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'm not frail, thanks. Apart from a dodgy hip and an incurable but manageable cancer. Not all 75 year olds are tottering on the edge (all right they are, but not in the way that it's imminent).

Thank goodness your view doesn't (at the moment) prevail.

It's an inherently stupid phrase that deserves having the piss taken out of it. When people proclaim about 'pensioners hoarding houses' you can almost hear the whining.

We have funerals to go to as our mates die off. We still need smart clothes. My Dad lived to 90, he outlived nearly all his mates. He was regularly going to funerals. His generation expected mourners to be suited and booted and not turn up in their gardening scruffs.

Both Labour and Conservative governments have done sod all for decades about the mounting housing crisis we are in.

They are only now as they cannot avoid the problem.

Do you honestly think it is only 20 year olds who are affected by this?
Do you honestly think the last government got in by the votes of 20 year olds who were voting for the first time?

Absolute rubbish.

This is a cross-generational issue.

You are not part of some special class of saviour or victim of society or, as you wish to believe, older people. Your generation would have voted the same way as other generations did.

Stop the bitterness and blame and get on with improving your own life. You'll feel better for it.

Such a strange response to the post you quoted. The poster clearly includes qualifying statements as to when withdrawal of treatment should be considered. You chime in and state you're not frail. Surely then you would think that this post doesn't relate to you? The poster specifically states if treatment is extending frailty.

If you have more than a certain level of savings (I think it's £23,250 per person) or own your own home you have to fund your own care.

My DM's CH costs her around £1400 per week. I actually think it is good value: all food, heating, carers available at the press of a button, 24 hour nursing care.

75% of pensioners own their own homes. 15% have social housing. Actually pensioners aren't really impacted by the housing crisis and it isn't a cross generational issue in the way you imply.

You have no idea how younger generations would have voted. We just know how your generation did and how this contributed to the situation we find ourselves in now. To pretend you're the victim of this when you were the ones that obviously benefited from selling of the country's assets is crazy logic.

I am not bitter. I am simply waiting for younger generations to wake up and understand the legacy that previous generations have left them. When this happens there won't be much sympathy for triple locked pensions etc.

Couldn't agree more. In an age of information, a lack of critical thinking skills is killing this country.

I don't believe Labour will deliver enough social housing to cover the increase in demand that low-skilled migration will cause. What they will deliver will be of little value to families because it will be poky little one bed and two bed shoe boxes.

I think they will try to find some way to force C1/C2 boomers who own a 3 bed terrace/semi, but are reliant on the state pension to sell their houses cheaply and move into the shoe boxes. This way, they can put the immigrant families in their houses.

Well yes but those will plenty will want better than a standard care home.

Bit like schools. Those will plenty are completely out of the public sector.

Something has to change. The NHS can't be clogged up with people needing care. But not moving to care but not fit to return home

I knew some would come on here to do a bit of Boomer bashing.

I'm 63 this year, so another 4 years yet until I can draw a state pension, and I JUST scrape into the Boomer generation. I live in a 4 bed semi. It was a modest 3 bed when me and DH bought it, but it was our hard earned money (both worked full time all our lives, he died aged 58 before getting a sniff of his pension) that renovated and extended it. My two young adult DC still live at home and, in the opinion of some on here, when they move out I should sell my home of 31 years and move into something smaller, so that a family can benefit from what we built. No thanks. I bought it. I improved and extended it. I turned the shit heap outside into a beautiful garden. I'm going to bloody enjoy it when I finally hang up my working shoes.

As an aside, on the previously mentioned subject of putting pensioners out to pasture when they reach 75, I genuinely hope I don't live past 80. The country is going to hell in a handcart. I hate to think what it'll be like by 2043.

If you have your own business it tends to make sense to be close to home so not really fortunate but practical

There are about 3 million pensioners in "millionaire" households, roughly a quarter. It's a very high proportion! They don't need the triple lock, they don't even need a state pension. Means test it and we can afford a proper care service!

They don’t need smart work clothes though and are usually close to home.

Well we're all effectively on death row as we age. We're not getting younger are we? @GnomedePlume isn't suggesting euthanasia for all over 75s. She's talking about a relative with advanced vascular dementia ( a state my sister is in too) and antibiotics being administered for ongoing chest infections etc. Going by the condition my poor sister is in and one nobody ever wants to be in then I'd gladly give her a peaceful death rather than prolong a life of torment.

The tax base has been shrinking since the late 60s,that is why all parties supported immigration,at the same time mass immigration caused huge wage suppression,which is why we are in such a mess combined with a massive increase in wealth inequality and you have the perfect storm we are in the teeth of.

What was said was Beyond a certain age (say 75) or when the elderly patient no longer has capacity the default should be to not treat. Immediate comfort should be the overriding consideration.

Beyond a certain age (say 75) OR when the elderly patient no longer has capacity not AND - and then using their relative as an example for having no capacity. Two scenarios - being over 75 or having no capacity.

The first part of the paragraph suggested no treatment for anyone over the suggested age of 75, whatever their condition.

I don't know if anyone is watching the Prime Minister's conference speech, yet...?But the way he just spoke about care was extraordinary. Far and away the best rhetoric I've heard from a politician in a long time. TBH I don't know if ending the triple lock alone will be enough to fund the kind of scale of reform to the care system that the Prime Minister is talking about - and I guess the Casey review will give more detail on that, but I do think it is unbelievably refreshing to have a senior politician prepared to have a frank conversation about how to do something so incredibly politically difficult.

She’s suggesting that the default should be not to treat after 75. Thereby condemning people with ten or 15 years of perfectly healthy life ahead of them to death or endless pain if they develop cancer or break their hip. It’s grotesque.

If social care becomes free at the point of use there would definitely be more demand for it as those people currently looking after their parents at home or in their own homes would want to take advantage of that

It’s already free at the point of use for people with £23.5k or less in the bank.

I'd stop now if I were you. You're chatting sh*t.

Could be worse. I've seen one poster suggest that the cutoff should be 70. Oddly they never seem to realise that a) that will apply to them or b) if 70, why not 65 or 60?

I think she meant the treatment of her mother is grotesque. A woman in a more or less vegetative state, as my sister is, and I have no wish to see her life prolonged. Why on earth would anyone want that for a beloved relative who hasn't got the capacity to do anything and reduced to being hoisted, spoon fed, incontinence and not recognising anyone? Nobody's suggesting it for broken hips.