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?

I doubt that any of this will actually happen to be honest. It’s just one persons vision , but the actual sums don’t seem to add up.

No thanks. Im Gen X and absolutely support the youngsters. They have a shit deal and something needs to be done about it. Id vote for a party that removes the triple lock and builds more social housing, allows more planning applications (NIMBYs wont like that!!) Puts more money into education, maybe pays towards HE by way of some sort of means tested bursary for high achieving kids who could never afford the fees

Good point. Hadn’t thought of this.

You can't get PIP once you're a pensioner.

I guess the point I’m making is that economists across the political spectrum, from Sir Jim O’Neill to Dan Neidle and think tanks as diverse as Resolution and IEA, generally tend to have quite different views on what is and isn’t affordable, but one of the few things there’s consensus on from both right and left wing economic thinkers is rethinking the triple lock. Obviously, no one thinks modifying the triple lock will solve all our economic ills, but it is a massive fiscal lever - and one no politician has been brave enough to pull, despite all the economic arguments in favour. I personally have enormous respect for a Prime Minister who’s prepared to stake his career on it.

I also agree that the young are being treated badly.
I hope that it’s picked up on that this doesn’t mean free healthcare in a residential home too. I think that many people will think this is the case.
I didn’t hear the PM’s speech today though.

And mine

I do think you should listen to the speech if you can. The way he spoke about care workers was really moving.

We all agree that care workers are great ( the majority of them are) but so many are exploited and treated badly and it is a sector with a high turnover of staff.
Maybe they need to fix this first. How is another question , the companies running these agencies won’t want to pay more money ( for starters)

I guess the point I’m making is that economists across the political spectrum, from Sir Jim O’Neill to Dan Neidle and think tanks as diverse as Resolution and IEA, generally tend to have quite different views on what is and isn’t affordable, but one of the few things there’s consensus on from both right and left wing economic thinkers is rethinking the triple lock.

I'm betting that all the people in think tanks saying 'we can't afford the triple lock' probably have very nice pensions of their own and wouldn't even notice if they didn't get the SP. And they never seem to consider what else might not be affordable, just that.

It's very easy to whip away someone's financial cushion when you're sitting on a very comfortable one of your own and you won't be the one affected.

I'm pretty sure social care will not see a penny of the money taken off pensioners. It will disappear into the general taxation void. It's just spin to make taking money off people receiving substantially less than the minimum wage sound more palatable.

You can if you were already receiving it when you turned state pension age

Please can you link the details you have.

dont criticise male care workers, do you criticise male nurses?

I don’t agree. AB has put his career on the line for something he is passionate about, something he is brave enough to tackle, whether popular or not.

He is not going to do that and let the money drift away.

The money for social care can easily be ringfenced as with any government/LA money.

Will the extra care workers needed be employed by the government and or the NHS , or still with agencies ?
I am also cynical that dropping the triple lock will go to the right places , but depends on who is overseeing it all. It’s a huge undertaking for someone to be in charge of.

But fixing that is literally at the core of his plan. They're going to introduce a legally binding social care pay scale across England (like how there are pay scales in the NHS), so, private agencies will legally have to pay workers based on their skills and qualifications, rather than keeping them on low wages. In principle, the plans honestly are very, very good. I guess the question for me is whether the Prime Minister can actually pull it off - especially when we live in such cynical, politically divided times.

Sadly, the doctors often make "assumptions" based on age and the "Look" of the patient and don't take into account how active they were prior to being in the hospital bed!

Just had it this morning at an orthopaedic out patient appointment with DH following his femural nail operation. He's 61! Up until a few months ago, he was playing golf, cycling, walking, etc despite having cancer and being on chemotherapy. I wheeled him into the consulting room on a wheelchair because he can't walk due to having no movement in his knee and hip. We asked how long it would be until he was back to "normal", and the consultant started saying that he;ll be out of the wheelchair in a few weeks, but then probably "Back" to walking with crutches etc. He looked surprised when we said he wasn't on crutches before the femur bone crack and was golfing and cycling as recently as June! He then changed his tune and said he'd probably be back golfing and cycling in around 3 months. He'd made incorrect assumptions based on how he looked at that consultation and the background of having cancer and being on chemo!

I think if "assessment" is going to be made by doctors, then they need to do a lot more work in actually talking to the patient/family and not taking a brief "snapshot" look and spending the rest of the consultation staring at their computer screen.

The government will have to make sure these agencies stick to the plan. Easier said than done I bet.

The money isn't being taken off Pensioners. It just not being given to them. The main problem is the "saving" money doesn't exist. If the triple lock is unaffordable, the double lock plus free care is unaffordable - either was/is still going to need to be funded by a big tax hike. Which strangely wasn't mentioned.

But if the firms can't make money, i.e. costs increase due to higher wages, but no facility to charge more, then they'll withdraw from the market and there'll be fewer care places.

Just look at NHS dentistry - it's becoming impossible to make the kind of profit the dentists/practice owners want from NHS work, so they're stopping NHS work and going private. Likewise GPs are doing the same, i.e. reducing NHS work and doing more private/locum work.

I think it'll only work if local councils start making their own provisions again, i.e. building care homes, convalescent homes, etc, like they always used to.

Nurses and care workers need to be valued and looked at with respect that they deserve
we need to stop blowing money on mad schemes and squandering the tax we collect

Of course the whole thing is unaffordable.
I feel that everyone knows this. It’s also just not older folk they need carers , many younger people do as well. It will run into billions , if it ever gets off the ground.

It’s actually changed my opinion of AB

So what are we getting exactly, I thought, obviously wrongly it was the stint in a care home but seems it's not