To think older people need to sit up and take notice of this

[OwlOfBrown]

So the Tory manifesto includes a plan to make (elderly) people pay for their own social care costs until they are down to the last £100K of their wealth. Andrew Dilnot, who chaired a commission on social care costs during the coalition government which suggested a cap of £35,000 on care costs borne by individuals, has condemned this plan.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/18/tory-social-care-plan-example-market-failure-andrew-dilnot

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-19286845/andrew-dilnot-on-social-care-cap-and-inheritances

I know a lot of MN'ers will say that this is fair, and I do have some sympathy with that opinion. Why should someone be able to sit on hundreds of thousands of pounds of wealth when the state pays for their care? But is it really fair? What about when others have the same amount of wealth but enjoy the good fortune of not needing social care so get to keep their wealth? After all, we don't make people with long-term illnesses pay for their medical treatment (yet...) so what is different about social care?

Debate away - I'm interested to hear other people's opinions on this.

I'm not planning to vote tory but I feel it's a very sensible policy and long overdue.

My BIL died in his fifties from health related issues, he was on benefits and despite carrying out fairly stringent budgeting we often had to supplement his groceries by getting an online shop delivered to him.

As a single man who had difficulty expressing himself ( potential early onset dementia) I feel he was given the very least he could be from the NHS and often had to spend his meager benefits getting to job interviews that he had no hope of getting and in my view he was physically unable to have held down a full time job but his GP refused to sign him as being unfit for work.

Contrast that with my parents generation.

My parents are pretty wealthy, they had decent jobs with excellent pensions and yes they have worked all their lives, but they got to retire at a reasonable age and have tried to tie up all their assets so I'd get it in the event of their death.

One set of neighbours is a friends parents - they get carers allowance for one of them - despite being very comfortably off.

Baffles me why we continue to hand out carers allowance and fuel allowance to people who can well afford it, baffles me even more why Jeremy Corbyn seems to think that continuing to hand out this money to one of the wealthiest segments of society is the right thing to do.

Yes Notgetting, but again if we had a sensible housing programme, one where:

• younger people could afford to own a home
• we had adequate social housing, and
• quality places for the elderly

Wouldn't this situation solve itself to some degree? This lottery?

And without high mortgages and rents, could more be set aside for retirement and care and things?

I am interested in the constrasting views on this. I always object to more tax but I don't mind this. I suppose it's because I am relatively consistent with my views - I want a much smaller state (but retain a much smaller welfare state) and as far as is possible people should look after their families and pay their own way all through life. My parents were similar. It is that generational view that claiming a benefit is shameful - loads of older people don't claim benefits they are entitled to.

So I always expected only I would be supporting myself in older age and ditto for my parents. So it seem very consistent with Tory policy and not surprising or unusual.

Do we know how it works yet? So you need the dementia care at home. You live in a house with more than £100k equity - let us assume you are single. You approach the local authority for care. Do they fund the care and then take the money from your estate when you die or do they make you sell the house or do equity release to pay weekly for the care?

It looks like the ones who look after themselves "are the problem". This is bizarre.

You might think healthy people live longer and need more care in their old age for longer, whilst unhealthy people die young needing less care.

I would disagree because health care is so good now that people with unhealthy lifestyles, chronic diseases are kept alive for longer and longer needing more expensive and more intensive care for a lot longer. So the policy might well encourage people with assets to look after themselves. e.g. someone with AIDs now will have a similar life expectancy as someone without it.

I would disagree because health care is so good now that people with unhealthy lifestyles, chronic diseases are kept alive for longer and longer needing more expensive and more intensive care for a lot longer.

You may be right about this. It is so complex....

So the policy might well encourage people with assets to look after themselves.

How does a healthy lifestyle prevent dementia? In terms of other conditions, if you make it as far as your mid to late 70s the probability is you are relatively healthy anyway in comparative terms.

Not only that but being affluent (and thus having assets) is already directly linked to better health and longer life expectancy.

Its people without assets who are more likely to die younger.

I would disagree because health care is so good now that people with unhealthy lifestyles, chronic diseases are kept alive for longer and longer needing more expensive and more intensive care for a lot longer. So the policy might well encourage people with assets to look after themselves. e.g. someone with AIDs now will have a similar life expectancy as someone without it
not sure I'm with you on this, afaik new treatments mean that people with AIDS can live a normal life with normal life expectancy, they need to take medications but dont require care.

Those with unhealthy lifestyles (sedentary, bad diet, obesity) are at high risk of risk of cardiovascular disease and the complications of type 2 diabetes, they are probably not going to live much past 70.

I haven't RTFT apologies, but I did hear Andrew Dilnot on the radio yesterday. He wanted a social care insurance policy and I have to say I think that would be fairer.
It doesn't seem right to me that it's a Russian roulette system where the state takes all your assets if you have the misfortune to need care. I think we need proper long term provision where the risk is spread across everyone, like car insurance or health insurance.

To be honest, unhealthy people are more cost effective. My pil were the essence of health and did all the 5-a-day, Benecol, exercise, etc etc etc. What happened is that they both developed dementia but had extremely healthy bodies. Mil lived six years with severe dementia. Fil is triumphantly healthy and puts away three square meals a day. He is almost non-verbal and doesn't recognise anyone. They have gone through their savings and sale of house (more than £500K altogether) and we will be applying for council care for fil shortly as he is approaching the £23K you are allowed to keep. This will be replicated for hundreds of thousands of people who will be living very long lives.

To be honest, unhealthy people are more cost effective
yep, sure thats why the epidemic of opiate abuse has been allowed in the US people conveniently die via OD or suicide
too many fighting fit nonagenarians is not what the govt wants

mind you I think there's a good chance that we will soon find ways to prevent dementia and perhaps reverse the early stages of it

This policy is like last Saturdays Dr Who isn't it?

People who are no longer profitable should just die.

It's not that they are not profitable, it's the problem that if you've lost your mind, your personality, your dignity and your money... and there are hundreds of thousands like you, what is to be done?

maybe the walking dead TV series was to prepare us for this coming apocalypse?

Do we know how it works yet? So you need the dementia care at home. You live in a house with more than £100k equity - let us assume you are single. You approach the local authority for care. Do they fund the care and then take the money from your estate when you die or do they make you sell the house or do equity release to pay weekly for the care?

Previously:

If you went into a home, you had to pay for the cost of your care from your 'assets'. Your house value was included as part of these assets.
Your house was sold & you paid for your care from the proceeds.
£23k was ring-fenced in your assets, so once that floor amount was reached, the state took over the costs.
Leaving £23k for you to pass on to your beneficiaries.

If you received care in your own home, the house was not included in your 'assets'.
£23k of your assets was ring-fenced, as was the value of your house. Once that floor amount was reached, the state took over the costs.
After death, you could leave your beneficiaries the £23k plus the house.

Proposed system:

Everyone (both in own home & in care home) will now have the house value included in their 'assets' amount.
New ring-fenced amount is £100k
Everyone will pay for their care costs until the floor amount of £100k is reached, then the state will take over the costs.

If no-one is living in your house, the house will be sold and you will pay for your costs until the £100k floor amount is reached.
If your spouse is still living in the house on your death, the house will not be sold until they die too.

If your care is in-home then your house will not be sold until you die; if your spouse also still lives there the house will not be sold until they die.

£100k is ring-fenced, so if your assets are worth £100k or more, £100k is guaranteed safe.

This means that the more your assets are worth, the more you will contribute to your care costs - down to the floor of £100k.

It's actually a really progressive way of doing it, which is why I'm surprised that JC et al are up in arms about it.

Soylent Green anyone??

I think we need proper long term provision where the risk is spread across everyone, like car insurance or health insurance
Would like to see how much that's going to cost, I get the feeling it would be very expensive and probably not paid by the low earners. Problem with that is that it is another massive burden on the middle class they probably can't afford. That's what so fair about this policy it doesn't put any financial burden on people.

It's actually a really progressive way of doing it, which is why I'm surprised that JC et al are up in arms about it.

Because it isn't their idea.

Odd about the 1971 landmark, I was born before then in late 60s and my ds a year after. She is just a comfortable as us or possibly more so.

Well of course jamie the care is going to cost one way or another. I would rather it was a predictable cost everyone paid (insurance) instead of an unpredictable cost that landed on a few.
I guess it smacks of the whole "why should I pay taxes for a service I don't use" thing. I think we should all pay for this.
Of course what's actually going to happen is parents will sign their houses over to their kids and we will have a window of 7 years where people get shafted. After that it'll be younger people who dare to become disabled that are shafted.
Not my definition of a progressive society.

Charm, thanks for the helpful answer.
on this
"If your care is in-home then your house will not be sold until you die; if your spouse also still lives there the house will not be sold until they die."
So you don't have to do equity release whilst alive or anything like that at all. So eg my neighbor in a £1m house with few savings if she needs care and stays in her house (she wants to stay in the house always) then the local authority will have to provide that care even if it is over another 10 years for no charge to her in her home and she only has to pay when she dies (with £100k protected for her heirs)?

That's where the unknown element arises Janet, I've no idea.

Sorry!

"Perhaps when people accept free care..."
Nobody gets free care on the NHS.

Janet, the reason so many already pay for care at home is because they have savings of more than £23k. Above that threshold you are already liable to pay, but it doesn't take into account the value of your house. (unlike residential care).

The reason JC and lab are so critical about it is that it means yet more means testing, and lab are (or used to be) the party of universal benefits. Means testing is not a socialist or lab party policy.

They should change the law on assisted suicide and give people the choice.

Red Why do you think pensions aren't subject to income tax? You don't pay NI, but you do pay tax.