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.

The ringfenced amount is 100k.

Who can say if it will stay at that amount and not reduce significantly over time?

Anyway this is the platform for the City Insurers to make a mint out of products for the elderly. I hope that cohort will always have an advocate to guide them.

Why do you think this policy is being mooted? I doubt it is to placate anyone in need of care. Think about it and who is mooting it.

Expect the product sellers to offer new retirement housing in px for your existing property.
For eg I believe Legal and General are already heavily involved in the build to rent sector.

peaceout some of us are already in small properties eg I live in a two bedroom flat with my DD who is in her early 30s and earns c £28 (in London) No way of downsizing and releasing equity unless I move out of London which at my age (nearly 70) and for health reasons I am loath to do.

Also I am far from being alone in having an adult child living with me. What happens if I need to go into a nursing home and my flat has to be sold to cover the fees? DD will be homeless or have to house share like she did at university 10 years ago!

It is easier for married couples because if one has to go into care the other can stay in their family home and the costs will be covered without having to sell the home. Same rule ought to apply to offspring now that buying and renting property is so expensive. I am not against paying for my own care but not at the expense of DD being made homeless as a result.

oops DD earns £28K !

I hope any government who looks at care fees carefully and brings something like this in also brings a fee cap in or it'll just end up like childcare and tax credits.

Tax credits were supposed to help people getting back into work with childcare costs. All that happened was that childcare costs boomed. Now not only do tax credits pay part of it people paying the 20%+ left pay way more as well.

It already costs more as a private paying resident than a socially funded one in many many homes. If you are going to create more private funded people then they need to make sure they do t just end up costing people and state more with hiked fees.

Persiancatlady Marriage also involves the state - you cannot get the full benefits of marriage (eg transferable CGT allowances) with legal agreements between partners - if you care get married.
Sunshine gift your house to your child and pay rent. If you can't afford it and need care, i am not sure why I and other posters should pay for your DD's house?

I am not sure if this has been said already but currently you have to get down to £23K of your own money before the state steps in. At the point my mum died she had got down to almost exactly £23K. It was her money to spend.

The key issue is if there can be a cap set on care costs then insurance companies can provide a package that people can buy into. But up to now there has not been.

The social care that is being talked about is only needed because people are medically unfit to care for themselves, so is it really social care or medical care? What about not being able to take your own medication, is that medical care?

My mother could not remember to taker her tablets. But the bar for medical need was that she should not even be able to swallow them unassisted.

The levy suggested by Labour in 2010 which spreads care costs across the whole of the nation would be a better solution in my eyes. Labour's current manifesto mentions levies as a possibility. It is a universal scheme though so of course not something the Conservatives would suggest nor liked by many of their voters.

To add, Conservatives had committed to capping all care costs at £75,000 by 2020, originally should have been 2016 but they delayed it. This commitment has now been scrapped with the new manifesto where people will keep no more than £100,000 if they need to go into a care home. Also now the home will also be taken into account for care into home if substantial care is needed at home in their last few years of life which is not the case currently. So although Conservatives said they would address this those unfortunate to need care for a good few years still under this proposal face losing huge amounts as is the situation now for some who have to go in care homes for quite a few years. As said, I prefer Labour's suggestion of a financial levy payable by everyone so no individual will face huge care costs.

Also it's not only elderly who need care. Many disabled and chronically sick need care at home, even those working. So once again the disabled will be negatively effected by them now saying the value of the home will be taken into account for care at home as well as in residential care.

My mother was paying £800 a week from her own funds for a nursing home, the rest from pension etc to make up the costs of the home at about £1K a week. If we are talking £800-£1K a week then you can see how very quickly people could get up to the £75K or £100K sum mentioned.

Sunhsine the flat wouldn't have to be sold until you died so your dd could stay in it (or is that only if you have domiciliary care - not sure if you go into residential?). On death you are right - it is sold to repay the charges.

On the inheritance front it's swings and roundabouts. Under the cons you may see it reduced to £100k if you need care. But on the other hand if you die without needing care you may only pay iht after the first £425k (per spouse so can be double if married). Under lab you will pay more iht if you are above the current threshold as lab say as the threshold will be lowered, but they haven't told us what to. They are going to reverse the recent changes, the manifesto costing doc says. There has been surprisingly little press response to that - it is all curentlh focused on the con social care proposals.

I don't know if I'm missing something but surely this is better for the majority of people?
Previously left with 23k minimum
New guidelines left with 100k minimum.
This would only make those who have prolonged packages of home care worse off which is a small minority..

True Just, people going into residential care will be better off with the increased threshold to £100k. And that does seem to be being overlooked, you are right. They are a minority of people needing social care, I believe - most people never go into a care home - so maybe that is why people are focusing on the change as it affects domiciliary care.

Also, people going into residential care may still be worse off than they would have been under the Dilnot proposal for a cap - which had been put back until 2020 but not abandoned by the cons until the manifesto came out.

Sunshine gift your house to your child and pay rent. If you can't afford it and need care, i am not sure why I and other posters should pay for your DD's house? Because we have a national health service so why should some conditions be eligible and some not. Why should I pay for other people's birth control, abortions, COPD, cancer, mental illness? Either we have a health service or we don't. Just because someone is old why do you think they shouldn't get care? I'm not talking about social care I am talking about people with severe dementia, if they were displaying the same symptoms as a 20, 30 or 40 year old they would be sectioned and in a hospital or suitable home even if they are millionaires.

symptoms as a 20, 30 or 40 year old they would be sectioned and in a hospital or suitable home even if they are millionaires.

@grannytomine - people with dementia can be sectioned if the risk is there.... the threshold is actually really really high for sectioning anyone. And the same criteria would be applied to the 20, 30 or 40 year old - if they were loved into a suitable home then it would be assessed to see if they need to find their own care

I think a scheme which shares the risk would be better.... Like a national social care scheme/insurance scheme. At the moment some people may need lots of expensive care, others will not, it's a financial lottery aided and abetted by the regional differences in house prices. If you are the adult child of a parent in the south east whom does not receive much care in later life you are a winner..... unfortunately if you've a parent who suffers a long slow decline the state 'wins'. If the state took 20% of everyone's estate (or perhaps a sliding scale related to value of the estate) then used it to fund social care then the lottery element would be removed. But apparently that's not on because it's a death tax and unfair

Sorry that should say moved and fund... autocorrect having a field day.

PinkSparkles, I have worked in adult mental health for 20 years. It is harder to get dementia sufferer sectioned, mental health professionals have confirmed this to me. I have worked with adults who are being funded at £2k a week who are more able to live independently than dementia sufferers I know.

@grannytomine - I am a mental health professional - I really don't want to get into it too much... but the reason you are less likely to section someone with dementia is because the mental health act dictates you have to use the least restrictive option and in many cases it's expected progression in illness and as a result there has been a breakdown in the care situation... at which point adult social care should be reassessing their needs and sourcing adequate care (whoever funds it). The mental health act was not designed to make mental health services replace social care responsibilities or to lock people up when actually they just need a more comprehensive care package/environment.

Both adult social care & NHS services are on their knees... the money needs to come from somewhere. As I said upthread - I don't know the answer. But people keep assuming that younger people or people with long term health conditions/care needs don't meet the same criteria. Unless their needs are covered under continuing health care funding (and some dementia sufferers are as well) then everyone is judged under the same criteria.

Instead of carping on about immigrants we should have been talking about a population demographic for Brexit. As it stands old people need immigrants to pay for them and young people need them to have any future at all.

1. The current problem is due to the INCREASE in life expectancy which is unprecedented and will not be repeated as there is a finite time that human bodies can exist and we are starting to reach that
2. Immigrant labour naturally does not tend to stay in one place indefinitely. It tends to be transient and return without the need for strict controls.
3. The brain drain will happen which will make the issue worse.
4. Planning for a sustainable population is the key. Controls on immigration are not necessarily the way to do that. Conversely international cooperation helps stop certain types of migration, whilst still making yourself attract for professionals. Controls and 'taxes' on immigrants is likely to adversely affect a sustainable population.
5. The birth rate is already in decline because younger people can not afford housing and can not afford their own pension provision without the spectre of caring for the elderly.
6. A sustainable population is rather more complex than just pulling up the drawbridge and need not be a pyramid if we are smart about it. As it happens its more likely to be an even more top heavy affair with the course we are on.
7. We are not taking any lessons from places where this is already happening and is more pronounced. Instead we are subjected to the 'Brexit opportunities' shit and the idea that everything will be wonderful.

When DO we get that Brexit reality check?

1) The current problem is due to the INCREASE in life expectancy which is unprecedented and will not be repeated as there is a finite time that human bodies can exist and we are starting to reach that
There will be life extension technology
Ain't seen nuthin yet....

It's even possible that life expectancy will go the other way and start to decline due to the obesity epidemic. Improvements in life expectancy are already slowing down, with a much smaller improvement seen over the last five years than expected (based on the previous 20 years).

Not sure why aanyone thinks that we are at the limits of human existence.

grannytomine you are right we are argued for mum that her needs were medical but aside from a small allowance she got no additional help.