To wonder why you can't get social care insurance?

[coconuttella]

The cost of social care for the elderly is increasing inexorably as more of us live to old age, but whilst healthcare is free at the point of delivery, social care isn't.

Why can't we have a voluntary social insurance scheme. If you pay in then your social care costs will be covered, and you would be exempt from massive charges that many with even quite modest income and wealth are charged. Premiums may be quite high but I reckon many would prefer that than be faced with the prospect of losing their home and savings if they're unlucky enough to require long term residential care at the end of their life - I definitely would look to purchase it. I can see some issues such as the length of time you'd need to pay a premium in order to qualify for all your care to be covered, but I don't see why these type of issues couldn't be ironed out. It would save a lot of elderly people a lot of the anxiety and guilt they currently feel and not cost the taxpayer a penny. It would be voluntary - if you didn't pay, the current arrangements would continue.

Obviously raising taxes is another solution but the Tories are reluctant to do this and Labour have alreadt made substantial promises.... and besides, it could be done in conjunction with more investment from the Government, it's not an 'either/or' thing.

Why is no one doing this?

"If people have the funds they should pay for their own social care, not health care, but social care."

I can see the justification for a distinction on a practical level - the cost! - but not in principle. Either way, why don't we just say you've got the money (your house), you should pay for it, including your heart surgery? What is so different about social care? Either way the person is in need.

This isn't necessarily reality at all. If we all pull together we can do it. Maybe the bankers and Playboy's can pitch in?

It is reality whether you like it or not until at least 2022! No party , not even spendthrift Labour are pledging that the State pays for all social care irrespective of ability to pay. I'm all for campaigning hard for what you believe, but that's no excuse to bury your head in the sand and refuse to accept reality!

I can see the justification for a distinction on a practical level - the cost! - but not in principle. Either way, why don't we just say you've got the money (your house), you should pay for it, including your heart surgery? What is so different about social care? Either way the person is in need.

Exactly! I'd prefer a fairer system that at least admitted that we expected those who are wealthy to contribute fairly to their care,
Whether it's health or social... the distinction is largely arbitrary.

No party is really dealing with this. Actually the Tories are going some way by increasing threshold to £100k and removing th even more arbitrary distinction between home and residential care. It's not something Labour have even touched on... then again they have enough spending commitments in their manifesto.

Ironically, if you need social care and have even modest assets, the Tories are the party for you!

bury your head in the sand and refuse to accept reality!

So what about these questions raised here about the insurance industry/financial industry? These are the people I clumsily call bankers and Playboys.

I think it is valid to ask the questions about their involvement.

Who is burying their head in the sand?

True coco the distinction between domiciliary and residential care does seem arbitrary. I agree with you on that!

Matter of interest - would you support pensioners having to pay in the same way for their health care, down to £100k? I suppose if so, even more should the younger rich (defined as house worth more than £100k) pay in the same way - because they have more years of earning ahead of them. That would be a logical outcome, but a massive move away from the NHS.

I was under the impression that was why I was paying National Insurance....

So what about these questions raised here about the insurance industry/financial industry?

My point is that there isn't insurance at the moment for someone in middle age even as an option...
There may be issues with the insurance industry but they don't offer this at the moment so it's hard to criticise what they aren't offering!

I was under the impression that was why I was paying National Insurance....

NI has never ever covered social care, even for Corbyn's Labour Party. you're in for a big shock if you have a house and you need social care!

What I can't understand is why dementia care is classed as social care and not health care? It seems to me it was classified as social care because of the cost of providing it if it was a health care need. The government did not want to have to pay so they just pushed it back onto the individual.

I'm in my 70s and if I don't take myself off to Dignitas first, I will not think twice about selling my home to fund any care home I may go into. It seems perfectly reasonable to me and at least I hopefully won't be stuck in a home smelling of urine and cabbage.

Rorty, I hear that said a lot but in some cases, like dementia, you may not have a choice. By the time you actually get a diagnosis you may not be in a fit state to take yourself off anywhere.

*Why here do the super rich go unchallenged? I mean on all of these posts about politics.

Do you guys feel they are untouchable? That those who cause these great crises float above laws and responsibility?*

I would love policies that drastically increased the tax the super rich pay, especially inheritance tax.

Even a "self made" billionaire didn't make their wealth in isolation. They benefitted from investing in countries with law and order and a good justice system, from employing workers who are educated by the state and receive public healthcare, from tax credits allowing them to employ people on minimum wage, fr

Matter of interest - would you support pensioners having to pay in the same way for their health care, down to £100k?

I think health and social care should be treated as equally worthy. I see no justification for the rather arbitrary distinction between the two. However, for the state to fund this fully it would involve a huge investment... far beyond anything even Labour are proposing. Yet, as a society we have a duty to provide decent care to those who need health or care assistance. With regards to its funding, it should be humane, fair, effective, efficient and promote personal responsibility. If it does these things I'm not dogmatic about how it should be funded... I'm not necessarily in favour of it being automatically and fully tax funded as this tends to take away personal responsibility - an overly involved State can infantilise people, lead to unrealistic expectations, and cause people to take things for granted. That's one of the problems with the NHS - its such a sacred cow that no one can countenance anything other than the current fully tax funded model (though they don't seem to have a great issue with dentistry and opthalmology where much of the public accepts the premise of payment.)

Even a "self made" billionaire didn't make their wealth in isolation. They benefitted from investing in countries with law and order and a good justice system, from employing workers who are educated by the state and receive public healthcare, from tax credits allowing them to employ people on minimum wage

Exactly Hope!

But it seems people, and I don't know why, actually defend them.

I work as an over 65's social worker- I think what the Tories have proposed RE £100k is much better than the current system which completely runs savings down to £14k (from £23,250 it works in a sliding scale until £14k is reached). However it is worse for people who have home care, own their own house and have no savings as previously they didn't pay for their care and now it will be charged onto their property.

Thewhiterose- Some Dementia care is considered health care, that's why some people with severe dementia move into a nursing home rather than residential- the NHS pays the nursing element of the placement and the resident is financially assessed for the residential element. Dementia nursing is normally for those who are particularly difficult to care for, aggressive or complicated behaviour rather than just memory loss.

At the end of the day it is not feasible for social care to be completely free for everyone- I just don't think we could raise enough funds from anywhere to support that.

I just don't think we could raise enough funds from anywhere to support that.

I keep hearing this repeated. But is it true?

The original Dilnot proposals that are currently shelved until 2020 suggested that there should be some differentiation between the 'hotel costs' of residential care and the care itself.

Currently if the state is paying for residential care it is paying for a person's bed and board as well as care.

If you looked at it from the perspective that 'care' should be free or subsidised by the state but that the price of living somewhere, having all meals provided, laundry done etc should be paid for by the individual then perhaps people may start seeing the cost as being more palatable. The those who have money and have saved all their lives would be able to pay for a tangible better quality of 'B&B' without it being about having to pay for care when Mrs Smith in the next door room does not.

I think it is absolutely right that people should be charged for their B&B costs, out of their assets estates if necessary and subsequently have a choice about what standard of B&B they wish to pay for in respect of this.

However, everyone should be entitled to the same basic standards of care be that social or health care.

The insurance idea would be a waste of money for a huge amount of people. It would only benefit the private companies involved in selling it and probably push up care home fees even further.

who have money and have saved all their lives would be able to pay for a tangible better quality of 'B&B

The lower rung B&B would be ghastly wouldn't it?

TheWhiteRoseOfYork
Rorty, I hear that said a lot but in some cases, like dementia, you may not have a choice. By the time you actually get a diagnosis you may not be in a fit state to take yourself off anywhere.

I do hear what you're saying but I have a morbid fear of getting dementia and I've told all my friends to tell me if they see any sign. They are an honest lot and I trust them. One has said I'm on level 50 dementia (I think that was as a result of going out one day wearing the left shoes from two similar pairs of shoes ).

Social care insurance is a great idea.

Since social care is needed by almost everyone across the nation, some sort of national insurance scheme would be best.

Care could be provided by a care service that would be national. This national care service would then be paid for by this national insurance scheme.