Wolverhampton City Closes Care Home Despite Millionaire´s Offer
A battle to save a care home in Wolverhampton has failed, despite a business man stepping in with a £2 million pound offer to keep the home for the elderly open. The family of 106-year-old resident Louisa Watts, have campaigned to keep it open.
It is feared by the Watts family that moving Louisa could be damaging to her health. An injunction was taken out against Wolverhampton City Council over the closure, but it was overturned by the Court of Appeal.
Lord Justice Sedley, who has passed the closure of the home, said of Louisa’s move that if it was done correctly it should "not do her any appreciable harm." The investment offered would have kept the home open for another year.
an old peoples home having to close, but the City council have been offered the money to keep the place open for a year whats their problem? Maybe in another year they could find the funding to keep it open when the economy has recovered some or ask the business man for advice for funding. It´s shocking to think you pay taxes and you go to one of these homes for your well-being only to be shifted around by a pen pusher. One day it could be one of us.
You are right it could be us and relatives could be moved away from their families so late in life.
They is something very strange going one indeed. I do hope people demand an investigation into this and use the human court of rights as these human need support.
Any ideas in how we can deal with this would be appreciated because apart from writing to the local MP I am at a loss.
I think that it is quite ignorant for the City Council to not look at an offer to help keep people in a place that the residents are happy and comfortable in. In fact, it is nothing more than the City Council members having to prove they are somehow in control that is permitting this to happen. They used the fact that it would cost 2 million to bring the home up to current standards and when someone offered the money to do so they turned it down! I wonder for those that know where this is, how much is the land worth? I could easily see that a behind the scene deal could be playing out.
BB-This actually has nothing to do with the healthcare ststem or it´s costs and the quip aimed towards the possible US care is beneath you, I would expect CA or Crayola to try to use this for their agenda not you. :-(
The only supposed reason they are closing this 40 year old care home is that the updates to make it comply would be 2million not the annual budget. By the City Council´s denial of the offer they are actually costing the tax payers more for moving and associated fees. It is a shame they did not accept the offer and then all they would be looking at is the annual budget which they already had set aside so if they lost the injunction, instead like they are so good at the government is wasting money and making things more difficult.
"If there were any firm findings that moving Mrs Watts would shorten her life the decision would be quite different."
He told the family´s solicitor Yvonne Hossack there were no grounds for an appeal, although he recognised that Mrs Watts was "entitled to the full benefit of every day that still remains to her."
What does he mean."entitled to the full benefit of every day that still remains to her" Did he slap him self on the back for that freezing cold comment!
Perhaps he thinks he is God now.I bet he gets to chose where is pompous butt will be in his last years.
The money used to operate and keep this facility in good working order is money paid by taxpayers. Its sole purpose is to care for the health and well being of the elderly and therefore, it is a nationalized health care facility. If it were privately owned and financed, the city counsel would only be interested in its condition as a safe and usable facility.
My point was that this is a perfect example of government not being able to finance its own operations effectively.
Here we see a case where government, which doesn´t have to compete in a free market, can´t even manage to maintain its own facilities to the same standards it mandates that private enterprise must abide by.
Lump me in with CA and crayola all you like, but the math doesn´t work here and I don´t know or even care if this city is governed by a right or left leaning government. Even if this were a Libertarian governed city... the math doesn´t work.
Politics and emotions are one thing, but in the end, if we spend more than we take in... the math works against us, always. ;)
If it were only as simple as just math or as complicated as too emotional.
It does actually comes down to money, you are right about that, it just isn´t at the hands of national healthcare. It isn´t just 2 million in improvements because there was an offer to pay for it and the city wouldn´t be out of anything, or would it? From the 22nd of July: ´The council spokeswoman said the home was more than 40 years old and did not meet modern care requirements. She said the council had invested a huge amount of money in sheltered housing in the city and, where possible, would not split friends up.´ Sept:29 "Underhill House was to be closed as part of a cuts package after a High Court judge rejected an application to quash the decision."
Hell, they can´t even make up their mind what it was that made the decision to close the Underhill House in the first place. Needed updates, invested large amounts in other housing or huge budget cuts take your pick of the 3, but health care doesn´t even make a play into the reasons.
The city will still get paid by the NHS for the cost of caring for the elderly, but housing that will likely cost more since they are being divided up into pairs whenever possible will come from milage votes, not the NHS coffers. Would 10 sheltered homes end up costing less than a 40 person care home which will now require more staff to care for them at the same time? Especially one that they owned and was going to have the work needed paid for by a benefactor?
One other thing is that the money that pays for the upkeep and care is from tax payers as you said, but for city or county owned facilities they are mileage(bond) votes that are paid for building upkeep. The money that comes in from insurance and patient payments are used for staff paychecks, activities, field trips, food, cleaning supplies, laundry etc. Every single dept has a different number so they know which exact section of the budget it is coming out of.
It is as simple as math.... and as complicated as emotions are, emotions don´t fit where the rubber meets the road.
I can´t speak for the laws over the pond but I have to assume that if a city council is deciding whether or not to close or keep open a health care facility, it is because said facility is publicly funded. With that assumption, I also must assume that the deterioration of the facility must have been due to the neglect of those who were tasked with keeping it up to the required standards.
Admittedly, I haven´t read the source article but I know full well that 2 million dollars (or pounds) when needed to bring an aged care facility up to current standard indicates gross neglect. You even admitted this facility was some 40 years old and had obviously not been correctly maintained over those years. Let a private, for profit company try and get by with forty years of gross negligence in maintenance of their facility and see what happens.
My point is simply this... it doesn´t matter where the money comes from, when funds are mis-appropriated the end result is failure and no amount of compassion can right the wrongs of government or private enterprise that is propped up by taxpayers.
If a government levies standards on its citizenry, it must also follow those same standards because after all, governments are built and operated by citizens, regardless the name applied to their form.
I have to apologize because I took your comment the wrong way in that I read it as a political swipe.
I will agree without question that the people in charge of updating and maintenance in the building was negligent. I am sure the money went in some pockets in the forms of nice raises and a bonus or two.
We had a similar thing happen with our county medical care around 8 years ago. We approved a milage for a new, up-to-date facility that was put onto the site where our oldest hospital was once at so no cost there.
Sadly, it hasn´t stopped mis-management or what is really the greatest problem in a majority of care homes and that is abuse and neglect. Management is free with raises for themselves, nurses aides get paid fairly well compared to many other places yet still can´t seem to keep their hands to themselves unless it is to actually take care of a problem.
Hell your reply actually fits in with what the school district just pulled off. They just won a milage after complaining the high school was in terrible shape. The place was kept up well until the superintendant got a 6 figure salary for being useless.
