5 ms·

Somewhat, yes. My own SO works in post 16 education, at the college their is a vocational 'health and care' track. These are the people who will credentialed to

Somewhat, yes. My own SO works in post 16 education, at the college their is a vocational 'health and care' track. These are the people who will credentialed to work in state sponsored or provided care. I would not want many of them to look after any one I cared for. I think part of the point the article is making RE this is that given (amongst other things) the variable quality of this labour pool (and the regulation it attracts), the ability to select outside of it - difficult as this may be - is valued.

mjevans 11y ago
I think this is partly a knowledge problem. People don't have knowledge that this even really exists, or what the expenditures they're asked to fund are actually providing (or not providing as the case might be). A transparent (open) budget from taxes to payment might help, as well as an easy way to compare the typical compensation for this task to others in society. At that point a more informed, and hopefully more humane, decision can be reached.
jbob2000 11y ago
> the ability to select outside of it - difficult as this may be - is valued My point is that you can't select outside of the labour pool. The same person who is hired by the state to perform care is the same person that a private company hires to provide care. Both entities hire from the same labour pool. As well, competent care providers are often promoted out of the "front-line" work, leaving the less skilled ones behind. Not only that, but allowing people to choose their care providers can lead to inefficient use of resources. Rather than having one person service a home of 5 individuals, you may end up with 5 people servicing a home. But there are many inefficiencies in the way care is currently provided, so perhaps the expenses could be made up in other areas. And perhaps an individual given more autonomy may function better and thus need less care.

mjevans 11y ago

I think this is partly a knowledge problem. People don't have knowledge that this even really exists, or what the expenditures they're asked to fund are actually providing (or not providing as the case might be). A transparent (open) budget from taxes to payment might help, as well as an easy way to compare the typical compensation for this task to others in society. At that point a more informed, and hopefully more humane, decision can be reached.

jbob2000 11y ago

> the ability to select outside of it - difficult as this may be - is valued My point is that you can't select outside of the labour pool. The same person who is hired by the state to perform care is the same person that a private company hires to provide care. Both entities hire from the same labour pool. As well, competent care providers are often promoted out of the "front-line" work, leaving the less skilled ones behind. Not only that, but allowing people to choose their care providers can lead to inefficient use of resources. Rather than having one person service a home of 5 individuals, you may end up with 5 people servicing a home. But there are many inefficiencies in the way care is currently provided, so perhaps the expenses could be made up in other areas. And perhaps an individual given more autonomy may function better and thus need less care.