Carers pension

[Seshat]

In Australia, family members or friends who care for the disabled get a pension called 'carers pension'. It's about the same level of income as a disability pension.
If you care for a second disabled person, you get a 'carers allowance', which Toth once calculated the per hour rate: at best, it's something like $0.70 per hour. ($AU approx equal $CAN.)

Carers work hard. For the same work, a hired carer is only permitted to work one shift (it's usually a morning/afternoon-evening/night shift split), has OH&S protection, labour law protection, holiday pay, time off, a living wage, etc etc etc.

Carers on the carers pension work 24/7, no OH&S protection, no labour law protection, no holidays or time off, and their income is crap.

... does this make any sense to anyone else? Because I don't get it.

[anakhouri]

Hired carers probably have credentials and education that is officially sanctioned, while someone who chooses to stay home and care for a disabled person likely doesn't. That's probably how the government rationalizes it. Here in America I don't even think family/friend carers get any kind of income from the government.

It sounds a bit like being a stay-at-home parent (you stay home and care for your children, be on call 24/7, work constantly, and no one will pay you because it was your choice- even though sometimes it's the only choice) but I assume caring for one or more disabled people is probably even harder, depending on the disability.

[static]

1234567890

[Seshat]

If they'd pay for Toth's educational bills (cause he can't exactly afford to on this income), he'd happily get whatever qualifications they deem necessary for him to do what he's already doing.

And people (usually) choose to have children. Noone chooses to have a disability.

[anakhouri]

But a carer chooses to care for someone- whether that someone is a child or a disabled person. Even though, as I pointed out, sometimes it is the only choice (for instance, it was not financially feasible for me to work and pay day care- I would have been working merely to pay for day care as it's expensive where we are, just as I'm sure many disabled people can't afford professional care and have to rely on friends/family).

[mathnerd]

And people (usually) choose to have children. Noone chooses to have a disability.

But nobody chooses to have disabled children. My life would be very different if my kids were medically normal.

[anakhouri]

My kid is medically normal, and he requires such a huge amount of time and care (my husband works 13 hours a day, 6-7 days a week-not to mention my duties in the house, garden, shopping, planning etc) that I can't imagine having to care for a child who's disabled as well.

It all boils down to this: both disabled care and child care (and especially disabled child care) require specialized knowledge and skills, and if done professionally can bring in a good salary, but if you're not certified/you're doing it for someone you love, you're doing it for free.

[Racket_Man]

But nobody chooses to have disabled children. My life would be very different if my kids were medically normal.

in a slightly different vein sometimes ONE chooses to become a carer for even an adult because it is the RIGHT thing to do.

I spend MORE time as a carer than I do at my almost full time job. about 3 years (at 53) ago my GF was officially diagnosed with a degenerative brain disease. for info see this: http://www.psp.org/education/

for the last 2 years she is unable to do most things us ordinary and normal people can do like walk to the bathroom, bath herself,eat, walk, talk, fix meals, drive a car, get out of bed, move without assistance, etc. She is forbidden from moving from her lift chair without someone there. she can not stand on her own. she no longer has control over her own body. The end result is that within 3 years or so she will die.

THis is one of the reasons we did not get married as my assets would come into play when determining what level of help she could get.

For now her daughter and I do most of the caring. On the nights that I work her daughter comes over to change and clean her and fix meals while the rest of the time

[mathnerd]

Right. I somehow read that the implication was that while people who care for disabled adults make the choice (and should get a carer's pension), that people who have children choose to do so and shouldn't get any sort of childcare allowance. Maybe I was reading into that comment, but I'd just had a discussion with somebody else on that topic. My point was that while I did, in fact, chose to have children, I didn't chose to have children with intense medical needs that limits the amount of money I can earn (I've lost jobs due to the amount of time I needed to take off for doctor's visits and hospitalizations. I've even lost my home as part of the domino effect.) If my kids were medically normal, I wouldn't be facing these issues. So just because I chose to have kids, doesn't mean I chose *this*. Does that make sense?

[Seshat]

Let's see if I can explain my reasoning here.

Difference between carer and parent
For the most part, a person makes a free choice to become a parent, or at least to do without birth control. The people who make that free choice are aware that the task of parenting will be required, and are usually the ones who take on that task.

Noone makes a free choice to become disabled. Noone gets to choose whether or not caring will be required. Yes, people do get to choose whether or not to take on the task, but noone gets to choose whether or not the task is there in the first place.

As for carer/parents: they have a choice about being parents, but not about being carers, and thus fit into both categories.


'Amateur' vs 'professional' carers

Oh, I could tell you some horror stories about professional carers. But that's beside the point here.

Societies have a number of choices in how they handle the disabled.
* Some societies with limited resources have chosen to kill their disabled.
* Societies can banish the disabled to the fringes of society (eg 'leper colonies', or 'ships of fools').
* Societies can allow the disabled within society, but provide only a marginal existence - usually as beggers.
* Societies can provide community support within institutions.
* Socieities can provide community support within families.
* Societies can put the full burden of disabled care upon the families of the disabled.

Our societies (most of those represented here) have chosen to prohibit killing the disabled (yay) or allowing them to make a living as beggers. However, there is inadequate institutional care to manage the sheer amount of disabled we have. This leaves the fringes of society, and the two options of 'within families', as possibility for our disabled.

Sadly, there are many disabled who have no family or no willing family, and have no place available for them within the institutions. Those who find themselves thus abandoned are on the fringes of society, as a subsection of the homeless. Some do beg - and some do die.

The final options, of course, are the two options of care within families.

Now...

Society does not provide enough carers for 'round the clock professional care within families for those patients who require it. Nor does it provide enough carers even for such simple things as showering and dressing all the patients who require it (at least not where I am).

Insufficient institutional beds + insufficient care within private homes = not enough professional carers.

If society is unwilling to provide enough professional carers, then society is relying on 'amateurs'.

And I don't see why those so-called amateurs (many of whom have been do it so damn long they know everything to be known about their patients) shouldn't be paid a living wage.

The disability section of the government budget is built relying on their work. Why NOT pay them?

Give me a good reason.

[mathnerd]

I can think of a whole host of reasons why we should pay them. The nature of the discussion I was having the other day revolved around the cost of a parent of a disabled child working vs. not working. I believe that the cost of paying for a family/friend carer would be less than paying for professional support services. If I'm working, I need somebody to stay with the kids while I'm at work, transport them to medical appointments, oversee PT, oversee administration of medications, etc. The cost of a professional to do that would be far higher than just giving the carer a livable stipend. This is especially true since I have two kids that need more than average care.

Now, in my case, chances are very good that when the children stop growing, their medical needs will slow down dramatically (the nature of the disease...if anybody's interested, I'll explain), so if I'm able to raise these kids right, I should be able to teach them how to be functioning members of society despite their disabilities. As adults, they shouldn't need so many surgeries, and I can take the time while they're kids to teach them how to use the various mobility aids available to them. A professional carer might not have such a vested interest in teaching them to overcome their disabilities, so any money that helps me help them is a good investment. In the case of other types of disabilities, it's still less expensive to pay an "amateur" carer, and while there are exceptions, a family member is going to be as good, if not better, than a professional because that person has a relationship with the disabled person that a professional just can't develop. I can learn how to administer injections, clean IV's, keep track of meds, do PT exercises, etc. A professional will never be able to love my kids like I do.

[Sleepwalker]

Here, a caregiver can, if they choose, take the same courses a hired caregiver would, pass the same test, and get paid my the state for _as many hours as the state would pay an outside caregiver_.

[Seshat]

Where is 'here' and what's the healthcare system like? We might want to move!

[Sleepwalker]

Maine. USA. It's a bit... sketch. On the one hand, the state legislates far more services than many other states do, on the other hand, it's a very poor, old and disabled state. So. YMMV.

[Seshat]

I think I'll draft it into a proposal for some of the more sensible Aussie politicians.

(yes, I know. oxymoron three times over. Sensible politician, Sensible Aussie, Aussie politician.)