under our own terms".

However, the opposite reality seems to be more the norm...

For example:

My wife's uncle has dementia and cannot care for himself. He is currently being shuffled from one accomodation unit to another as there are not enough "permanent" beds available in the Albury/Wodonga region. He NEVER wanted to end up in nursing home situation. His children ALWAYS said they would look after him at home and NEVER let him go into a nursing home. His declining health and rapid onset of dementia put paid to that ideal and nearly sent some of the kids nuts trying to deal with going back on their word.

My wife's widowed mum is in an end-stage dementia unit. She NEVER wanted to go into nursing home accomodation. We NEVER wanted her to, either. But in the end, our lives were becoming a living hell just trying to keep her at home and deal 24/7 with her needs.

My wife's widowed auntie has just been diagnosed with terminal (12mths at best) mesothelioma after 3 mths in hospital. She has just been moved to a hospital oncology unit and at some point will go to a high care cancer unit to see out her time. She NEVER wanted to be in this situation. Her children NEVER wanted her to be in this situation. But she needs 24hr a day care. What to do?

My own mother went through this, as well as my father, grandfathers, grandmothers etc.

Almost none have grown old in comfort and security of health, to die at home, peacefully, surrounded by caring family and friends. Somehow, I don't like my chances of achieving that ideal.

So, how we as a society come to grips with this over the coming generations will be more than interesting.

I wish everyone the best in this regard.

aj


----------



## medicowallet (30 May 2010)

Aussiejeff said:


> The Grand Plan of our political masters encompasses a vision of Next Genners happily self funding their retirement until they die in lavish surrounds?
> 
> *POP*
> 
> ...




And which generation will be funding baby boomer nursing home requirements?

The same ones which are being not being offered the same opportunities as they were.

Perhaps some young political party should be formed to "keep the old bastards honest".  A suggestion would be a baby boomer levy.

Edit: not saying that anyone deserves to live in such conditions (I see this kind of thing regularly), it is just that we can only expect what is reasonable whilst protecting the standards of everyone.


----------



## Wysiwyg (30 May 2010)

Aussiejeff said:


> My own mother went through this, as well as my father, grandfathers, grandmothers etc.
> 
> Almost none have grown old in comfort and security of health, to die at home, peacefully, surrounded by caring family and friends. Somehow, I don't like my chances of achieving that ideal.
> 
> ...




I cried.

Mate I have only one experience of such situation when we visited our Nan at a nursing home twice.  On the first occasion, a few months before her passing away, she was behaving like a brat child and carrying on with nonsense talk. Not the Nan I knew before.
On the second occasion, the day before her passing away,  she lay in bed with a deathly look upon her face. Like her spirit had left and the body remained. That was it for me. I cried openly that day for the pending loss like I thought I never would. 

A carers role in these situations is not enviable.

End catharsis.


----------



## Aussiejeff (30 May 2010)

medicowallet said:


> And which generation will be funding baby boomer nursing home requirements?
> 
> The same ones which are being not being offered the same opportunities as they were.
> 
> ...




I think we need to drop the Generation blame game.

Just who will the old bastard Gen Yer's blame when all the BB's are dead and gone? Gen X'ers? And so on into the future fog? We get dealt a hand in life and have to deal with it one way or another. IMO blaming whole generations serves no purpose here.

cheers,


aj


----------



## UBIQUITOUS (30 May 2010)

I can't think of anything more grim than spending my dying days in a nursing home.

My missus worked in one, and one day they had one very old lady with excrement around her mouth which another resident was feeing her :22_yikes:. Both were obviously 'not all there'.

With the facility so understaffed, it wasn't really the nurses' fault either.


----------



## Julia (30 May 2010)

medicowallet said:


> And which generation will be funding baby boomer nursing home requirements?
> 
> The same ones which are being not being offered the same opportunities as they were.
> 
> ...



The cold observation of one who is young and healthy, yet to face the fear of encroaching old age.  Let's hope a more enlightened approach has come about by the time you're old and vulnerable.




Aussiejeff said:


> I think we need to drop the Generation blame game.
> 
> Just who will the old bastard Gen Yer's blame when all the BB's are dead and gone? Gen X'ers? And so on into the future fog? We get dealt a hand in life and have to deal with it one way or another. IMO blaming whole generations serves no purpose here.
> 
> ...



Agree entirely, AJ.   Every now and again a report like this surfaces, and a few people jump up and down, mutter about what a disgrace it is, but nothing fundamental ever happens to improve anything.
As long as aged care institutions are for profit, and as long as the wages for carers are so woeful, nothing will change.

I think it's everyone's worst fear to end up in a nursing home. Most old people would rather commit suicide, but lack the means or physical capacity.
If we had voluntary euthanasia, it would solve so much, but no - despite more than 80% of the population being in favour of it - our godbothering politicians will never have the political courage to do other than condemn our old folk to the sort of tragedy described in the link above.

It's a subject very close to my heart.  My late father experienced a medical event which left him unable to look after himself, post the surgical procedure.  He needed ongoing quite intensive nursing care and went to a nursing home, very much against his will.  It was quite a good establishment with largely caring staff, though of course too few of them.
For three months he begged me to help him commit suicide, e.g. taking him back to his house where he had a rifle, leaving him there to shoot himself, and then coming back to 'discover' what had happened.  Much as I understood how he felt, if I'd done this I would have been charged with assisting a suicide and probably gone to jail.   Many were the sleepless nights as I wrestled with what to do.

Eventually on a cold winter night he told the staff not to disturb him, that he was going to bed early. His body was found on the beach next morning torn about by rocks and coral.  He had somehow negotiated his way the 500 metres or so down a steep hill in the dark and drowned himself.
I've never found the words for how I felt when the police came to tell me, or even how I feel now remembering that time.


----------



## Blitzed (30 May 2010)

Julia said:


> The cold observation of one who is young and healthy, yet to face the fear of encroaching old age.  Let's hope a more enlightened approach has come about by the time you're old and vulnerable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Blitzed (30 May 2010)

Julia, your post about your father has me in tears, I just dont understand why such suffering is still going on when we have the means just not the balls to listen to what people want.

I worked in a lovely nursing home for about 3 months, but when you see what can and does go on behind closed doors, it is very very sad and depressing. I had to leave.


----------



## awg (30 May 2010)

An observation I might make, is that the worst case scenario is to be in a nursing home dependant on a pension.

Should one be able to afford to move into a higher quality home, things would generally be better. 

Example, Gough Whitlam has moved into one

That is one reason I try to make financial provision for that situation, as unless one is fortunate enough to drop dead, chances are high that the final year-of-life will be difficult  

Can be extremely difficult to manage patients with advanced dementia.

I am personally somewhat in favor of voluntary euthanasia, but nevertheless see many potential problems with it.

Eventually, this situation will have to be dealt with, due to the aging population...but can you imagine bible-thumping Rudd or Abbott, for instance saying "yes I agree" ?

Discussed this matter today with someone who has some behind-the-scene knowledge, said they would rather commit suicide than go into a low-rent nursing home


----------



## Buckfont (30 May 2010)

Just read your post Julia and that must have ripped you apart. We never want to lose our loved ones in such appalling circumstances.

I worked not in a nursing home but in a retirement village for 6 years in a supervisory role not by any means at the top. These institutions are run to support the `bottom line` and as good as this establishment was, the cost cutting I could never quite get my head around because we are talking about people, their needs, their feelings and their futures. I ended resigning.

In the time I was employed , there was three changes of ownership, two of which I understand were a consortium of fat cats, farmers, lawyers ie those who saw the dollar signs rather than the compassionate signs. 

Oddly enough not only the ones to suffer were the staff. They were downsized, had their hours reduced, had to multitask and with their love and compassion to do all that was the required. The residents especially the total care ones that had meals provided and rooms cleaned often complained because the clauses in the contracts that they signed didn`t often come up to expectations.

I have great alarm for the next 10,20,30 years, and as a baby boomer it freaks me out how society is going to cope with the huge influx of folk that are incapable of self help, and it freaks me out even further that our govts are not addressing the issue of paying our carers and giving huge financial incentives to those who may love to follow this profession, which it is, instead of seeking the dough. For often as I have learn`t, there are great riches in working with the sick, the elderly and the infirm.

Thats our `bottom line` sooner or later,


----------



## medicowallet (30 May 2010)

Julia said:


> The cold observation of one who is young and healthy, yet to face the fear of encroaching old age.  Let's hope a more enlightened approach has come about by the time you're old and vulnerable.
> 
> 
> .




Sorry Julia, you have made assumptions about my age and health which are inaccurate.

I am merely pointing out the facts. That some people have to fund the services, and it is not the people who are using them. 

I actually work with ill people, I see what happens, and I can tell you, that it is not nice. My "observations" are realistic, not cold, nor is my attitude or professional demeanor.  

Funding is limited, and so is the professional and social contributions of the professionals involved, in the environment available to them. 

I take offense at your insinuations and at your patronising tone, and I hope that this is only a result of your horrible experience, which, although often not nearly as tragic, is too common.


----------



## wayneL (30 May 2010)

medicowallet said:


> I take offense at your insinuations and at your patronising tone, and I hope that this is only a result of your horrible experience, which, although often not nearly as tragic, is too common.




I wouldn't.

Taking offence does nothing to increase understanding, but rather, creates chasms that are difficult to fill.

You detail empathy but stop short of practising the same.

I suggest discussion rather than censure.


----------



## So_Cynical (30 May 2010)

Money is a wonderful thing if you have it...it allows some to live wonderful lives and have comfortable deaths...living without money ain't much fun and dying without money certainly reduces your options and likely hood of a comfortable death in pleasant surroundings.

We really need some sort of decriminalisation of Nembutal importation for personal use....or something.


----------



## Blitzed (30 May 2010)

Sadly, unless you are in a really and I mean really high quality home (and famous) it will make no difference. If you have Dementia or Alzheimers the care is about the same.

I have seen people of wealthy backgrounds still begging to die, and in great discomfort. In the better homes you will get your nappy changed, washed and fed but you will still hear them screaming at night....no amount of money will save you from this. (Trust me)

Until you worked in these places day and NIGHT you have no idea how bad it is, and how poorly some carers are viewed.

It makes my blood boil.


----------



## explod (30 May 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Money is a wonderful thing if you have it...it allows some to live wonderful lives and have comfortable deaths...living without money ain't much fun and dying without money certainly reduces your options and likely hood of a comfortable death in pleasant surroundings.
> 
> We really need some sort of decriminalisation of Nembutal importation for personal use....or something.




I think it will come.  First the *cost* and weight of the enlarging aged population and second the changing ethics of the new generation into the positions of power.


----------



## awg (30 May 2010)

Blitzed said:


> Sadly, unless you are in a really and I mean really high quality home (and famous) it will make no difference. If you have Dementia or Alzheimers the care is about the same.
> 
> I have seen people of wealthy backgrounds still begging to die, and in great discomfort. In the better homes you will get your nappy changed, washed and fed but you will still hear them screaming at night....no amount of money will save you from this. (Trust me)
> 
> ...




You are probably correct.

like I said tho, dying slow is usually unpleasant

I dont envy the carers at all, having worked in customer service for many years, I dont like to think how I would treat people if I was overworked, tired, and people were being difficult, whether it is there fault or not.

Knowing what goes on in the mental health field in general, the growing incidence of age-related dementia will completely overwhelm the age-care system at some point in time, with very disturbing implications


----------



## Julia (30 May 2010)

medicowallet said:


> Sorry Julia, you have made assumptions about my age and health which are inaccurate.



I apologise for making incorrect assumptions.  I have obviously quite wrongly assumed that a post which to me displayed the arrogance and lack of maturity and understanding only usually applicable to youth, would in fact come from someone young and healthy enough to be so dismissive.



> I actually work with ill people, I see what happens, and I can tell you, that it is not nice. My "observations" are realistic, not cold, nor is my attitude or professional demeanor.



We will have to take your word for your professional demeanour.  Having worked in the medical field for many years, I've come across many doctors who pride themselves on their 'professionalism'.  Most patients would happily sacrifice a little of the finely honed skills for a few moments of kindness and empathy.



> Funding is limited, and so is the professional and social contributions of the professionals involved, in the environment available to them.



The funding needs to be substantially improved, quite obviously.  But people in nursing homes probably rarely vote, so I won't be holding my breath for this.
The medical personnel, however, should not be constrained by funding concerns in the attitude they display toward the vulnerable people in their care.



> I take offense at your insinuations and at your patronising tone, and I hope that this is only a result of your horrible experience, which, although often not nearly as tragic, is too common.



Well, if you take offence that's up to you.  My response to your remarks stands.


----------



## medicowallet (30 May 2010)

Julia said:


> I apologise for making incorrect assumptions.  I have obviously quite wrongly assumed that a post which to me displayed the arrogance and lack of maturity and understanding only usually applicable to youth, would in fact come from someone young and healthy enough to be so dismissive.




I find it quite interesting that you think that it is childish to point out that there is a problem, and that the people who are going to be contributing to the problem the most have not been properly taxed to pay for the services they will be receiving.

There is nothing childish in that. It is only pointing out that baby boomers in general would prefer to have others fund their retirement than themselves, and the fact that they did not have to support a generation as self centred as themselves is quite frankly indecent.

It is quite arrogant and immature to not be able to recognise that generational change is contributing to this problem, and that the solution is not simply to overtax younger generations. 

I do not want my children to be unfairly taxed supporting my generation when I had it easy compared to them.





Julia said:


> The funding needs to be substantially improved, quite obviously.  But people in nursing homes probably rarely vote, so I won't be holding my breath for this.
> The medical personnel, however, should not be constrained by funding concerns in the attitude they display toward the vulnerable people in their care..




Of course it is quite acceptable for people with little understanding of the healthcare system to expect people to give even more free time of theirs than they already do. I am unaware of your committments to such activities, but most medical practitioners spend many hours extra per week for which they get no remuneration, and I guess from the tone of your post that you do not value the sacrifices that these professionals make with regard to their own free time, and the kinds of pressures that this can put on career longevity and family committments.


----------



## explod (30 May 2010)

medicowallet said:


> I do not want my children to be unfairly taxed supporting my generation when I had it easy compared to them.
> 
> .




Yep, nail on the head.    As hard as it seems considerable readjustments will occur as the size of the problem is growing exponentially.


----------



## sails (30 May 2010)

medicowallet said:


> ...Of course it is quite acceptable for people with little understanding of the healthcare system to expect people to give even more free time of theirs than they already do. I am unaware of your committments to such activities, but most medical practitioners spend many hours extra per week for which they get no remuneration, and I guess from the tone of your post that you do not value the sacrifices that these professionals make with regard to their own free time, and the kinds of pressures that this can put on career longevity and family committments.




I think you might be surprised just how much Julia gives freely of her own time to her assist in her local community.  I think you will also find she has a pretty good understanding of the healthcare system...


----------



## medicowallet (30 May 2010)

sails said:


> I think you might be surprised just how much Julia gives freely of her own time to her assist in her local community.  I think you will also find she has a pretty good understanding of the healthcare system...




I don't doubt she does, and never accused her of not contributing.

Those of us who do, know it is quite rewarding. The problem is when it becomes expected and the person succumbs to the added pressures.

I find community volunteer work much more rewarding, as people are more appreciative of it, it actually makes a difference, and I can determine which times I wish to sacrifice my time for others, and which times where my family and self get the priority we require for stability.

That being, it seems ridiculous for me to burn myself out for a problem that is endemic, and the differences that can be made are miniscule. To burn out the people who make the difference is counter productive.



explod said:


> Yep, nail on the head.    As hard as it seems considerable readjustments will occur as the size of the problem is growing exponentially.




Be careful what you post, this might be taken to heart, and you might be reprimanded for highlighting the facts which policy makers, taxpayers and the industry faces.


----------



## Julia (31 May 2010)

medicowallet said:


> I find it quite interesting that you think that it is childish to point out that there is a problem, and that the people who are going to be contributing to the problem the most have not been properly taxed to pay for the services they will be receiving.



I didn't use the term "childish".  Neither did I comment on who should be contributing to taxes.  I just observed your 'tone' which was imo lacking in empathy toward the topic of the thread.   




> There is nothing childish in that. It is only pointing out that baby boomers in general would prefer to have others fund their retirement than themselves, and the fact that they did not have to support a generation as self centred as themselves is quite frankly indecent.



Sigh.  Generalisations about any generation are not sensible.  I, e.g., am a baby boomer, and fully prepared to fund my own retirement and healthcare.



> Of course it is quite acceptable for people with little understanding of the healthcare system to expect people to give even more free time of theirs than they already do. I am unaware of your committments to such activities, but most medical practitioners spend many hours extra per week for which they get no remuneration, and I guess from the tone of your post that you do not value the sacrifices that these professionals make with regard to their own free time, and the kinds of pressures that this can put on career longevity and family committments.



I'm having a bit of a wry smile at this, given my husband was a GP who also did obstetrics, and in addition ran a team of accident/emergency doctors who were available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, purely on a voluntary basis.   I managed a large and very busy medical centre for much of my working life, and also supported young pregnant women who had no family.  This included being present at their delivery, so not only was my husband frequently out in the middle of the night with deliveries, I was also.
The appreciation of the young women concerned made the inconvenience well worth while.

Then in a different capacity later, I've spent countless hours in hospitals.

Reluctantly, I've also been a consumer of the system.  I've known many doctors who are clinically competent, but simply lack the compassion and empathy that is so important to sick and aged people.

This has nothing to do with time, paid or unpaid.  It's simply a feature or not of their character.  Give me the doctor with empathy and warmth anytime over someone who prides themselves on their capacity to "not burn themselves out".

I will not be further hijacking this thread with personal facts so if you want to further accuse me of lack of understanding of the life of a medical professional, then I suggest you do so via PM.


----------



## medicowallet (31 May 2010)

Julia said:


> I didn't use the term "childish".  Neither did I comment on who should be contributing to taxes.  I just observed your 'tone' which was imo lacking in empathy toward the topic of the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  Generalisations about any generation are not sensible.  I, e.g., am a baby boomer, and fully prepared to fund my own retirement and healthcare.




Generalisations. Tak of being a hypocrite. It is EXACTLY what you did.

I am glad that you have an interest in the medical field, and have performed clerical duties in this regards. It does not expose you to the true pressures of such a vocation, and to pretend that it does, makes you look foolish.


----------



## trainspotter (31 May 2010)

medicowallet said:


> Generalisations. Tak of being a hypocrite. It is EXACTLY what you did.
> 
> I am glad that you have an interest in the medical field, and have performed clerical duties in this regards. It does not expose you to the true pressures of such a vocation, and to pretend that it does, makes you look foolish.




Give me Julias experience in this field anytime medicowallet, seeing how her husband was a GP who also did obstetrics, and in addition ran a team of accident/emergency doctors who were available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, purely on a voluntary basis. You know what they say "Behind every great man is an even greater woman". I would say that Julia has seen greater "pressures" in this vocation as she married into the profession and ran a medical centre as well ERGO she has seen both sides of the coin. As her post said _"This included being present at their delivery, so not only was my husband frequently out in the middle of the night with deliveries,* I was also.* "_

Me thinks she has more than an "interest" in the medical field. Looks like to me she has many, many years of practical experience as well.


----------



## derty (31 May 2010)

medicowallet said:


> Generalisations. Tak of being a hypocrite. It is EXACTLY what you did.
> 
> I am glad that you have an interest in the medical field, and have performed clerical duties in this regards. It does not expose you to the true pressures of such a vocation, and to pretend that it does, makes you look foolish.



There's only one person here looking like a fool and an arrogant one at that.

In your medical exposure I sincerely hope it doesn't involve any patient contact, for their sake.


----------



## medicowallet (31 May 2010)

derty said:


> There's only one person here looking like a fool and an arrogant one at that.
> 
> In your medical exposure I sincerely hope it doesn't involve any patient contact, for their sake.




I am arrogant. But at least I am consistently stand by my post and don't put people down for the exact same thing I am doing.


----------



## waza1960 (31 May 2010)

While I sympathise with the carers and staff of nursing homes and the plight of the residents I offer the following relevant points IMO .
  Firstly I think it will get more difficult to find compassionate staff as time goes on because the system/government/Bureaucrats are not interested in compassion, caring etc only costs.
  Caring compassionate staff are leaving because they can't reconcile their beliefs/values with that of the relevant organisation.
   Although this probably applies more to the health system I also wonder how many patients the tax payer is supporting who have damaged themselves with substance abuse and we are now paying the health costs which they may have at least partially brought on themselves.


----------



## Julia (31 May 2010)

waza1960 said:


> While I sympathise with the carers and staff of nursing homes and the plight of the residents I offer the following relevant points IMO .
> Firstly I think it will get more difficult to find compassionate staff as time goes on because the system/government/Bureaucrats are not interested in compassion, caring etc only costs.
> Caring compassionate staff are leaving because they can't reconcile their beliefs/values with that of the relevant organisation.



I agree, waza, and the low rates of pay for staff don't begin to compensate them for the stressful working conditions.


----------



## medicowallet (31 May 2010)

Julia said:


> I agree, waza, and the low rates of pay for staff don't begin to compensate them for the stressful working conditions.




Too true, but I don't think that the staff don't care as much (they are still the same human beings that they have always been) but they can just be too darn exhausted to be able to give the patient the best care possible.


----------



## Wysiwyg (31 May 2010)

medicowallet said:


> Too true, but I don't think that the staff don't care as much (they are still the same human beings that they have always been) but they can just be too darn exhausted to be able to give the patient the best care possible.



Additionally, the staff can't hook up emotionally to all the residents. Not a place for the emotionally sensitive. The ones I saw performing their role were assertive and understanding of the circumstances they work under. Like all occupations some people do it because "it's a job" while others do it because they want to.


----------



## So_Cynical (31 May 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> Additionally, the staff can't hook up emotionally to all the residents. Not a place for the emotionally sensitive. The ones I saw performing their role were assertive and understanding of the circumstances they work under. Like all occupations some people do it because "it's a job" while others do it because they want to.




My wife did it because it was a job, she was unskilled and she didn't know any better..she lasted about 10 months as she found that she just couldn't do her job and remain emotion less...its a pretty weird job when you go to work in the morning wondering who didn't make it thru the night.


----------



## Muschu (1 June 2010)

medicowallet said:


> I am arrogant. But at least I am consistently stand by my post and don't put people down for the exact same thing I am doing.




It's late and I have not looked back through this entire thread - sorry.

I have no medical training but have a great respect for qualified practictioners and consider that, like all professions [including my own which were (prior to semi-retirement) education and psychology)], there are associated levels of commitment, aptitude and attitude.  

As a surgical patient, twice, in recent years I have been under the scapel of a general surgeon [who did a good job and was best with unconscious patients] and a urological surgeon [aged about 70] who had superior surgical and people skills.

I hope I do not become a patient in a nursing home - time will tell.  And yet I know, and have known, people who are in that situation who find time or reason to smile every day.  How I would cope I don't know.

In some respects I admire posters who are able to be so definitive in their views.  They are either exceptionally knowledgeable [a possibility I am not being cynical about] or simply have a capacity not to think too laterally.  

I think most people on ASF have learned that Julia is very human, humane and not arrogant.  At least that is my impression. 

"Medicowallet" is an interesting title and perhaps an unusual one.  I am not sure how to interpret it.  There's nothing wrong of course with a medico, like anyone else, having an interest in the back pocket as well as an interest in medicine.

Is it rude to ask, MW, for some specifics on your medical role and qualifications?  If you consider this irrelevant then please just say so.

If there is any point in me going first I am prepared to say that I retired as a school principal and have worked as both an educational and general psychologist.  I graduated as a teacher in 1964.  I have been a Member of the Aust Psych Society since 1969. I have lectured, at a basic level, at University on an occasional basis.  As a younger person I also worked behind a counter in retail and as a factory hand.  All jobs, I hope, serve a purpose.

But within my more recent roles there are many specific areas where I am not qualified or trained.  I am quite OK with stating that I am overwhelmed by the knowledge that I do not, and will never, have.

Similiarly with medicine there are specialities and qualfication levels and I would be interested in knowing what yours are and in which field/s you work.

It is not difficult to sit behind a computer keyboard and express absolute (and anonymous) views [such as in the Corby thread].  There's almost a cathartic safety in doing so.  

But the reality is, imo, that nursing care for our population is increasingly becoming a massive issue.  I don't know the answers. Arrogance, in my view, can have a place - and can serve a better purpose than fence-sitting - but it need to be balanced with expertise and just a modest degree of listening capacity.

I hope that, if there's one thing we can all agree on, it is that we are fortunate to be living and ageing here and not in many other places on this planet.


----------



## weird (1 June 2010)

Just curious, how does someone end up in a nursing home ? Do they or some one else request it ?


----------



## waza1960 (1 June 2010)

> Just curious, how does someone end up in a nursing home ? Do they or some one else request it ?



  Usually when the family and the person themselves realise that there is no other option a sad situation 
 I've also seen people who were reasonably happy at home and then they have gone to a nursing home and they just refuse to eat etc   maybe because of the shock of their circumstances they just give up.
  One person I know was dead within a month of admission to a home


----------



## medicowallet (1 June 2010)

Muschu said:


> I think most people on ASF have learned that Julia is very human, humane and not arrogant.  At least that is my impression.
> 
> "Medicowallet" is an interesting title and perhaps an unusual one.  I am not sure how to interpret it.  There's nothing wrong of course with a medico, like anyone else, having an interest in the back pocket as well as an interest in medicine.
> 
> Is it rude to ask, MW, for some specifics on your medical role and qualifications?  If you consider this irrelevant then please just say so.




I do not have the experience with posters as some here with 1000 posts do, I admit. I just take a viewpoint that someone who generalises me about my age etc and then tells me not to the same regarding generations is not conforming to their own rules. I hope my opinion changes, and also Julia's as I think she jumped to harsh conclusions with little thought of the fact that I was trying to convey an economic reality, not my personal and professional attitudes, and as I said I took offense to that as my first consideration is to the patient.

My title, make of it as you may. I don't think someone's title makes a difference, just the content of their posts.  Of course there is nothing wrong with making a living, everyone earns what they deserve, it is only when they exploit people where it becomes a problem.

I do not consider my qualifications irrelevant to the discussion, just irresponsible to put on a public forum.


----------



## basilio (1 June 2010)

This is about the herd of elephants in the living room.

I would suggest almost without exception every reader has a direct experience of relatives, parents or friends in nursing homes or accommodation centres.  We would like to believe they are somehow "good" places because frankly we don't want to face up the possibility that our loved ones (and then us) will end up in a nightmare. It's just too hard.

Like many others I have watched many older relatives go into homes and witnessed  the rapid collapse of health and activity. In most cases their brains have turned to mush within a month. 

I just can't see a real solution in the current situation. Throwing more money at private operators will not work. The focus on profitability is too powerful to see any improvement in the lives of residents. *And again as noted don't even consider the possibility that a baby grand in the foyer and pretty pictures on the wall translates into quality care.*

Probably the most constructive approach I have seen is a model where a small number of people live in a large home with the support and care of a nurse and perhaps one other person. The residents also are active in helping to take care of themselves.

It is not a for profit model and obviously could also be abused -  but it did look good.

 (I can't find the  reference for this  but I do remember reading about it . Anyone else heard of this scheme?)


----------



## awg (1 June 2010)

I think Medicowallet posts are reasonable, and to the point.

his nic made me laugh.

many doctors I have acquaintance of have god-like egos and went into the profession for money, thats life (others are unbelievebly compassionate)

doctoring is a very hard job imo, as are nursing or age care

(my personal Doctor for many years was blunt to the point of rudeness, and if you didnt like it, go find another Dr, which I did, after we had an argument about his treatment of me once)


----------



## Logique (1 June 2010)

There is a place where patients are eased to a painless and dignified death. It's the local council animal shelter. Which says it all about our medieval outlook on human rights of the elderly. 

Roll on a more enlightened age, it's well past time.


----------



## nioka (1 June 2010)

medicowallet said:


> I do not consider my qualifications irrelevant to the discussion, just irresponsible to put on a public forum.




Maybe it is reasonable to assume that your choice of name for a public forum is irresponsible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## nioka (1 June 2010)

Logique said:


> There is a place where patients are eased to a painless and dignified death. It's the local council animal shelter. Which says it all about our medieval outlook on human rights of the elderly.
> 
> Roll on a more enlightened age, it's well past time.




Will the enlightened age allow aged people more choice of their time to die than almost all of the patients in the local council animal shelter. Here it is a case of "if no one wants to take you home after 10 days then its times up".


----------



## nunthewiser (2 June 2010)

Senior health care solution

So you're a sick senior citizen and the government says there is no nursing home available for you - what do you do? 

Our plan gives anyone 70 years or older a gun and 4 bullets. You are allowed to shoot 2 Federal MP’s and 2 State MP's – not necessarily dead!   Wounding is fine!

Of course, this means you will be sent to prison where you will get 3 meals a day, a roof over your head, central heating, and all the health care you need!  New teeth - no problem.  Need glasses, great.  New hip, knees, kidney, lungs, heart?  All covered. (And your kids can come and visit you as often as they do now). 

And who will be paying for all of this?  The same government that just told you that you they cannot afford for you to go into a home. 

Plus, because you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any income taxes anymore. 

IS THIS A GREAT COUNTRY OR WHAT?


Found in my email box 

makes sense actually


----------



## Muschu (2 June 2010)

medicowallet said:


> ..... I do not consider my qualifications irrelevant to the discussion, just irresponsible to put on a public forum.




That's fine MW. There is certainly no need for qualifications to be posted - although I am not sure I would consider it irresponsible.

You mentioned Julia's "clerical work" or contributions with regard to medicine and I was merely trying to get an idea of your own work in the field.  I have no idea whether this is voluntary Red Cross work, as an orderly, as a medical specialist or whatever.  All are important.

And in some respects your qualifications are of limited relevance as we are all entitled to opinions irrespective of our jobs, contributions or qualifications.

From what I have learned, Julia's contributions are of quite some significance.

What is an issue for me is the way in which some people display discourtesy on internet forums while they are enscounced behind a keyboard.  I've probably been guilty of this myself but try not to type things that I would not be prepared to state in person.

The issue of nursing homes is very important of course and I hope that postings made by any of us, whether we have posted 10 or a 1000 times, are respectful.

Best wishes

Rick


----------



## awg (2 June 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> Senior health care solution
> 
> So you're a sick senior citizen and the government says there is no nursing home available for you - what do you do?
> 
> ...




True lateral thinking

No need to shoot anyone though, thats a little harsh on the families, and guns are hard to get hold of

Build a $10 Taser, and just keep going to MPs offices and tasering them.

Tell them Timmy sent you


----------



## medicowallet (2 June 2010)

Muschu said:


> What is an issue for me is the way in which some people display discourtesy on internet forums while they are enscounced behind a keyboard.  I've probably been guilty of this myself but try not to type things that I would not be prepared to state in person.
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Rick




Hence why I took offense at the patronising reply to my thread on page 1, and especially to the response to my reply.

Why should people not be able to type things with anonymity, in fact it probably opens up discussions people are not willing to have due to political correctness gone bad.

I think the previous few pages do offer excellent insight, there is definitely some difference of opinion about what can be done with the resources available, and what people think should be done with the resources available. It is not just as easy as saying make doctors do more free hours as seems to be the suggestion of some posters.

Perhaps some posters would be well served to volunteer some time at a nursing home or three, to experience it at first hand and talk to the staff involved and observe their committment to their work, not the conditions that they are expected to work under. Perhaps then they could contribute informed opinions rather than media regurgitation and idealistic demands and wants. 

Rick, please point out the discourtesy which I have shown via a pm, and I'll endeavour to answer your concerns.


----------



## nunthewiser (2 June 2010)

awg said:


> True lateral thinking
> 
> No need to shoot anyone though, thats a little harsh on the families, and guns are hard to get hold of
> 
> ...





AMEN!

Imagine how much fun that would be ???


----------



## Julia (2 June 2010)

medicowallet said:


> I see this kind of thing regularly), it is just that we can only expect what is reasonable whilst protecting the standards of everyone.



This is the phrase that so got to me.  How is allowing our aged folk to exist (barely and probably reluctantly) in such woeful conditions "protecting the standards of everyone"?  Sure as hell not protecting the most basic care of vulnerable old people.



medicowallet said:


> I find it quite interesting that you think that it is childish to point out that there is a problem, and that the people who are going to be contributing to the problem the most have not been properly taxed to pay for the services they will be receiving.
> Sorry Julia, you have made assumptions about my age and health which are inaccurate.



I have already addressed this, and apologised for making any assumption about you.  I'm sorry to know that you are apparently neither young nor healthy.  I just couldn't imagine that anyone with a reasonable experience of life and its travails could be so lacking in compassion.  Obviously a quite incorrect assumption on my part, for which I'm happy to once again apologise.


> Of course it is quite acceptable for people with little understanding of the healthcare system to expect people to give even more free time of theirs than they already do. I am unaware of your committments to such activities, but most medical practitioners spend many hours extra per week for which they get no remuneration, and I guess from the tone of your post that you do not value the sacrifices that these professionals make with regard to their own free time, and the kinds of pressures that this can put on career longevity and family committments.



When I responded to this, particularly with a view to the implication that I would have little understanding of the stresses on family life involved in a medical career, with an outline of my husband's involvement (and here I overlooked to mention that he also taught students), plus my personal experience of the health system in a different capacity, you found it necessary to suggest I was "pretending to be something I am not".
Given I was completely candid about what I did and did not do (omitting that I have a qualification in pharmacology because it was not relevant to the thread), I think your scornful and derisive attitude is perhaps the sort of disrespect to which Rick is referring.

Further, nowhere did I suggest that 'professionals' should give their time freely.  I will repeat that what I'm on about (and clearly you don't get this, which doesn't surprise me given your admitted arrogance) was *the attitude*of anyone in the caring field, whether that be the most highly qualified medical specialist, or the lady who brings the patient the first cup of tea after surgery.





medicowallet said:


> Why should people not be able to type things with anonymity, in fact it probably opens up discussions people are not willing to have due to political correctness gone bad.



That's a reasonable point and I agree that anonymity can often advance discussions for this reason.



> I think the previous few pages do offer excellent insight, there is definitely some difference of opinion about what can be done with the resources available, and what people think should be done with the resources available. It is not just as easy as saying make doctors do more free hours as seems to be the suggestion of some posters.



Medicowallet, you seem to have a habit of putting words in the mouths of previous posters.  I haven't seen anyone saying "make doctors do more free hours".   This seems disrespectful to me, but perhaps I've missed this, in which case I'm sure you won't mind directing my attention to that/those posts.

Re your suggestion that there is a difference of opinion about what can be done with the resources available, I'd be interested to have your views about this.  I'd suggest the resources themselves are way too small for the needs of the sector.



> Perhaps some posters would be well served to volunteer some time at a nursing home or three, to experience it at first hand and talk to the staff involved and observe their committment to their work, not the conditions that they are expected to work under. Perhaps then they could contribute informed opinions rather than media regurgitation and idealistic demands and wants.



Again, an assumption.  What makes you so sure that many of us haven't done this, and are not still doing it.  I give many voluntary hours at a nursing home, amongst many other volunteers.

It just seems a pity to me that if you are such an experienced doctor, you don't use this experience to explain how you would like to see the available funding spent, or any other suggestions you may have to ameliorate the horrible conditions in which some of our helpless old people are spending their last days.  I expect most of them have made their contribution to Australia, and I reckon the least we can do is not make the final stage of their lives any more miserable than it has to be.


----------



## Muschu (2 June 2010)

medicowallet said:


> .....Rick, please point out the discourtesy which I have shown via a pm, and I'll endeavour to answer your concerns.





Hi MW

I don't feel a need or wish to add to anything  I have already said.  

I have never worked, as a volunteer or paid employee, in a nursing home. 

Like many others I have had reason to visit, and say goodbye to, friends and relatives in such care.

My impression, as a visitor, is one of admiration for the staff and volunteers.

If you look back, and I have only skimmed, through this thread then I imagine you will be able to identify many words of choice which imply disrespect.  

I am not suggesting you are the only user of such language.

Even emotive topics can be addressed in a relatively objective and professional manner.  Maybe they need to be so addressed in order for discussion to advance. Not sure....

Rick


----------



## medicowallet (2 June 2010)

Julia said:


> Again, an assumption.  What makes you so sure that many of us haven't done this, and are not still doing it.  I give many voluntary hours at a nursing home, amongst many other volunteers.
> 
> It just seems a pity to me that if you are such an experienced doctor, you don't use this experience to explain how you would like to see the available funding spent, or any other suggestions you may have to ameliorate the horrible conditions in which some of our helpless old people are spending their last days.  I expect most of them have made their contribution to Australia, and I reckon the least we can do is not make the final stage of their lives any more miserable than it has to be.




I have previously posted that I do not know what contributions to volunteer work people do, and stick by this. It however can never be a bad thing for people to volunteer and get an appreciation for what they are talking about.

As for what can be done.

Well they are already training many more doctors, and I do help with the education of medical students. They are training more nurses and allied health professionals etc. Therefore in the future access to trained staff should not be a problem.

But as I said in my first post, funding it will be a problem.  

I cannot see why I should not be able to allow my children the same opportunities that I was allowed. There is a coming problem with respect to this. 

I suggest increasing the retirement age to 70 and using the increased taxes solely for healthcare / nursing homes.

But the problem is that the baby boomer generation will never agree to this, because securing their access to appropriate nursing home services is not worth working for 5 years for, it is just easier to tax the younger generations more.

They conveniently forget that the younger people who pay the tax that they subject them to would have also been required to work to 70 (and probably will have to, to pay the immense generation debt left to fund the election winning committments to health and aged care required as the older generations make increasingly larger influences on voting).

Please note I use the term they, as I would not expect the younger people to pay extra tax and work longer, as I am not selfish.


----------



## Aussiejeff (3 June 2010)

medicowallet said:


> Well they are already training many more doctors, and I do help with the education of medical students. They are training more nurses and allied health professionals etc. *Therefore in the future access to trained staff should not be a problem.*




You are very good at over-generalisations. Do you have inside knowledge as to the desire of these hordes of newly trained nurses & allied health professionals to work exclusively in the aged care sector and in nursing homes (as the thread title suggests) in particular? Am I mistaken in my own understanding (through various media sources & personal conversations I and my ex-enrolled nurse wife have had with a number of current and former nursing home employees) that many nurses & health professionals in that sector have become disillusioned with their careers in aged care employment and want to get out. 



> I suggest increasing the retirement age to 70 and using the increased taxes solely for healthcare / nursing homes.




I would not be at all surprised to see that retirement age limit raised past 70 to 75 within 10-15 years, such is the magnitude of the funding blowout facing ensuing governments. 



> But the problem is that *the baby boomer generation will never agree to this*, because securing their access to appropriate nursing home services is not worth working for 5 years for, it is just easier to tax the younger generations more.
> 
> *They conveniently forget* that the younger people who pay the tax that they subject them to would have also been required to work to 70 (and probably will have to, to pay the immense generation debt left to fund the election winning committments to health and aged care required as the older generations make increasingly larger influences on voting).




Blatant over-generalisations again! So, have you done an extensive poll across a broad sample of baby boomers to 100% confirm these damning condemnations of yours? Have you ever considered Diplomatic Intercourse 101? Where the hell do you think all the hospitals & nursing homes ALREADY IN EXISTENCE came from? Maybe, just maybe, the hard slog and sweat of some of us millions of BB's, plus the more punitive personal tax rates WE paid during the 1970's-2000's have HELPED PAY for many of the facilities BB's are now looking to move into! (It's called PAYG).



> Please note I use the term they, as I would not expect the younger people to pay extra tax and work longer, as I am not selfish.




What? So, here you are saying you want BB's to pay more tax & work longer to suit the current situation? But, what if in 30-40 years time (after most of us BB's have kicked the bucket) the situation is much, much worse? Surely the remaining Gen X, Y, Z ers who we are told will be living well into their 100's will HAVE to work even longer and pay even more taxes? Or is it solely up to the BB's to fund & fix everything for endless future generations too?  

Get a grip.

aj


----------



## Julia (3 June 2010)

medicowallet said:


> I
> 
> As for what can be done.
> 
> Well they are already training many more doctors, and I do help with the education of medical students. They are training more nurses and allied health professionals etc. Therefore in the future access to trained staff should not be a problem.



Having more trained staff will be of no help at all if there continues to be such a disparity in income between those working in general hospitals and those in the aged care sector.  So it's facile to suggest that simply training more staff is any sort of solution for aged care.
And let's remember that even the government's own glossy brochure only states they have a *target* of all these additional staff.
Let's postpone the rejoicing until we see them trained and in place.




> But the problem is that the baby boomer generation will never agree to this, because securing their access to appropriate nursing home services is not worth working for 5 years for, it is just easier to tax the younger generations more.



As AJ has asked, where do you get this confident assertion as to the philosophy and intentions of the baby boomers?

If we accept that baby boomers are usually considered those who were born between 1946 and 1964, that's a large number of people, and to assert that each of these people is selfish, self-absorbed and unwilling to pay for their own needs, is just a nonsense.
I know lots of baby boomers, am one myself, and not one of them could be classified as you suggest.  Many are still working.  Those who are not are self funded in retirement, ditto their healthcare, and contribute thousands of hours to the community as volunteers.

Moreover, many of them still have their financially dependent (or simply lazy) children at home, as well as caring for their aged parents.  Hardly seems to me like the most self indulgent generation ever.

If you're going to make these generalisations you need to provide some basis for them.


----------



## SmellyTerror (3 June 2010)

Aged care and mental health care both. Somehow, they've been stripped of funding, oversight, morale and dignity. When did this stuff become an easy target for pollies to be bastards? What happened? How do we get this so wrong?

*Why are we a country, if not to protect our weak?* 

Are we _really_ just protecting property rights? Are we really that bloody fuedal? Seems like "what's in it for me?" has become our civilisation's only idea of ****ing virtue. If there's no profit in something, there's no value. Anyone with higher ideals is clearly a loser with no grasp on reality.

_We should be looking after our elderly because it's the right thing to do! _How much economic growth would we sacrifice to do it well? Would your next tv need to be an inch smaller? Who ****ing cares? You do what's right because it's right, and *then* you worry about the other stuff.

Like my mum used to say: you feed your kids first, and your animals second. If there's nothing left after that, you bloody well go hungry.


----------



## medicowallet (3 June 2010)

Julia said:


> Having more trained staff will be of no help at all if there continues to be such a disparity in income between those working in general hospitals and those in the aged care sector.  So it's facile to suggest that simply training more staff is any sort of solution for aged care.
> And let's remember that even the government's own glossy brochure only states they have a *target* of all these additional staff.
> Let's postpone the rejoicing until we see them trained and in place.




It is supply and demand. As many people know, you have to go where the work is, and where the government funding for positions is. That is what happens in any kind of work where there is an oversupply of staff.

The "target" will be met. For example, are you aware of the dramatic increase in medical students being trained? Nursing has also had a large increase.



Julia said:


> As AJ has asked, where do you get this confident assertion as to the philosophy and intentions of the baby boomers?
> 
> If we accept that baby boomers are usually considered those who were born between 1946 and 1964, that's a large number of people, and to assert that each of these people is selfish, self-absorbed and unwilling to pay for their own needs, is just a nonsense.
> I know lots of baby boomers, am one myself, and not one of them could be classified as you suggest.  Many are still working.  Those who are not are self funded in retirement, ditto their healthcare, and contribute thousands of hours to the community as volunteers.
> ...




One example would have been the wailing and moaning over the recent ridiculously slow increase in retirement age. Am I mistaken that this was taken poorly? 


Were there not cries over how much BB had contributed already?
Will not the next generation contribute more to the tax take?
Why can't kids afford to buy houses?

Julia, it seems you keep making an assumption that you are older than me. It might surprise you, that yes, I am "old" and that I also have many BB friends, and I heard them wail about having to work longer, and how unfair it was.

So in conclusion, 

Do you think that we should lobby government now to increase the retirement age immediatly?

Would the government of the day be re-elected? and if not why?

What is your alternative plan? I have come up with one which would fund it, and is fair as all Australians would contribute.


----------



## medicowallet (3 June 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Aged care and mental health care both. Somehow, they've been stripped of funding, oversight, morale and dignity. When did this stuff become an easy target for pollies to be bastards? What happened? How do we get this so wrong?
> 
> *Why are we a country, if not to protect our weak?*




Exactly right.

But we need to find ways of doing this, which do not impart WORSE conditions on our children and grandchildren, for that would be selfish and immoral.

I have offered a possible solution, perhaps some others would be courageous enough to do the same.


----------



## medicowallet (3 June 2010)

Aussiejeff said:


> You are very good at over-generalisations. Do you have inside knowledge as to the desire of these hordes of newly trained nurses & allied health professionals to work exclusively in the aged care sector and in nursing homes (as the thread title suggests) in particular? Am I mistaken in my own understanding (through various media sources & personal conversations I and my ex-enrolled nurse wife have had with a number of current and former nursing home employees) that many nurses & health professionals in that sector have become disillusioned with their careers in aged care employment and want to get out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




AJ, please settle down and stop being so angry!!

Can you please post me your independant, peer reviewed studies outlining everything that you have ever posted on ASF.

In particular can you please prove your position that BB paid more in tax than is currently the case. Or was that a broad, inaccurate generalisation?

Thank you so very much for writing this
"What? So, here you are saying you want BB's to pay more tax & work longer to suit the current situation? But, what if in 30-40 years time (after most of us BB's have kicked the bucket) the situation is much, much worse? Surely the remaining Gen X, Y, Z ers who we are told will be living well into their 100's will HAVE to work even longer and pay even more taxes? Or is it solely up to the BB's to fund & fix everything for endless future generations too? "

Yes I 100% believe that the BB generation should fund their retirement. Their contribution to the golden oldies was not as great as they expect X-Y etc to fund.

It is unfair for my children to support me as I did not have the same proportion to support for as long.

It would be unfair, immoral and disrespectful for me to expect it.


----------



## SmellyTerror (3 June 2010)

My solution?

Stop bribing people with tax cuts, and bribe them with better medical care and education instead. 

Income tax cuts get wiped out by inflation, and it puts more and more of the relative share of tax on business, so when, for example, a GFC comes along and impacts business profitability, there goes a bucket of our revenue right when we need to be spending it. Income tax is much more stable, and higher income tax can be used to reduce inflation without needing to do silly stuff with interest rates.



> Their contribution to the golden oldies was not as great as they expect X-Y etc to fund. It is unfair for my children to support me as I did not have the same proportion to support for as long.




And what of the BB's contribution to the Gen XYZs? The world is far more prosperous now that it was a generation ago. So you think the Gen XYZs should give up their toys and their opportunities to "match" the BB folk? They should have two channels on tv, and pay almost as much for a car as a house, and have three kinds of cheese at the crappy little supermarket, and drive on dangerous, twisting roads, and *die younger*?

C'mon, it's only fair. Surely it wouldn't be fair for my children to enjoy opportunities that I didn't get to enjoy?

*Bollocks to that.* Opportunity and responsibility are sides of the same coin.

Go out bush and spend your whole life making as much dual-carriageway and airconditioning and medicine as you can. See if, in fifty years, you can come up with a fraction of what you use every day. So where did that stuff come from? ALL OF US. Millions of people doing their little part, and look at what we get: wealth beyond the dreams of most humans who ever lived. We're in a god-damn golden age, and we're whinging about looking after the old folk?

That's why the youngers should help out the olders, if nothing else: gratitude. We OWE them. We owe them big.

A massive sense of entitlement is not an excuse.


----------



## medicowallet (3 June 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> My solution?
> 
> Stop bribing people with tax cuts, and bribe them with better medical care and education instead.
> 
> Income tax cuts get wiped out by inflation, and it puts more and more of the relative share of tax on business, so when, for example, a GFC comes along and impacts business profitability, there goes a bucket of our revenue right when we need to be spending it. Income tax is much more stable, and higher income tax can be used to reduce inflation without needing to do silly stuff with interest rates.




How do you think this would resonate between

1. BB
2. Gen X-Y
3. Gen Z

As even though I think your suggestion is a good one (and if it wasn't for Howard and Costello giving away money, housing would be more affordable etc, which shows how tax cuts can have many ramifications), it unfairly skews the taxation burden to younger taxpayers (ie the net cost paid for health will be unprecedented)

ie I think that in the short to medium term, you are putting younger people into a far worse position to that which I experienced when I was young.


----------



## SmellyTerror (3 June 2010)

Sorry, went and did such a long edit I probably should have made a new post. See above.


----------



## awg (3 June 2010)

imo, there is no solution.

the thread title is appropriate

I dont think one needs to be an expert in maths to work it out

*aging population
*shrinking taxbase
*increasing cost of medical care
*rise in obesity,dementia and other age related illness

the trend is getting worse, not better, thats why its getting swept under the carpet, and will continue to be.

In my suburb, there used to be a lovely "old mens home", built on a beautiful piece of land gifted to the State by a private citizen, specifically for that purpose.

The bloody bastard NSW govt sold it to private developers and now many seaside Mcmansions are there instead, despite much local protest.


----------



## medicowallet (3 June 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> And what of the BB's contribution to the Gen XYZs? The world is far more prosperous now that it was a generation ago. So you think the Gen XYZs should give up their toys and their opportunities to "match" the BB folk? They should have two channels on tv, and pay almost as much for a car as a house, and have three kinds of cheese at the crappy little supermarket, and drive on dangerous, twisting roads, and *die younger*?
> 
> C'mon, it's only fair. Surely it wouldn't be fair for my children to enjoy opportunities that I didn't get to enjoy?
> 
> ...




Is the world more prosperous now?
Is it fairer?

Are my children satisfied with their extra 6 channels?
Are they dissatisfied now with their $400000 mortgage, their long commutes to work, their 50 hour weeks, their responsibility to clean up an environment raped and pillaged?
Will the younger generations of today not have contributed as much in time and tax at an equivalent age as a BB? I would suggest more actually.
Will they not face exactly the same problems we now face?

As I have said 20 times, I will not leave a world of less opportunity for my children.   The golden oldies didn't.


----------



## medicowallet (3 June 2010)

awg said:


> *aging population
> *shrinking taxbase
> *increasing cost of medical care
> *rise in obesity,dementia and other age related illness




There are solutions to all these problems, it is just that they are politically unpopular.

a) Governments are never courageous enough to implement them, as they will be voted out.

b) People are too self indulgent to make fair and appropriate sacrifices to fund their own requirements.


----------



## SmellyTerror (3 June 2010)

> *shrinking taxbase




Thing is, fewer people with *more stuff *means we don't necessarily have a shrinking tax base. From a generational point of view, people today have a LOT more to tax.



> As I have said 20 times, I will not leave a world of less opportunity for my children. The golden oldies didn't.




Less than WHAT? If we reversed some of the tax cuts of the last ten-twenty years, would that mean the younguns would be screwed of their future?

Transport, environment, all of that, is stuff that - like health care - Governments are in a position to fix in a way that no individual or organisation is equpped to deal with, to direct _communal_ action, of benefit to everyone, with long term aims.

And that means people need to stop grubbing for every cent they can get and actually contribute to meaningful action as a nation. We need to band together to fix problems, but we're so blinded by individual reward that we forget that what we have, we have by working together.

To fix the same problems you've described, we have the same solution: we *all* need to put in, because saying "it's not my job" gets nothing done.

The younger generation has to help look after the older generation - just as they have throughout human history - because there is NO-ONE ELSE. What do you want to tell people who don't have the money to fund their retirement? 

"Go back in time, you guys, and make more money!"


----------



## medicowallet (3 June 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Less than WHAT? If we reversed some of the tax cuts of the last ten-twenty years, would that mean the younguns would be screwed of their future?




Yes, perhaps we should remove the cuts, perhaps over the next 10-20 years, and also let us give these same people access to businesses, housing and opportunites that us older people had.

I also do not think we were taxed more than they are today. Bracket creep was getting out of control, but I can't recall paying worse tax rates 20 years ago.



SmellyTerror said:


> And that means people need to stop grubbing for every cent they can get and actually contribute to meaningful action as a nation. We need to band together to fix problems, but we're so blinded by individual reward that we forget that what we have, we have by working together.
> 
> To fix the same problems you've described, we have the same solution: we *all* need to put in, because saying "it's not my job" gets nothing done.
> 
> ...




Hence why I like my solution of increasing the retirement age, which makes ALL of us taxpayers make the same contribution over our working life.

Subjecting my children to higher taxes than I paid, goes against the grain of a fair and reasonable taxation system, yet nobody else has offered an alternative system which does not do this.

All involved, remember that there is an unprecedented burden on our children to pay for our retirement services (and yes, even "self funded" retirees are going to be recipients).  We have not had to pay for this previously, as yes there was a war, and yes lifespans were shorter and yes birthrates dropped.


----------



## medicowallet (3 June 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Thing is, fewer people with *more stuff *means we don't necessarily have a shrinking tax base. From a generational point of view, people today have a LOT more to tax.




And how is increasing income tax going to address this, I mean, it was your suggestion afterall.


----------



## awg (3 June 2010)

medicowallet said:


> There are solutions to all these problems, it is just that they are politically unpopular.
> 
> a) Governments are never courageous enough to implement them, as they will be voted out.
> 
> b) People are too self indulgent to make fair and appropriate sacrifices to fund their own requirements.




Well, yes perhaps I was being somewhat pessimistic

Also agree with a&b though

$$$ mate


----------



## SmellyTerror (3 June 2010)

medicowallet said:


> And how is increasing income tax going to address this, I mean, it was your suggestion afterall.




Uh, if people have a lot more to tax, you can tax them more, and they still end up with more than other guys.

If my $100,000 income buys twice as much as a BB's (inflation adjusted) $100,000, and then I'm taxed 45% while they were only taxed 40%, I still come out with a lot more buying power. I'm paying more, but I still have more left over.

And if you have more money, you can buy more things. It's kinda implied. So the government can buy more aged care, and people can buy more baubles.

Incidentally, they *are* raising the age of the pension, which will effectively increase the age of retirement for a lot of people. And people will do the sums: as you have longer life expectancies, so people who do intend to pay for their retirement will work longer to pay for that. Whatever the age of the pension, it still sucks. Self-fundeds have more money and live better. That's called incentive, I think. 

...and if we're talking about nursing home care (and I think we are) then longer life expectancies means longer before they go into care, too, regardless of where you put the age of retirement. The amount of time in aged care shouldn't change much, just the demographics will push a larger number of people in there as we hit that BB lump. Seems a simple matter of money to me.

Happily, the current generation have more of it than the last one.


----------



## medicowallet (3 June 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Uh, if people have a lot more to tax, you can tax them more, and they still end up with more than other guys.
> 
> If my $100,000 income buys twice as much as a BB's (inflation adjusted) $100,000, and then I'm taxed 45% while they were only taxed 40%, I still come out with a lot more buying power. I'm paying more, but I still have more left over.
> 
> ...




So your solution is to tax the younger generations more. How surprising.

I do not agree however that the younger generations have more to tax. Perhaps you are comparing prices of TVs?  Perhaps you forgot that there wasn't deflation?

Perhaps (and I was keeping this up my sleeve) you forgot that there is a much higher workforce participation rate then there was 20-30 years ago (dual incomes) 

I doubt very much that the increase in "baubles" of the younger generations was handed to them on a platter, yet their enthusiasm to work (which we had too) has given them a platform that they can do it from. 

It is just that BB could do it on a single income, 40 hour week.



SmellyTerror said:


> Incidentally, they *are* raising the age of the pension, which will effectively increase the age of retirement for a lot of people. And people will do the sums: as you have longer life expectancies, so people who do intend to pay for their retirement will work longer to pay for that. Whatever the age of the pension, it still sucks. Self-fundeds have more money and live better. That's called incentive, I think.
> .




Unfortunately they haven't gone far enough, and have delayed it too long.



SmellyTerror said:


> ...and if we're talking about nursing home care (and I think we are) then longer life expectancies means longer before they go into care, too, regardless of where you put the age of retirement. The amount of time in aged care shouldn't change much, just the demographics will push a larger number of people in there as we hit that BB lump. Seems a simple matter of money to me.
> 
> Happily, the current generation have more of it than the last one.




I disagee, I think you will find that people are in nursing homes for many more years, per person, than previously. True, they will be older when they go in (as has always been the trend) but they will also be there longer.


----------



## awg (3 June 2010)

medicowallet said:


> Hence why I like my solution of increasing the retirement age, which makes ALL of us taxpayers make the same contribution over our working life.




Ok if your job involves polishing a seat with yr ass

Not so likeable if you are a mechanc, plumber, brickie, shearer etc etc.

somewhat relevant to my earlier comment about shrinking tax base,

retire at 60 on super, pay no income tax, non-sustainable, have posted on this topic b4, with my proposals to rectify.


----------



## medicowallet (3 June 2010)

awg said:


> Ok if your job involves polishing a seat with yr ass
> 
> Not so likeable if you are a mechanc, plumber, brickie, shearer etc etc.
> 
> ...




Yes, coming from a blue collar family, you definitely see that people who do manual work find it difficult to maintain the productivity they used to output as they age. Even seat polishers find it difficult as their body becomes less efficient (a well respected dr friend who wanted to keep working was forced to change roles due to parkinsons etc)

This is where employees need to be given incentive to upskill for positions whilst in their current role.

When I last owned a business I found older, untrained workers to be very willing to learn, more reliable, better at teamplay, and just more focused in getting the job done. I think if employers actually gave them a go, they would find that what they lack in physical ability, they make up for in other areas.


----------



## awg (3 June 2010)

I think when they initially bought in the age pension, life expectancy was roughly 65, so you worked till you were finished.

Ideally, the perfect lifestyle involves work that involves much movement, 
but not too much back-breaking stuff, rushing or stress.

example Okinawan lifestyle ( up until recently, now they eat Mcdonalds and get fat like everyone else)

Whenever I was forced to go to Maccas, would order a junior burger and small chips


----------



## Julia (3 June 2010)

medicowallet said:


> It is supply and demand. As many people know, you have to go where the work is, and where the government funding for positions is. That is what happens in any kind of work where there is an oversupply of staff.
> 
> The "target" will be met. For example, are you aware of the dramatic increase in medical students being trained? Nursing has also had a large increase.



Doctors are not going to be employed in nursing homes, are they?
It's nurses that are needed, and why should they accept pay that is so much lower than if they worked in a general hospital?
Perhaps government should subsidise nursing salaries if the sector cannot provide fair pay.



> One example would have been the wailing and moaning over the recent ridiculously slow increase in retirement age. Am I mistaken that this was taken poorly?



Again, you must mix in different circles from me.  I don't know anyone who disagreed with the raising of the retirement age.


> Were there not cries over how much BB had contributed already?



Not from where I sit.  The increased ageing population simply means funding of pensions, healthcare etc is going to cost more.  We all have to be prepared to take our share of this.



> Why can't kids afford to buy houses?



Because successive governments have artificially stimulated the housing market.  Don't blame the baby boomers.




> Julia, it seems you keep making an assumption that you are older than me. It might surprise you, that yes, I am "old" and that I also have many BB friends, and I heard them wail about having to work longer, and how unfair it was.



Well, perhaps you should consider changing your friends to those with a greater social understanding and conscience.



> Do you think that we should lobby government now to increase the retirement age immediatly?



No.  That would be unfair to those who have planned to retire in the next couple of years.  The timing the government has suggested seems pretty fair all round.  Further, if the average lifespan continues to be extended, then we will need to look at making retirement age 75 at some stage.

I don't have the economic or demographic training to say exactly what should be done, and I can't agree that you have outlined any clear plan for how we can better care for our aged people.

I am just disgusted that governments can waste so much money on their own political ends, while the most vulnerable in our community are not being cared for.
I don't care what it takes:  legislate for all political advertising to be funded by the party concerned, not the taxpayer,  reduce all that middle class welfare i.e. subsidised child care, baby bonuses, eliminate tax cuts, yada, yada, yada.
Just give our old people all possible care and dignity after they have made their contribution (and they have, especially those who fought for Australia in various wars).  

As I've said before, I don't suppose sick old people vote.  Ditto those who are mentally ill.  So we can let the former rot in substandard nursing homes, and the latter do likewise in our squalid caravan parks.  No worries.
Way more votes in middle class welfare and tax cuts for the already well off.




medicowallet said:


> b) People are too self indulgent to make fair and appropriate sacrifices to fund their own requirements.



Speak for yourself.  Once again you have no idea what sacrifices those of us who are self funded have made to be in this position.




SmellyTerror said:


> And that means people need to stop grubbing for every cent they can get and actually contribute to meaningful action as a nation. We need to band together to fix problems, but we're so blinded by individual reward that we forget that what we have, we have by working together.
> 
> To fix the same problems you've described, we have the same solution: we *all* need to put in, because saying "it's not my job" gets nothing done.
> 
> The younger generation has to help look after the older generation - just as they have throughout human history - because there is NO-ONE ELSE. What do you want to tell people who don't have the money to fund their retirement?



Completely agree, S. Terror.  And more than anything we need to not blame any whole generation for anything.  It's specious and stupid.



> ...and if we're talking about nursing home care (and I think we are) then longer life expectancies means longer before they go into care, too, regardless of where you put the age of retirement.



Agree.  And if there were to be more focus on providing more in-home care as people become more frail, then we should be doing that.  That will always be psychologically at least more productive than shoving people into institutions.


----------



## Julia (3 June 2010)

PS.  We can find the money to care adequately for people in jail and asylum seekers.  All of these receive prompt medical and dental care.  We don't mind housing asylum seekers in four star motels, providing them with money to go shopping, and personal trainers to ensure they enjoy physical fitness.  

Meantime, we have old people who can't eat properly because there's no money for them to get new dentures.
And thousands who are in chronic pain because they need a hip/knee replacement and the waiting lists are more than five years long.

So it's all just a case of political will.
Governments simply do not see aged care as a vote engendering priority.

That aside, I don't think there is yet a real understanding across the population that governments are simply not going to provide the sort of government pension on which one can reasonably live.  A few generations ago, whether because the amount was (proportionate to the cost of living) greater, or those people had better budgeting skills, fewer expectations of luxuries, few ever expected to fund their own retirement.  I expect gradually the retirement expectations and culture will change, and there will be a greater willingness to make sacrifices in the earlier years to ensure some measure of comfort and security when old.


----------



## medicowallet (3 June 2010)

Julia said:


> Doctors are not going to be employed in nursing homes, are they?
> It's nurses that are needed, and why should they accept pay that is so much lower than if they worked in a general hospital?
> Perhaps government should subsidise nursing salaries if the sector cannot provide fair pay.
> 
> I am just disgusted that governments can waste so much money on their own political ends, while the most vulnerable in our community are not being cared for.




a) I think I mentioned that they are training more nurses too. Why should they accept less pay? Well that is just a fact of life, and it exists everywhere. There will be no solution to this until someone finds the money to pay more. There is an award rate.

At present a solution does not exist, and at present nobody wants to come forward with solutions which are not excessively negative to the younger generation.

b) Well we finally agree 100% on something, government inefficiency. Unfortunately governments govern for election terms and are voted in by people. However we disagree, I believe the "general public" are in it for themselves as opposed to being in it for the team.



Julia, it must be a privilige to be within a circle of so many socially aware friends! Yes, I know a few, but most ordinazing people I know are very much self interested (whilst being nice people) and are not too interested in working longer to help themselves. Is it a perhaps people with whom you associate are not willing to give you their truthful opinion for the reasons of being politically correct? My best lessons in the primal instinct for greed came whilst running a business ethically and legally, it is amazing how many greedy people are out there, many of whom would kill with their charm and honesty to your face.


----------



## Julia (3 June 2010)

medicowallet said:


> Julia, it must be a privilige to be within a circle of so many socially aware friends!



Indeed it is, but then I choose my friends carefully.

Re the suggestion they are being less than truthful for reasons of being politically correct, I really can't tell you how funny I find that.

I doubt other members are exactly fascinated by a comparison of the attributes and disattributes of our respective social circles.  I have nothing to add.

Oh, except, congratulations for spelling 'focused' correctly.
Many double the 's'.


----------



## medicowallet (3 June 2010)

Julia said:


> Indeed it is, but then I choose my friends carefully.
> 
> Re the suggestion they are being less than truthful for reasons of being politically correct, I really can't tell you how funny I find that.
> 
> I doubt other members are exactly fascinated by a comparison of the attributes and disattributes of our respective social circles.  I have nothing to add.




Well, yes. Perhaps you shouldn't have gone there.



Julia said:


> Oh, except, congratulations for spelling 'focused' correctly.
> Many double the 's'.




Thankyou for being patronising again, it seems to be a pastime of yours.


----------



## trainspotter (3 June 2010)

medicowallet said:


> Well, yes. Perhaps you shouldn't have gone there.
> 
> Thankyou for being patronising again, it seems to be a pastime of yours.




You started down this path with "Julia, it must be a privilige to be within a circle of so many socially aware friends!" in post #74 ??? Was this meant to be taken for it's worth or were you baiting?

Was this sentence not patronising enough "Is it a perhaps people with whom you associate are not willing to give you their truthful opinion for the reasons of being politically correct?"

I dunno medicowallet ...... "There are many doctrines of a less essential nature ... In these we may think and let think; we may 'agree to disagree.' But, meantime, let us hold fast the essentials..."


----------



## medicowallet (4 June 2010)

trainspotter said:


> You started down this path with "Julia, it must be a privilige to be within a circle of so many socially aware friends!" in post #74 ??? Was this meant to be taken for it's worth or were you baiting? ..."



I think you need to go earlier than 74.

Plus I was baiting, but it is either an amazing group, or very small 



trainspotter said:


> Was this sentence not patronising enough "Is it a perhaps people with whom you associate are not willing to give you their truthful opinion for the reasons of being politically correct?"




No, I do not believe it is patronising. It is a statement of the fact that political correctness sometimes gets in the way of people's true thought processes. Hence why internet forums are so very stimulating.

ie Would Julia's nasty response to my post have been made by her in public? Most would keep nasty, personal retorts filled with assumptions to themselves. They may think them, as we all do, but do not make them public knowledge.


----------



## Aussiejeff (4 June 2010)

medicowallet said:


> Would Julia's nasty response to my post have been made by her in public? Most would keep nasty, personal retorts filled with assumptions to themselves. They may think them, as we all do, but do not make them public knowledge.




You nasty, hypocritical little man.

You have the gall to PUBLICLY use the put-down word _"nasty"_ twice in one sentence referring to Julia, while saying most people (obviously referring to your esteemed self of course) don't make such comments publicly!

You, sir, are a totally illogical contradiction of yourself.

Please, get a life.


----------



## medicowallet (4 June 2010)

Aussiejeff said:


> You nasty, hypocritical little man.
> 
> You have the gall to PUBLICLY use the put-down word _"nasty"_ twice in one sentence referring to Julia, while saying most people (obviously referring to your esteemed self of course) don't make such comments publicly!
> 
> ...




Anger management classes postponed this week?
I like both your posts in this thread, filled with such control and wisdom. You are very aggressive on forums, are you like that in real life too?

I also have not said that this is a face to face forum, hence we all say things we would not say to one another to their face. In that way I am not being a hypocrite, as I would not say to people what I put on here. Nor would others.

So please put some thought into your reply before you start on you aggressive rant.


----------



## awg (4 June 2010)

Julia said:


> Just give our old people all possible care and dignity after they have made their contribution (and they have, especially those who fought for Australia in various wars).




Service Veterans recieve a Gold Card, which entitles them to free health care, and can and does mean they recieve much better access to health care than most , (which I agree with.)

Listening to the radio last night, heard a representative of the aged-care providers explaining that yesterdays Minimum Wage Rise decision will hit them hard, and mean cuts to services, that tells us something


----------



## Julia (4 June 2010)

awg said:


> Service Veterans recieve a Gold Card, which entitles them to free health care, and can and does mean they recieve much better access to health care than most , (which I agree with.)



That's true but their gold card doesn't do anything to improve the standards or staff levels in nursing homes.


----------



## awg (4 June 2010)

Ive told my kids that if I dont get looked after the way I want, that I will utilise their inheritance to hire the very best Phillipino Nurses to manage my care to my exact requirements


----------



## Aussiejeff (6 June 2010)

awg said:


> Ive told my kids that *if I dont get looked after the way I want*, that I will utilise their inheritance to hire the very best Phillipino Nurses to manage my care to my exact requirements




On the theme of "What People Want" with respect to desired nursing home services when today's generations get to that point...

After our visit to my wife's mum in the dementia unit this afternoon, I reflected that much of the current entertainment services on offer to the elderly at the moment (piano playing, choir singing, old recordings from the 40-50's eg: Vera Lynn, Perry Como etc, old 1940-50's B&W movies, bingo, knitting etc are ALL going to disappear in the next 20-30 years.

These current entertainments will need to be replaced by the likes of Star Wars & Shreck movie repeats, 1960-1970's video hit DVD's, visiting Pop & Rock tribute bands (eg: Beatles, ABBA & AC/DC), iPads, tons of electronic games for all platforms like Nintendo, Playstation, Wii etc.

Of course, every room will have to be fitted with a 140cm 3D TV & have 100MB/s minimum broadband connection for personal laptop etc for these tech-savvy dementia residents of the near future. 

Hey, that doesn't sound so HELLish now, does it??


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 June 2010)

Aussiejeff said:


> O
> These current entertainments will need to be replaced by the likes of Star Wars & Shreck movie repeats, 1960-1970's video hit DVD's, visiting Pop & Rock tribute bands (eg: Beatles, ABBA &* AC/DC*), iPads, tons of electronic games for all platforms like Nintendo, Playstation, Wii etc.
> 
> Hey, that doesn't sound so HELLish now, does it??




If I can be listening to Dirty Deeds by AC/DC and firing in orders on the Honkers Futures like a punch drunk monkey then I will move on as one happy chappy.


----------



## Julia (6 June 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> If I can be listening to Dirty Deeds by AC/DC and firing in orders on the Honkers Futures like a punch drunk monkey then I will move on as one happy chappy.




Well, presuming the reason you are in a nursing home in the first place is because you're judged unable to care for yourself, you may be in no state to do the above with any sense of enjoyment!

Agreed, though, that the establishments of the future will optimally be quite different from those at present.  Any suggestions as to where the funding will come from to pay for them?


----------



## basilio (24 September 2017)

Where are we with Nursing Homes in 2017? I was reading this article today and so many points raised red flags.
1) The most efficient nursing homes produce up to $25,000 profit per bed PA. They are making $500profit a week on each person...

2) These "best nursing homes" spend $6.08 per day on food for each resident..

3) Homes ask all incoming residents to detail their financial assets and then set bonds accordingly. Themore you have the more they take.

4) Where they can omes routinely charge big sums , $50-100 a day for "extra services" .  In almost all cass no additional services are actually given. These sums just go straight to the  bottom line.

Any thoughts on this story ?

* Jyl's journey to aged care: 'I feel like part of me is lost' *

*Michael Bachelard*
981 reading now

 facebook SHARE 
 twitter TWEET 
email






When David Stephens' elderly mother Jyl fell in December, it seemed to be the start of a new family tradition.

"In 2015 she broke her hip just before Christmas and she spent two-and-a-half or three months in hospital and rehab, then she went home," Stephens says.

"Then last year, at exactly the same time, the week before Christmas, she fell again. This time she broke her upper thigh bone very badly."

As Stephens drove from Melbourne to where his mother lay in hospital on Phillip Island, neither realised that this time, Jyl would never be returning to her beloved home.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nat...-like-part-of-me-is-lost-20170921-gymj83.html


----------



## basilio (24 September 2017)

This is another story on the same theme of many current Nursing home situations.

* Dawn's final days reveal aged care horror *






*Michael Bachelard*
 Contact via Email 
 Follow on Google Plus 
 Follow on Twitter 

83 reading now

 facebook SHARE 
 twitter TWEET 
 email 





*WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES*

In her final days, Dawn Weston kept rubbing her left leg and crying.

Her daughter was not sure why, and Dawn, who had lost the power of speech, could not tell her.

"I was thinking Mum had given up," Kaye Weston says. "She was 83. Her personality had changed, she used to smile but she wasn't smiling any more."

There was a bandage on Dawn's heel to treat a pressure sore and she had been losing weight. She arrived at the Chamberlain Gardens nursing home on the NSW Central Coast in 2014 weighing 72 kilograms. Two-and-a-half years later she was 48.9.

But instead of bringing in a dietician, the staff at the home simply shifted her "normal" weight range down.  "It happened not once but twice," Weston says.

As a result, no alarm bells rang, no red flags were raised. Some weeks Dawn, who suffered dementia, was losing up to two kilos.

Weston complained a number of times to Chamberlain Gardens, which is run by the Christian-based Christadelphian Homes, "but they get you to feeling like you're a pain in the arse", she told Fairfax Media. She tried to move her mother to another home, but someone else was quicker and Dawn missed out on the place..

Then, on February 28 last year, the home's care manager rang. Weston's mother had been taken to hospital, she said, for a debridement of her heel, "a simple scraping away of dead skin".

At the hospital, Weston finally saw her mother's foot without the bandage. There was a cavern 2cm deep where the heel was supposed to be. She could see the bone. A piece of gauze from the bandage was stuck deep in the wound.

The bandages were not there to treat the wound, Weston now believes, but to hide it. Another pressure sore at the bottom of Dawn's back was similarly serious. Both were gangrenous.

Two weeks later, her mother was dead.

Her death certificate records the primary cause as "left heel and sacral pressure sores".
http://www.theage.com.au/national/dawns-final-days-reveal-aged-care-horror-20170921-gylvaj.html


----------



## SirRumpole (24 September 2017)

basilio said:


> Her death certificate records the primary cause as "left heel and sacral pressure sores".




Disgusting. Are the same people still running that home ? If so they should be locked up and the home taken over by the government. We can't have people like that looking after the elderly.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (24 September 2017)

You could employ a person to help at home and get better care, for half the cost


----------

