Is ending the triple lock to fund a care service fair....

[mids2019]

To me this is actually not a hugely left wing proposal as middle classes with occupational and private pensions will not notice the reduced increases in state pension significantly.

However poorer pensioners with little other pension provision may be impacted a lot to essentially fund a care service that will be disprotioanrly help the middle classes as their life expectancy is greater.

Is it fair that our poorest pensioners get less to support a care service which would mean a millionaire pensioner would not nèed to sell their assets to access it?

Absolutely agree!

This is true to some extent but it will nibble around the margins like free nursery places reduce the number of SAHPs some people still do it, but it is niche compared to 50 years ago.

When resources and treatment is limited then we need to be honest about what treating different group means and the amount of quality life years that this will deliver. The NHS already does this to some extent and it's not a new concept.

Do you genuinely think it's worth treating a 95 year old for heart failure with an operation that would cost £200k for example? What about the same operation for a child? I think it's silly to pretend the potential benefits of the treatment would be the same. At 95 there is a high probability that even if the treatment is successful then you will die of something else in the next few years. It's just statistics.

That doesn't actually surprise me as I was on a thread the other day, and the mental gymnastics some people were doing to blame the government for absolutely everything were genuinely quite something.

It was quite odd to me, because in real life I don't think I know anybody who is that partisan about politics, or that determined to like/ dislike every single thing any particular party says or does no matter what. But I guess that's the internet!

So, to paraphrase Labour, "who else can we tax to pay for benefits" if we're not going to tax people with significant assets/income, can't tax workers any higher, etc?? Something has to give.

Yes they can do both!

What’s the point of saving?

I agree. It's like the howls of anguish about pension funds becoming liable to IHT. Pension funds are for the person's own old age, not a savings pot to pass on to their children!

To give you choice rather than having to put up with whatever benefits are available. I.e. choice of care home, choice of health providers, opportunity to go private for quicker treatment, funds for a better car, better holidays, etc etc.

If you just want the basics, then don't bother saving and put yourself at the mercy of the state/benefit system/charities, etc.

How about those on benefits paying income tax above the threshold? That’ll raise a fair bit!

I'm aware it's very early days. But I have got to say, I've been really disengaged with politics since Brexit - not even neccessarily because of Brexit itself but because of the calibre of politicians, and the level of political discourse we've had since then, and the moral clarity with which the Prime Minister speaks has really given me a bit of hope that politics can still be nuanced and pragmatic, and ultimately a force for good.

But I don't want to derail this thread with general political chat - I was just so blown away by the way the Prime Minister set out his vision for care, and couldn't find anywhere else to say so!

In the same care home, the man in the next room may have been on lifetime benefits and be enjoying the same care you’re paying 8k a month for!

Do you really think they're so stupid that they don't realise that they will be 70 at some point in the future if they're lucky?

Do you really want me to answer that?

A lot of MN posters act as if being elderly and old is something that happens to other people, not them.

I also think they would. As an ex district nurse of many years seeing many families at breaking point struggling to care for their elderly, it’s certainly often not done for their parents’ benefit and quality of life, usually more due to guilt and expectation, and almost always of detriment to themselves.
I absolutely would not have been carers for my parents. Even if that meant waving the inheritance goodbye to care fees. And I won’t expect my adult children to do it either. Dreadful.
Difficult conversations about prolonging frail, demented, poor quality life at all costs would be a better start.

What is needed is more care to free up NHS beds. I suspect that is all it will achieve. I would prefer a means tested pension with the triple lock gone than disabled people targeted through benefits reductions. And those who can afford to pay for care definitely should. But better care is needed for those who simply can’t pay. And NHS beds need freeing up.

I wonder how a thread on the NHS would look if Mumsnet was around at the same time as Aneurin Bevan?
I am constantly amazed at the inability of many posters to look beyond their own prejudices, spite and chips on their shoulders to see the bigger picture.
It is younger generations who stand to benefit the most from the social care system being sorted out
The old people who need care will get it regardless at the moment. If they have no assets, the state pays, if they have assets they pay.
Under a new system, the assets would remain intact, thus benefitting their descendants.
It's as if everyone thinks they will be forever the person they are at this exact moment - I sometimes wonder if people realise THEY will also benefit, not just the much-hated pensioners of today.

I know that Andy Burnham's father was in a care home so he must realise the costs involved. He must be existing in a dream world if he thinks social care can be funded. My mother has been in a care home for over 4 years, her money ran out in January this year, her total fees for that time was £320000.
Andy Burnham you just carry on and let's see how you get on with your crazy plan.
I'd rather they sorted out nhs dentists available for everyone, that would be more beneficial. At the end of the day everyone has teeth and not everyone needs to go into a care home.

The biggest factor preventing downsizing is stamp duty. Lots of people have holiday homes, so selling their main home to downsize can easily incur £70-100k stamp duty, and so they don't bother.
Isn't it the only tax on buying second hand goods?

And not everyone has a baby, cancer or MS. That's the way the NHS works and no one seems to have a problem with that?

I think it is the stress of moving. The whole process. Which is nothing short of nightmarish. The older you get the less you can face it.

It's just not something that the NHS would even contemplate.

Most of these care homes are run by hedge funds who rake off enormous profits and pay their workers a pittance. That's why you get scandals and low quality care.

Yes, but if it's paid for by the council, he may well have ended up in somewhere a lot naffer as there's very little "choice". The person who is paying will have had more choice, and, probably a better room, better view, etc., as the care home will have wanted to attract the payer and know they're in competition with other care homes. My elderly neighbour went into care and is in a naff home around 50 miles away because that was the only place the council could put her at the time she needed care. A friend who's mother has just gone into a care home got a place less than a mile away from them, on the promenade in a room with a sea view but she's fully paying herself. Council places are a lottery. You have more choice if you're paying.

Quite a lot it turns out. In 2022 22% percent of pensioners (2.6million people) have a household total wealth above 1m and another 27% (3.2million people) between 500k-1m. This will only have gone up in the last 4 years. Household total wealth in Great Britain - Office for National Statistics

They do it if there's a clinical basis, i.e. chances of survival are low or chances of a successful operation/treatment are low. You can incorporate age and fragility into such evaluation.