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 think there will be a divergence with the wealthy able to afford life extension (on top of the better health which tends to correlate with affluence) and the non wealthy dying young due to the consequences of unhealthy lifestyles

I think there will be a divergence with the wealthy able to afford life extension

Plastic surgeon's dream!

Thing is though life is intrinsically unfair. Some people are born rich, some healthy.

Although it's not defined or deliberate, there's already a prioritisation system on the NHS, so my middle class elderly articulate parents get much better standard of care and medical attention than my now deceased lower class BIL who was unable/too proud to clearly state his needs and was cowed by authority.
He died in his fifties and may well have still been alive now had he had appropriate medical treatment for his diabetes and not been swapped to a cheaper drug that did not regulate the condition in his case.

Therefore I find it hard to have too much sympathy for wealthy people who will end up losing most of their wealth due to ill health - they'll still have £100k to pass on, which feels like quite a lot to me. Most folks will manage to find ways round it by passing on their properties to their family when they are younger or find other loops in the system.

Perhaps it would be better to take a set percentage - that does have some attractions, but it still leaves the scenario where someone could have millions in property and have cost the state hundreds of thousands in care costs and their relatives still get to inherit 80% of their property wealth.

Therefore I find it hard to have too much sympathy for wealthy people who will end up losing most of their wealth due to ill health - they'll still have £100k to pass on

Perhaps, but isn't it dangerous to be building our economy around this homeowner/quick-dying nanna lottery?

Italiangreyhound here's a link to show that the increase in life expectancy seems to be slowing down (or even reversing).

UK life expectancy falls

makeourfuture my mother scrimped and saves to buy her home with my dad and all bar 23K was taken up on her medical care. I don't care if you don't have sympathy, it is not right.

my mother scrimped and saves to buy her home with my dad and all bar 23K was taken up on her medical care.

No, I am actually with you. I am just saying this proposal does not address these underlying issues regarding care and medical funding.

@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.

PinkSparkles, well we won't agree, in my experience the least restrictive option is used as a get out of jail free card, elderly lady raving and halucinating taken to A & E and discharged as "she wants to go home and says she's fine." Younger person behaving in an identical manner and sectioned. The only difference, other than age, was that the lady in question has no close family i.e. she is a widow, her siblings are dead, she has no children and the younger person had his parents and an adult sibling living in the same house. I've seen both those things happen and it has been described to me as age discrimination. Dealing with someone with paranoia and hallucinating and terrified is not a social care need it is a mental health need. Relatives, friends and neighbours who barely know the old person will have pressure to help look after them, 4 x 15 minute visits a day is "sufficient" I'm not sure what sufficient is meant to be. I was told about one old lady, she had 15 minute visits and a carer duly arrived to get her lunch. The carer was a teenager who had never seen a tin that didn't have a ring pull on the top so by the time she had figured out what a tin opener was and how to use it and tipped the contents into a saucepan the 15 minutes was up. Old lady was left for several hours until the next visit with no food or drink.

The person I am thinking about rang 999 so often that the police were refusing to respond in the end leaving neighbours to deal with the fear that there were people in her house. Her psychiatrist, GP and Social Worker all agree that she needs to be in a safe place but unfortunately no one seems to be able to arrange that, a DoLs assessment was requested weeks ago and still nothing. By the way this is nothing to do with inheritance for me or anyone else it is to do with someone being left in distress with no support. Neighbours have been good but if you are working, looking after children or grandchildren and a busy life there comes a point where you don't want to go and search someone's house and garden late at night and then try to settle them down or try to deal with them not knowing how to lock their door or use the phone.

I think the cynical view is that these old people are being hurried to their graves but the powers that be don't have the bottle to do it in a humane way, just leave them to starve or neglect themselves to the point that they die of hypothermia/untreated infections etc.

People have been brought up to believe the NHS will be there for them if they get sick. If you he e a home and dementia it is not true that the NHS will be there for you. If this will be the case then we need insurance packages that pay out for social and medical care on the car of dementia or similar and pay out a cash sum at end of life of not, IMHO and all 18 - 25 year olds should be ebcoutrd to sign up for it.

...in the case of dementia.

encouraged to sign up!

Italiangreyhound, it is a disgrace and until people deal with it they have no idea. Until the old lady I referred to became ill I had no idea what it was like. The treatment she receives in her 80s is in stark contrast with another neighbour in her 80s who is dying of COPD, district nurses and HCAs from the district nursing service calling frequently, GP very involved where the lady with dementia has no district nursing input and GP has pretty well washed his hands of it as there is nothing he can do (his words.) My MIL died of cancer and had help from MacMillan nurses, district nurses, hospice outreach until she was admitted. The difference is hard to believe until you see it for yourself.

I dread how bad its going to get when I am elderly, The countries in a mess, Tax for this tax for that, yet cuts every where.

Yes to a suitable insurance package, if everyone signed up to this it would be fairly cheap and we would all know that excellent care would be available when needed.

Granny it is shocking. My mum only qualified when she was on her death bed for last two weeks of life.

I knew this could happen do never viewed my mind house as any kind of inheritance. It just felt unjust as her choice would have been to help her two kids.

Lottie you are right to dread it, I think none of us imagine being old and none of us want to think about ending up with dementia. People think it is an old lady sitting vacantly in the corner. For some people it might be like that but for others it is a terrifying life with hallucinations of dead people tormenting you and for others sexually inappropriate behaviour that would have horrified them before they were ill.

Plastic surgeon's dream!
No, think stem cells, gene therapy, regenerating organs and tissues, cosmetic surgery is a crude blunt instrument compared to what will come

Italiangreyhound, it is amazing that I have heard that "last two weeks" thing so many times. We need to remember that most of us will get old so maybe need to think if we want to end our lives hungry, frightened and sitting in our own excrement.

@hettie, I too would favour a universal scheme that shares the risk as suggested by Gordon Brown's government in 2010 and the current Labour manifesto says they would consider a levy paid by everyone.

But one is much worse in terms of overpopulation than the other.

Are you approaching this from a worldwide perspective? Regional?

I know sleepyowl I just don't get why we wouldn't share the risk. It would have to be compulsory of course..... It doesn't even have to be done on assets left after death (which could present some problems to the care industry and would inevitably be corrupt able). Simplest would be that pensioners continue to pay NI.... It's more progressive at least...

I don't favour even more tax/NI than we have now. It's high enough as it is. I would rather take a risk I am one of those with dementia and suffer later than pay even more tax now.

FGS, what makes you think 'older people' are not mostly already aware of care costs?

We've had two relatives in care homes - one for about four years and one for nearly eight. Both had quite advanced dementia before they finally went into residential care, and both were entirely self funded.

One aspect that is often overlooked, is that it's something of a 'luxury' to be able to self fund - at least you can choose the time and place. Anyone dependent on the tender mercies of social services will typically have to wait until relatives doing their best to care are beyond desperate with stress and exhaustion, or until a real crisis occurs.

And personally, I don't see why the hell anyone with sufficient assets, like my mother and my FiL, should not fund their own care. It is hugely expensive, and with more and more people living longer - and in a good many cases IMO being kept alive too long when they are very elderly and have dementia - the need. is only going to grow,

Plenty of houses in this area are worth £1m or considerably more - why should he taxpayer have to fund anyone with such assets?

I would rather take a risk I am one of those with dementia and suffer later than pay even more tax now.

Well there is a problem with this. What do we do with you if you do develop dementia/other conditions?