Potentially, another national insurance tax increase to pay for social care

This whole issue- and the NHS - needs to be taken out of the political arena and given to a string, competent cross party working group with a commitment by all parties that they will agree to a 30 year plan. It is too complex to be kicked around in the way it currently is.

As soon as any proposals are made by any party, before they can even be fully costed and the details worked through, they are taken to pieces and turned into headline click bait . "Death tax", "x party wants to take your home".... it makes it impossible for any sort of sensible discussion around sustainable proposals.

How do we get a balance between being able to adequately prepare and fund our own old age while paying enough taxes to support those who can't?

We're of an age where we're fretting over our own retirement plans and beyond. These past 4 years have been our most expensive to date with a child at uni and two in college. We pay into pensions which are unlikely to be enough but are not able to save beyond that.

My grandparents were not wealthy but managed to self fund their care through their pension and their property. I'm not sure we'll be able to do the same, although that would be our hope.

I also have no issue with homes being sold to pay for care, it's odd that we expect to be able to pass on houses to our kids, while people who can't afford to own a home fund care for those that do.

My entire point is that we need to raise enough money for what we need. Not another half job, sort it properly, and we're all going to have to pay for that. We will likely all need the NHS and the care service so let's get it sorted.

Except that most people end up needing care/care home etc help later in life than need to claim for a car, and the cost of ongoing care fees would far surpass the cost of paying out for a car.

As an example my granda had Alzheimers and required care in his home & then in a care home for nearly 11 years before he died. At a cost of nearly £1500 a week, so nearly £75k a year.

No insurance company is going to take that gamble for the same reason that it’s very difficult to get life insurance past a certain age, and if you can find it then it is ££££.

The social contract - the one that the Conservatives began ripping up when Cameron announced "austerity" and that Johnson, Hunt, May and Sunak put through the shredder to finally kill it off - was supposed to be the "insurance product" for people who became sick or when they reached old age. The deductions were even snappily called "National Insurance" in order to convince people that it was something worth paying.

As for an "insurance product" that people should purchase on retirement - how do you envisage this working? Who would provide this "insurance" and on what basis? Would people pay according to their current health? What about people who cannot afford the premiums - there being a clear link between poverty and poor healthcare and shorter life expectency? What about people who the insurance providers refused to cover? No commercial insurer would enter in to this type of scheme unless there was the potential for huge profits, meaning that the only alternative would be a government-run scheme ... which is what the UK already has (but which nobody wants to fund because they all believe that old age and infirmity are things that only affect "somebody else").

Genuinely I think if you have assets you should pay for your own care. It also makes much more sense to downsize into sheltered accommodation and have care on tap paid from sale of house than trying to cling on to the family home. I do also think that we possibly over medicate the elderly. My Aunt died recently she was given six months to live about five years ago. Honestly it’s been brutal crisis to crisis. Wanted to stay at home her daughter ended up doing bulk of caring, carers 4* daily but hardly anything can be achieved in those 15 minutes. She is a shell of herself. Actually said she felt unable to grieve as just felt relief.

@Toodaloo1567
Your idea of purchasing insurance against having to sell your home will only potentially be of benefit to homeowners, not those renting or still living with their spouse.
How would you help those relying of local authority funding? They are the ones suffering at the moment.
What about patients stuck hospitals because they are no social care beds available?
You are not looking at the whole picture.

Ah so everyone else should pay for it? This is the problem, you want better services as long as someone else has to pay. Either we accept lower levels of public services and encourage those who can afford it to buy private alternatives OR we all have to pay more income tax. Just going after other people doesn't work because then they get sick of being constantly targeted.

But what would the benefit be to any insurer of offering that kind of cover?

We are pretty much the only European country with ‘free at the point of delivery’ healthcare. Most places have a government/insurance hybrid for medical and social care. We have to accept that the nhs/social care funding model no longer works. However selling it to voters will be very hardand if accepted the transition period will be horrendous I imagine.

I know of a director (not the CEO) of a group of care homes who earns £900k++. This was back in 2020.
Social care should be not for profit.
Currently if you are not a self funded, the bar is very high to get local authority to finance your place in a care home. So if you rent and have little savings or your spouse is still living at home with you, you will have a battle to get funding for a CH because you can't pay for it yourself.
Continuing Health Care is almost impossible to get.

This.

There are loads of other ways of funding it that should be explored first, eg dividend tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax and probably loads more that I've never even heard of.

I agree but politicians know that a large proportion of the voting public will go bananas at the suggestion that they fund their own care. So they go after working young people instead, as always.

Dilnot was reporting to MPs at the health and social care committee. This is how government works - experts consulted and then policy made.

I'm well aware of that, thank you!

It still doesn't make your thread title any more accurate!

Right, but how much do you think that insurance product would cost, and what about the (many) people who can’t afford to pay it? Just leave them in the street?

Also, why should these people have to then self fund? At that point why not just scrap it all, let everyone pay for private healthcare and get rid of the NHS?

I'm a little amused at your offence of my use of "we".

I'd be fine with either system. I just said it needs paying for somehow.

Exactly.

We can pay for this through general societal resources, or through people using their own personal resources first. If your view is Option A, ok, but NI is a bad way of doing that.

No mention of NI here either (in case you don't like The Guardian!)