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.

Blossom, well said.

And I think dementia is treated differently as its 24/7 care for a fair amount of time in many cases. where..if someone got cancer and went to a hospice, they are unlikely to live too long

lots of older people have cancer e.g. lung cancer. They pay for social care, often for many years.

Lots of 'younger' people have long drawn out care needs from conditions such as Multiple Sclerosis or Motor Neuron Disease. They can often pay for social care for many many years.

Some people with Dementia live for years, many do not.

Dementia is not treated any differently to any other long term condition for the purposes of social care funding.

OFGS national insurence was introduced in 1911 life expentency was 52 ! Retirment age was 65. Most people didnt live to retirement. Nobody anticipated how much life expectancy would increase. You cannot say that you were paying for social care in your 80's when you started work in 1954 because it wasn't expected that most people would live that long.

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.

Some people really do live in cloud cuckoo land! Which one should we be looking after, DM or MIL or should we run ourselves into ground looking after both? And while we're on the subject, where shall we put them in our one bedroom maisonette, or do you think we should get a huge mortgage so we can buy a bigger house?

As well as the practicalities, have you ever thought that sometimes it just wouldn't work? I love DM, but there's no way I could look after her. I'm not close to MIL as she's been horrible to me in the past so there's no way I would consider having her living with us.

Viviennemary - anyone over the age of 18 is financially assessed if they have social care needs regardless of what their diagnosis is.

How is it discrimination against the elderly vivienne when the people affected will be the generation below, for the most part? If it were discrimination against anyone, which it's not, it would be against people in their 50s and 60s!

The reason I find these proposals unacceptable is that when the older generation started paying NI contributions, it was not meant to be a stealth tax, but was an insurance system - you pay in and it is invested for your future care. What has happened is that governments have treated it as tax income and spent it, so, people have paid into a system and they are not getting the rewards that were promised - indeed, not only not getting them, but being required to pay for them. That is just dishonest.

It is, but what would also be dishonest is to pretend that we can afford the rewards promised. That money has to come from somewhere. There is only so much of a tax burden that working age adults can bear.

Bloody hell national insurance life expectancy

You could apply the same arguments to the NHS - make those who can 'afford' it (perhaps by selling their houses) pay for their medical treatment.

On the other hand, you could also look at the NHS and say that it is a wonderful model of state social care that benefits everyone. I feel this way about it but find it hard to articulate why.

I guess because it is quite progressive, in that it is ultimately funded through our taxes, so those who have more pay more and those who have less pay less -- but none of us are ever hit by the kind of medical bills that, in the US, can mean going bankrupt or deciding not to be treated for a medical condition.

In a different context, the government is slowing moving towards paying more towards the cost of early years childcare. Presumably there are good economic arguments in terms of freeing up parents to work. Why then is care of the elderly and disabled any different?

a mate posted this earlier. I wholly agree with is summary. (we stand to inherit half shares in 2 £500k+ properties and a smaller share of a house worth almost £1m.) I have no issue with that being reduced to 'just' 100k, The money wasn't earned.

"What is it I'm not getting about the Tories' social care policy?This is what I understand it to be: people will pay for care in their own home, as they do currently if they have £23k+ in assets. However, the threshold for paying will rise to £100k BUT the value of people's houses will be taken into account. People will be able to defer payment until after their death so there need be no upfront payment. Those set to inherit their assets will be guaranteed £100,000 rather than the £23,000 they're currently guaranteed. But I suppose the house might be gone.
Now, again as I see it, if Nana and Grampy's house that they got for a lollipop and a balloon in the '50s is now worth a million quid, they've done eff all to bring that about, that will all have been down to the vagaries of the housing market. So they're not being robbed of anything they've actually worked for; their kids or whoever inherits their cash will have done nothing to work for it either so aren't being robbed of anything either. WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL?
Callers on LBC have been going batshit. Some silly mare said she'd spend all her money and burn her house down. Cheers love!"

Health issues are never fair in my experience. Some people cost more than others. Who is going to say that one life is more valuable than another? I know a person whose cost to the NHS must be nearing £2 million, who has never paid a penny in tax. But that person has been and is a guinea pig for all sorts of experimental surgical techniques that could not reasonably be trialled on a person in good health.

"This is a horrible policy. Elderly people will just not seek the care they need as most would rather leave their children what they have worked for their whole lives. It really does making people wonder what the point is, especially when you pay tax on anything and everything your entire life."

The issue is that the country promised something it cannot afford anymore. It IS shit. I am far from being a Tory voter, but I think this is a reasonable thing. We save for our old age and whatever that entails via pensions or whatever. Some of us will need care, some of us won't. An inheritance is a blessing not a right to have.

If the cold hard cash inheritance is more important to you then you have to make plans to do the caring yourself. This is how it was for generation upon generation in the past. It's made more acute now as people are living longer. It's a crap situation I agree.

*My mum is in a care home with dementia - she funds her own care and her house has been sold. I think every penny in her account should be spent on her care until it's run out. Perhaps enough for a modest funeral.

I don't expect to inherit anything. She needs the money now - I wouldn't have begrudged her not getting dementia, selling the house and spunking all her money on cruises, or taking up heroin or giving it all to an otter sanctuary. Unfortunately she did get dementia and the money SHOULD be spent on her care.*

imthelastsplash*
Your post sums up my feelings on this.

Thankfully my parents are still in good health (I wouldn't be surprised if they outlive me!)

Their house is worth about £250k I think, and they have some savings.

I couldn't give a toss about 'my inheritance' - I neither want nor expect anything.
It's their money & if the want to release all the equity in their house and spend the lot I wouldn't be arsed - it's theirs to spend and enjoy.

If they end up requiring care rather than being able to spunk the money on cruises, then it's only right that their assets should pay for it.

Their money is not, and has never been, my money - and I have never viewed them as pound signs.

It is an interesting question - why wouldn't we, on the same principle, charge pensioners for their lung cancer care, or heart surgery, also to be repaid from their house sale proceeds after death?

Why wouldn't we do the same to someone in their 40s/50s. They can afford it from their assets once dead, so why are younger tax millennial payers paying for it?

Perhaps that is where we will end up, but I don't get the impression that is what the supporters of the new social care policy want. (I certainly don't!) What is the difference, in principle?

Possible that this has been raised already, but I'm wondering how workable this policy will prove to be in the longer term, when the generations coming through have much less housing equity to play with? How will Generation Rent fund their social care costs, especially given that this policy means fewer people look likely to inherit wealth/property from parents?

Whatever the rights and wrong of singling out dementia patients, this looks to me to be unsustainable in the long term. I'd much rather have a German/Japanese-style universal insurance scheme, with a greater element of pooled risk. This policy looks like typical British short-termism.

NRTFT:

For people going into care homes, their house is currently included in the calculation, so they will be £76,000 BETTER off. Most dementia patients end up in care homes, so their children benefit.
Those who have home care will pay more if they own a house, their children lose out.
No elderly people will lose out only inheritors.
Not sure why Labour supporters believe benefit cuts should remain, so someone else can inherit a £1m house?

I think the cost of care is so out of proportion. The care homes also require notice but you cannot predict when some poor soul will die so the home keep the paid up amount.

I think the Dgc need the inheritance from their gps not us. They will have student debt and I doubt if they will be entitled to the affordable housing that the government bleats on about.

For real?! Cancer will kill you quick most of the time, particularly once you exhaust treatment options or decide on no more treatment. You don't usually wind up in a nursing home requiring 24hour care for years if you develop cancer, some of them, common ones, too (leukaemia, for example) will carry you off in weeks with no chemo. You can't see the difference? hmm What has how long you live got to do with it? It is an illness, illness isn't treated because of how long you will live is it. Some people with dementia don't last long and some people with cancer get treated for years.

Not in Uk (ROI) So our system is different but similar. A bit more generous when it comes to the PPR (family home) I think.

80% of income is taken to fund care.

Family home contribution is exempt provided you are in care for three plus years. It is 7.5% of the value for three years.

Other investments and assets charged at 7.5% per annum as long as you are in care.

The charges for other assets can be deferred until you die. With interest though.

First 36k or 72k as a couple exempt from the assessment.

Seems fair enough to me.

My PIL have assets of over £1million, which they have said will come to us and BIL, but DH and I have never once factored it into our future. We have always assumed it will be spent on their care.

Those saying "but those renting won't have to pay, it's not fair" are missing the fact that by buying your own home you've paid for security for years. No one can come along and tell you to move. We own our house and the security it brings has been worth the fact we will have to pay for our care. It's all swings and roundabouts!

My father spent his last of his savings on dementia care at home. It cost £130k in his last year. I don't think this new policy is any different. He had the money. He spent it getting the last 2 years as he wanted them and the state did not pay - that was under the old rules not the new. None of us ever expected the state to pay for the care home end of our days. NI was never sold on that basis. It was for a state pension, not expensive end of life care.

Alzheimers:

My grandma got a bit forgetful at 70(ish)
At 75ish she was very forgetful and quite obstreperous (out of character)
By 77 she could not make a cup of tea, might have burnt the house down, occasionally smeared poo up the walls, ran away and was brought home naked on a couple of occasions.
A first she went to a care home for a couple of days a week, then they had respite care, two weeks at a geriatric MH care unit and five weeks at home.

At that stage she did not know her name, our names, wouldn't have eaten, dressed herself.
At 81 she went to a geriatric mh unit. She was completely unsafe and did not know us. She was also irrational. She needed specialist nursing. Grandad couldn't do it, nobody can do that 24/7 - not even qualified nurses.
She was at the home for four years. In that time she forgot how to eat, how to drink, how to walk, how to talk, she had to be turned in bed, she was fed from a sippy cup (my mother and granddad visited daily to help care for her). They bought her a special vibrating bed to help with the bed sores, she had several TIAs in the final years.
When she died she was 4 stone.
She was fit and healthy in body you see when this started, so the alzheimers ran its full course - not many people suffer that.
She was nearly 85 when she died. She was extremely well cared for and lived as long as she did because her family continued to care for her in the home.

Alzheimers is a clinical disease. When it advances patients need proper clinical MH care not social care.

Grandma worked until she was 70, she and granddad had to pay IHT in the 1970s. They never had a benefit. They employed and housed tens of people on their farm. Grandma lost two brothers in WW2.

Care resulting from a clinical disease should be funded by the NHS and funded for all. Anything else is discrimination. Alzheimers is a clinical MH issue and falls under the definition of a disability.

It is discriminatory to fund care for a physical illness not for a mental illness. It contravenes the Equality Act (2010).

I joined the Conservative Party in 1979. I shall be ceasing my membership tomorrow. I have already told my MP I will not vote for him because he will not openly campaign for better MH care. My dd has been unwell for the last few years. We have had to fund her care privately to keep her life chances open for her. Our MP went to uni with DH. This is not a decision I have taken lightly.

Well I think if they want to bring in that policy then they should also make euthanasia lawful. No one chooses dementia. No one chooses to move into a care home because they can no longer look after themselves. We don't choose that, we shouldn't be forced to pay and should be given the option to choose not to but choosing to end our lives when necessary.
Dementia is a mental health condition, just like depression, anxiety, schizophrenia. Shall we not treat depression on the NHS anymore because too many people have it and it's too much of a drain on society? Of course not, so why is it ok to do the same for diseases that target the elderly?

Is it ironic that the Tories are doing the socialist thing here. LOL.

means testing isn't the socialist thing is it suzanne? It never used to be - a lot of lab party policy was universal benefits (state pension, child benefits etc)

I may need a name change after this one but..............

Honestly, most people do not want to pay for elder care to the full extent which might be possible, except for their own relatives --because they love them. I know you are ALL squawking at me, but I do believe there's a grain of truth in what I say. It would be great if we could fund everything for everyone who needs anything ad infinitum, but be real, it's not possible, so what's the next best option?