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.

What complex needs are you thinking of expat ? I have worked in nursing homes, most people could do that.

I think it is perfectly fair, no one will have to sell their homes before they die, the costs will be taken out of the estate after.

I can see no better solution..I will be voting conservative

And what is the damn well OBSESSION with home OWNERSHIP in this country?!

Probably because private renters get so royally shafted, and there's not enough social housing for everyone who wants it. Thus we are left with minimal acceptable options. Far too many of us are far too attached to the idea that we can continue flogging houses to each other at ever increasing prices and get rich that way though, it's true.

Also, could I make a request that we declare a moratorium on the following:

1. Claims that people have already paid for their own care. In most cases this isn't true.

1. Claims that people have worked hard all their lives. This is true of some older people, it is not true of others. No generalising.

1. Claims that people look after their elders in other societies. They do, but for the reasons expat elucidated and more, housing and demographics are invariably very different to ours, and there also has to be a shitwork class of either women, domestic poor or imported poor to do it.

The solution to this problem does not involve people who are probably quite old themselves already providing in home care to people with highly complex dementia and other ailments, even if we had the same ratio of people requiring care to working age adults as other countries do. Which we don't.

Pretty please.

Magpiemagpie - sorry, yes, of course, the home is disregarded if your spouse lives in it. But isn't that the case with the new proposals too? If not then of course I agree, it's wrong.

'What complex needs are you thinking of expat ? I have worked in nursing homes, most people could do that.'

Most people could do nursing home work? Plenty can't because they are already working a FT job and have need for this little thing called sleep in their off hours . Some people also have, due to finances, a small home that is unsuitable for the person they need to care for and whaddya know, they can't move because of that silly little thing called a job they need to pay for food and selling the elderly person's home still won't pay for another, more suitable home in the area the 'carer', with that pesky job!, needs to live in to make money for food.

Complex needs can be whatever the adult of sound mind feels is the line for him/her.

I disagree Tried, if you pay for your own care you get a lot more choice. Which is as it should be. If you rely on the State who knows where you could end up, some are dire. Which they shouldn't be, but that's another thread.

It is also a red herring to infer that someone has paid for their care over their working life. They haven't, they've been paying towards all the services they have already used, and in theory towards their pension. Not into a pot for care.

My mother encountered this when my wealthy Grandmother came to her end. Having been scathing about the fact that she had to pay for her own care compared to those with less (ignoring that the wealth was inherited and the product of a wealthy life in a rising property market as against years of graft) she suddenly became very appreciative of the fact that she got to choose whether Granny went, without over consideration of cost. Having seen some of what was on offer I think she would have been very sad to have seen her in some council run homes.

Hey.
Shortage of decent, affordable and mixed tenure, rented homes built to house communities of people.

I can't afford to rent where I live and work. A mortgage was the only way I could meet my housing needs.

Booksmusiclothes
They haven't put out the details yet in full
I did read that if you need help In your home for care you will be worse off because at present only income & savings are taken into account

Under the new proposal your house is included whereas at present its not so those that need care at home will be worse off

I can imagine all sort of problems though , what about when people own unequal shares in a home or deposit is ring fenced .
I can see a lot of children buying into their parents house to protect their inheritance

But it is relevant. I have seen 2 of my grandparents put in to homes, and 1 cared for in his own home. It is possible and perhaps we owe it to our parents, they cared for us as babies after all. This idea that it isn't even an option boils my piss. My Dsis works in stroke rehabilitation and the lack of responsibility for elderly parents by able bodied people in their 50's and 60's would take your breath away.

The biggest change with this proposal is that the value of your home will be taken into account when means testing social care costs for those who are receiving care in their own home. Your pension and savings etc are taken into account for this at present and a lot of elderly people contribute substantial sums towards the cost of the carer (and the agency cut) but after this I guess a charge will be made on your estate so that you will pay for all the home care until you have £100k of assets left. It will save the government a lot of money a few years down the line when they can reclaim the money from estate.

My dad is a secure council tenant with savings - will he have to pay if he goes in a care home i wonder? ( he is 95) ( I have no idea how much he has in savings)
mil and fil are also council tenants.
They dont have anything as much as 100k saved up, but i assume they will have to pay something if they went into a care home?

Well, my mil was doubly incontinent and was termed a "screamer" . Dementia is not a little bit of dottiness or managed by a few looking at old photo sessions.

Furthermore, the pil were not great parents. As ye sew, so shall ye reap and all that.

I'm not a Tory by any means but I do recognise that there is a limited amount of money coming from taxation and a ticking time bomb of social care needs. It is not some amorphous state that pays for care, it is taxpayers. There are many young taxpayers who can scarcely dream of being homeowners for many years, if ever. I really don't see why they have to pay even more tax so that people can bequeath money to their relatives. People receiving social care will still keep their homes and pass them onto their spouse. Then once they die, the state will take the amount that has been used up to fund social care, leaving a minimum of £100k, which they can keep to pass on to whomever they wish. I think that's fair, and I am someone who is likely to benefit from an estate. Yes I know we've been brought up to believe that the state can pay for everything. But it's just not realistic. People used to live for 5-10 years post retirement. Now they live for 30. What are you going to cut to pay for their care - NHS funding, help for disabled people, school budgets? Hard decisions have to be taken and I really don't think all the burden should fall on the young (which I am not, by the way).

'But it is relevant. I have seen 2 of my grandparents put in to homes, and 1 cared for in his own home. It is possible and perhaps we owe it to our parents, they cared for us as babies after all. This idea that it isn't even an option boils my piss. My Dsis works in stroke rehabilitation and the lack of responsibility for elderly parents by able bodied people in their 50's and 60's would take your breath away.'

It's patently impossible for many, many people. They live miles away or even in another country from their relatives, they're a sandwich generation, with elderly parents and young children, too, and they have to work FT, both of them have to work FT. 'Able-bodied people in their 50s and 60s', I'm not even there yet and I'm knackered with just the normal life, I wouldn't have the energy to add in carer to elderly relative to my list of jobs, I already have a son with ASD. Many people have had to move for work, something this society supports, 'Get on your bike', and their relations still live in areas of poor employment opportunities. Similarly, in such high employment areas, housing tends to be expensive, so many live in places where space is limited.

Who do you suggest pays for the massive, increasing costs

We need an insurance scheme that everyone pays into. In effect we need higher taxes. We pool our resources for the NHS, education, fire, police, street lights, libraries etc. We need to do the same for "social" care (and I use the word advisedly as most social care is actually as a result of medical needs - my father would not have needed his "social" care if he had not had Parkinsons. Everyone should pay into the system. It might well be that you don't need it. But you might - possibly not for very long, but it's good to know it's there if you need it.

I thought under current law and even 30 years ago if you had equity in the house you had to pay anyway so this is no massive change. Letting you keep £100k is pretty generous. My father had dementa care at home which cost him £130,000 (I kid you not) in his last year as he needed someone sleeping in and then 2 people during the day. He died in the house exactly as he wanted it 2 weeks afetr using up his life savings (there was a bit of equity left in the house but not much - it was in the NE) and obviously our next step would have been equity release had he lived. Despite working sa a doctor for the NHS for 40 eyars he did not resent paying so much for his care and he and I haev never expected much from the state - self reliance tends to get people further in life and as peoplel say above you get much more choice. He wanted to live at home - even when delusional he could see the familiar house, he could think of the nurses and others caring for him as his staff just like in his days at the hospital and he had 2 to 1 ratio of constant care and got the death h e wanted. Had the funds entirely run out I would have paid and if that did not work all of us would have had him to live with us if he preferred.

Interestingly my mother who also died in the same house without needing much care always said when we were little "put me in a home as she had seen too many people whose lives were ruined by care of some miserable old OAP relative who didn't appreciate the effort put in! It did not come to that in our case. I am now the oldest member of the family but hopefully won't need care for 30 years.

Socks That's incorrect. Medicare does no such thing. It's an entitlement program and NEVER takes anyone's income (other than the premiums for Part B). MediCAID doesn't 'take your pension' either. Your 'share of cost' depends on the amount of your income. The higher the income, the higher the 'share of cost'. You will pay a certain amount and MediCAID pays the rest. But neither MediCARE nor MediCAID pay for long term assisted living care (the type that most elderly need most) they only pay for skilled nursing care (Convalescent Hospital).

And your advice to 'put your house in trust' is questionable. It can be considered fraud in some states, including the one I live in, depending on how and when it's done.

How do I know? Career federal service dealing with many federal and state programs from a legal point of view, including Medicare and MediCaid.

The unfairness is that dementia isn't treated in the same way as other illness. You get cancer it is all paid for, you get dementia you pay if you have money. I don't understand why they are treated differently. I hope I don't get dementia or cancer but I suppose we all die of something.

I think I'd want to give my DPs at least the option that I would be the one wiping their bum (if they those not, then fair enough).Also tbat sounds.fairly end stage to me. Presumably there was an earlier phase where the future could have been discused.

The pensioners just interviewed on BBC news didn't exactly cover themselves in glory. The first thing they piped up about was how 'young people don't want to work and live within their means'. If my folks felt like that about me and kept riding my arse like that, it wouldn't endear me to care for them. As it is, they're over 5000 miles away and I have two young children, including the one with ASD and a husband who would not move nor allow me to relocate the children, quite understandably, but makes providing elder care problematic .

MissShitty

I think your claim (1) can't be claimed. Unless you have the official facts to show.

I'm not generalising, but you seem to be. I'm talking about one person whose circumstances I know inside out.

However, I do think there is some merit in what the Tories propose. It might influence the "little old lady" rattling around a large house which isn't suitable for her needs anyway to move house, release a larger house for a larger family, and buy a smaller house or flat. At that point she could give her family some money, if she wishes to, and live in a smaller property. She might still have to pay something towards her care, but her family would also still get some money. As long as she survives 7 years there's no IHT and if you move 10 years plus before you might need care the authorities can't claim deprivation of assets very easily. It's not unreasonable at all for a single person to move from a say 4 bed house to a 2 bed bungalow or 1 bed flat.

But on the whole I favour insurance. We don't expect people to sell their houses to pay for medical treatment (generally, I know some cancer drugs/treatment are expensive both in and outside the UK).

The80sweregreat from how I read it if your father has less than 100k he won't have to pay if the changes come into effect
Under the old rules he would have had to pay if he had over 24k

Paying for care is not new my great aunt was in a care home back in 2004 - 2006 it cost well over £100k which she had to pay as she had savings This was under a labour government

The pensioners just interviewed on BBC news didn't exactly cover themselves in glory.

They certainly didn't.

Paying for care is not new my great aunt was in a care home back in 2004 - 2006 it cost well over £100k which she had to pay as she had savings This was under a labour government

Same for my GP.