to support Conservative social care proposals

[morningtoncrescent62]

Labour voter here. Could someone explain to me what's wrong with the Tory proposals on elderly people with assets of more than £100,000 paying for their care? I'm a dyed-in-the-wool leftie and seldom see anything in a Tory manifesto that I would support, but this seems sensible. Why should taxpayers pay for social care for people with accumulated wealth, simply so that they can pass it on as inheritance? And yes, I get that if you have a slow, lingering illness such as dementia then you'd end up paying whereas those who die from a relatively short-lived disease wouldn't (or not to the same extent), but that really is one of life's many unfairnesses. Could someone explain to me the problems with this particular proposal? I've a feeling there must be something that I haven't understood.

Karlos I'm preparing to do the same.

Yanbu, it seems an ok suggestion to me in principle. The aging population in this country is not going to be sustainable without some drastic changes. People often live in retirement for as long as they worked, and improvements in healthcare mean people won't just drop dead at 70. The declining numbers of SAHPs also means that there are fewer family members with the time to care for elderly relatives for free.

Yes, some people will try to find ways round it, just as they always have but i think £100,000 is a fair amount to pass on and help out the next generation.

I don't oppose to the spirit of the proposal, I.e. everyone should contribute towards their own care if they are able to. But there should be a cap as well as a floor. I hope they sort out a number for the cap swiftly.

Welshmaenad - I don't see why the government should set policy to protect the irrationally greedy.

I think the proposal is a good plan, since the u-turn as it sounds like it will be accompanied by cap. With the cap in place you should be able to insure against the risk.

Without the cap it is an unfair policy because the impact on you is binary - either you don't get dementia and your estate stay intact or you do and it get hit, possibly very hard and there is no way to mitigate that risk.

unsure against the risk? Bit tricky if you're already disabled or know you're likely to become disabled though.

insure not unsure!

I think grins means the government will take care of anything above the cap, not that individuals need to seek private insurance.

U-turns all round, huzzah.

Karlos, ditto.

No. The suggestion is that there will be insurance vehicles for this. Money for the City to make up for Osbourn's annuity shenanigans.

Karlos Yes, worried about dd here.

I said this on the other thread but:

Inheritance becomes more and more irrelevant with an ageing population. My parents had me at a fairly average 25, and it's likely that when they die I'll be well over 50, maybe as old as 60,70 before they both pass. What good is an inheritance to buy a house then? confused my own children will be off in their own houses by then. No offence but what would I need it for? My own care fees?

You need money to buy a house when you're 30. Not many people have lost both parents by then thank goodness

This came into my FB feed today which seems to explain it quite well. I take everything off the internet with a pinch of salt so am happy to be told it isn't right, but it seemed to make sense :

Its complex and confusing. So give me 1 minute to explain please.

Never have we seen such discrimination against a group of such vulnerable people, cloaked up in lies about standing up for ordinary working people.

Let me give you a scenario. A simplified one, but it makes the point about what this is all about.

6 Friends are in their early 70s. They have worked hard all their life. They have paid their taxes - including for the NHS - and contributed to society. They deserve to enjoy their retirement.

They have all built up assets - £400,000 each (they were lucky and bought houses when they were cheap) and can now choose to use their money to either go skiing (Spending Kid's Inheritance) or give it to the kids now or when they die to help them on in life. Luckily they have the NHS, which they have contributed to, so if they get sick they wont have to worry about the costs.

One has a car accident - needs multiple operations and spends 3 weeks in ITU - costs of 100s of 1,000s of pounds. But he doesn't personally have to pay because of our NHS.

The second gets cancer. He gets the latest top notch treatment, but he doesn't have to personally pay because of the NHS.

A third has diabetes and then renal failure. She needs life long dialysis - costing a fortune - but she does't have to personally pay because of the NHS.

A fourth suffers from septicaemia with 50 days in hospital - again she doesnt personally have to pay because of the NHS.

The fifth has a cardiac arrest. CPR was started and he survived, had expensive cardiac care but again not having to worry about costs because of the NHS.

But the 6th suffered from Dementia. An awful condition which slowly attacks the brain, but cant be treated by expensive treatments and medications in hospital, but needs equally expensive long term care which is best provided in their own home - washing, personal care, and other essential support to keep them living with dignity.

But this isn't deemed to be 'medical' care. And now with the new dementia tax she has to pay £30,000 a year for the last 10 years of their life.

All six started with £400,000. But 1 of them purely because of the luck of life's dice is now left with a bill of £300,000 and so has just a quarter of the money the others had.

Is that fair?

just because you have dementia, the state will not support you. But they will support you if you have a car accident, cancer, real failure, heart attacks and sepsis. Thats just not fair.

Some would say that the elderly need to burden more of the costs of an ageing society. I think thats true. But what about doing it in a fair way. Integrate social care with medical care into one budget and supplement that with a fair inheritance tax. For example when each of them dies, they pay £50,000 each. That still leaves 350,000 to give to their families but also provides the state with the additional £300,000 needed to provide the care required by our 6th friend - the one with dementia. In that way he and his family are not discriminated against.

When it comes to voting, I will do so on who will look after the most vulnerable in society, even if it is not in my own personal best interests.

And there are none more vulnerable than those suffering with dementia.

Hmm I'm in two minds.

My parents have saved their whole lives and put everything into their house,paying off the mortgage etc they are worried about our retirement and were hoping it would help. Other family members turned down home ownership,downsized and spent the remainder etc..... Why should they get to fritter the remainder and have more help free whilst my parents get less and more taken off them because they were more prudent?

Also I want to help my DC with mortgages. What happens if we sign over some of our mortgage to a product that helps them before we need social care? Will parents no longer be allowed to do that?

backforgood that's pap.

Dementia isn't the only reason people need care. Far from it.

Fwiw dementia cases appear to have peaked and is set to reduce drastically in future generations. So should become less, not more of an issue

Also a Labour voter, also fine with this proposal. Strange situation to be in- am glad of anything that reduces Tory support, but don't personally dislike the policy myself.

But what proposals? They are all over the place now.

It's/they're confusing and does/do nothing to address the underlying problems.

They're not fair either.

They've just raised the IHT threshold to £500K from £325K! What this is doing is establishing that individuals are responsible for their own healthcare - imo it's the first step towards an individual health insurance. Plus it's an opportunity for equity release companies to get more customers - from the many to the few..

My late Grandmother went into care, not because she had dementia, but because she had cancer, and her sheltered accommodation wouldn't allow daily carers to come in. Once in the home, she slipped, and ended up in hospital where she lost the use of her limbs, and became bed bound. She was then transferred to another care home where she died.

She never owned property, rented all her life etc, and the state picked up the tab for her care, except for taking her pension, as she had no assets.

It's not a dementia tax, it seems to me, but a recognition that we have an increasingly elderly population, and we need somehow to prepare for the spiralling care costs that will be coming down the track

I don't see that the rich will get out of it. I can't see many rich people wanting to leave themselves at the tender mercies of social services if they need care. They'll want to call the shots and decide how much, how often, and who's going to provide it - not the basic minimum number of rushed 15 minute-if-you're-lucky visits from often untrained staff on min wage.

Exactly gettinglike. Think about what they're desperately hoping they can get into to avoid paying for care-

The local Authority will choose your care home. They'll choose your care package. They'll agree how much it costs. Worst case, you and your spouse are separated when you could move into sheltered / care together.

You're trying to get council house care when you can afford choice. Why would anyone do that?

Some people are actually talking about killing themselves to avoid paying for choice. Wtf is wrong with them?

And no, you won't be able to avoid this by transferring assets. The authorities aren't bloody stupid

How will it get you more choice?

I have a family member whose house sale covers her her for two years max in the naice Bupa hospital she is in. That is without nursing care. She knows she'll be at the mercy of the state just like everybody else when the money is gone.

And re transferring assets. Parents were being encouraged to take on products that got their DC onto the property market via the equity in their house. Is that out the window now? The money can't cover both.

Are you saying paying for your care gets you the same choice as turning yourself over to the council and letting them aren't it? Seriously?

I have to say I find it hypocritical that on the one hand when the older generation allegedly voted for something the young did not like (i.e. Brexit) the social media were up in arms about the old stole our future, hope they all die soon, remove the vote from the 'oldies' because they are ignorant etc.
Now all of a sudden it is - the elderly must be helped because they are vulnerable and you can't take their house off them but the crux of the matter is that it is many of the 'young' suddenly seeing their nice fat inheritances being taken away - it is not concern for the vulnerable elderly at all.
rant over !
FWIW - I think it is a good proposal especially with the change (not a u-turn) to introduce a cap as looking after the elderly does require money and there is no reason why individuals cannot pay for their own social care whether at home or in a care home. It is their money after all.
As for calling it a 'dementia tax' - it is no such thing. Less than 1 million people suffer from dementia in the UK and not all of those require 20 years of 24/7 care and many of the elderly require only a couple of years care before they die.'
Cancer and other diseases are treated under the NHS because they are acute complaints that normally respond to treatment. Currently (although this may change) there is no effective treatment for dementia so it does notrequire medical intervention (i.e. doctors, nurses and operations that are provided under the 'free' NHS) but is the life-limiting process of aging.

Again. This isn't just about old people with dementia moving towards end of life care. As it stands as Tim Farron said it will affect disabled people of all ages with all sorts of long term conditions.