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.

This idea that because there is no medical treatment for dementia or care could reasonably be provided by family it is reasonable to treat it as social care not health care is absurd. There are all sorts of things provided by district nurses on the NHS for free which could be done by family that constitute care. Eg district nurses coming in to give elderly patients insulin injections because they can't manage it themselves, dressing wounds etc. And yet we set up an arbitrary divide when it comes to dementia. The only "treatment" for dementia is dignity and good quality care. Why should people with one of the cruellest diseases be made to suffer the extreme anxiety this will place upon them when all sorts of other chronic conditions are classed as health care needs. It is also not necessarily true that patients are not being treated for cancer every day for 10 years. Cancer is increasingly managed as a chronic disease patients may be receiving IV drugs in their own home, having their colostomy bags changed etc etc. While the disease itself may not require long term care, the consequences may well do so. We should be doing away with the meaningless and arbitrary divide between health and social care and merging them and their associated budgets under one banner with an increase in income tax to fund it, pooling the risk to all across society.

Many (not all)choose not to own because renting suits better. Some don't want years of austerity to build up a deposit or to be responsible for upkeep- 6k for new windows, a new boiler etc

And again why no tax instead? A tax we can all pay.

But the annual cost of a single cancer drug can be as much as many years of home-based care. That's not including surgery/radiotherapy etc.

Transplants cost tens of thousands.

Cystic fibrosis, diabetes, other life-long issues?

We treat these. Many people campaign for ever more expensive drugs to be included in various treatment regimes. Why not dementia (or other diseases that don't necessarily require hospital treatment)?

^ this

Of course its a good idea, the problem your missing is that May has come up with it. Corbyn is kicking himself.

And of course your also forgetting human nature, the wealthy home owners wont give up their children's privileged position without a fight. They dont really care about the working class or fairness, its all about me me me.

I am not a natural Tory and I think it is a good policy. Not only would it help balance the North-South divide a bit by reducing the amount of unearned, untaxed house appreciation passed on to perpetuate the cycle of price rises down South and in other higher priced areas but it might also stimulate the economy.

At the moment an elderly person who is asset-rich cash-poor has a disincentive to downsize as they won't pay for care staying where they are but will pay if they free up any capital. Under the new system they would be no worse off if they chose to move to a more manageable property, freeing up homes for younger families and allowing their money to circulate into the economy

We should be doing away with the meaningless and arbitrary divide between health and social care and merging them and their associated budgets under one banner with an increase in income tax to fund it, pooling the risk to all across society
Hear hear.

So free social care, but 100% inheritance tax on assets over £100K?

I am puzzled by all the protests about this.
Currently all assets, including all property, pension and savings, are taken into account and all care is self funded until you get down to your last £23,000.
My parents had to pay for all their home care then care home fees.
All pension income and proceeds from the compulsory sale of property is taken to pay for care.
Self funders in care homes pay 30% more in order to subsidise the state funded residents.
I would have been delighted if my parents had been allowed to keep £100,000.

Green, I think it's fairly obvious we need money now, not in 20
Years time when your 1p a month extra tax has built up.

Ime, elderly people with cancer are not treated again and again for years but given the more
Reasonable option of discontinuing treatment that will prolong their
Lives for no real increased quality.

Granted, this is an easier decision when cancer is terminal but also
Applies to cancer where treatment is invasive- and at an elderly age many people Don't want it.

All my elderly relatives (quick count: 9- just an anecdote obviously) basically chose to die by refusing continued treatment for their various diseases, being taken off medication and going to hospices to die instead.

I have a sister who is a geriatric nurse and from what I can gather this is a fairly common way to die. If you don't have dementia (ie are of sound kind, which the overwhelming majority of dying people are) then you chose your treatment, and can choose to end it.

My dm has said for years she would rather take a bottle of something than have dementia. If this goes through I could see her threat becoming very real indeed

My mum wants to die if she gets dementia. Because it's a terrible life, eventually, not because she's worried about a bloody house

Yes. Agree. It's a terrible life and to have the added punishment of your family loosing their inheritance to boot will be too much for some to bare.

I don't know if anyone has said this. I do agree that all this care has to be paid for somehow (& DF is in a care home - round here minimum £1200 per week, £1500-1800 for nursing or dementia). However I believe that these proposals will encourage people living in their own homes to delay getting care in when the need it, leading to increased hospitalisations, and then far more people saying "oh well, no advantage to being at home, I may as well go into a care home", therefore increasing the burden on care homes which are already at bursting point.

Why are we all paying a precept on council tax? Where is that money going?

What is to stop you handing your house to your kids at that stage and then claiming care from the state?
What if the house is Trusted?
What if the house is in one person's name and the other needs care?
There are so many loopholes

end

Currently all assets, including all property, pension and savings, are taken into account and all care is self funded until you get down to your last £23,000. - this is true BUT for home care the value of property is disregarded, so currently you get to keep 23K plus the value of the home. The value of the person's home is only taken into account if the owner moves permanently into residential care and there is no spouse living there.

This is not just about old people wanting to hang on to their assets - this could affect any one posting here tonight at any time - you might be unfortunate enough to have an accident, develop MS ot Parkinson's etc. Or early onset dementia. Would you still think this is a fair plan then?

poisoned by the pen I think you have a good point there.

People will refuse home care, which will probaly accelarate their entry into residential care and they will have no choice but to sell up. So more houses go up for sale - which could have all sorts of knock on effects. Plus the residential care home business will boom even more. I wonder how many Tory fingers are in that pie?

Madwoman there are not likely to be many loopholes. They're easily dealt with

Have scan read so apologies if this has already been mentioned.

The problem is the cost of the care IMO. And as care homes are privately owned for the most part, the profit goes to the owners/ shareholders. This, I think is wrong. I'm not saying that a business shouldn't have a profit, but it feels wrong for other ppl to get richer and richer, charging ridiculous fees, off the back of the elderly, I'll and infirm. I think capping the profit that can be taken out of a care provider would ensure that for one money went where it should be going - to the care! More and better training for staff, better food, activities, decor etc. It wouldn't punish small independent homes because if you didn't make over x% profit, then you don't reach the limit. Have profit over x% and the rest goes back into the care, not others pockets. I think too, this could have the effect of levelling fees. One home I worked in had 2 clients, in the same place, same food, same staff, same everything - one was the lowest level and one the highest assessed - and the highest assessed paid about 4 times the fee than the lower level - for exactly the same care!

The money has got to come from somewhere, I had a conversation with an elderly friend, in a home a bit ago. We discussed this and although maybe over simplified, we said that while he worked and paid taxes, he was effectively paying for my education and the health benefits of the NHS free preventative treatments children get. Now he's retired and I'm earning, I'm paying for his care and NHS free treatments the elderly get. I'm happy with this, and to pay to ensure no one who needs help and care goes without it. What I would see as unfair though is if someone were sat on a small fortune, which then got left to someone else, and nothing taken from it. Maybe a half and half situation? As in the least the state pays is 50% the rest is topped up by the service user, up to a point, a sliding scale.

There is very little profit in care homes at the moment. The money is, as I mentioned before, in older persons housing- committing people whilst they're healthy. Care is very low profit margin.

Instsita - for small independent homes yes, I'd agree but larger groups? No, I don't agree. I've worked in both. Staff are paid at or just above min wage, training consists of government funded courses mainly, or the employees pay for it. The food meets the minimum standard allowed, equipment is in poor condition or short supply, repairs not done, staff shortages are very common, instead of paying more for agency or enhanced for short notice etc the shift goes short - leaving the client care lacking. One home I worked in gave the manager a bonus if they came in under budget - thus encouraging them to save as much as possible. This company started as 1 home, progressed to buy another 2, convert an old block of flats and the newest one has just been built. If the profit were so low, they couldn't do it.
The owners also have a much higher standard of living than the clients. On a visit once they refused to eat the food being cooked for their clients - they asked cook why it was such poor standard, lack of money was the reply, they had to buy the cheapest of everything. The cook never got an increase in the kitchen budget.

They would've borrowed the money to build more though beer. I don't know the ins and outs but I know in my industry companies are trying to sell their care homes like hot cakes but no one wants to buy them

Uggggrrrrr... its another way to target the vulnerable If you have a long drawn out illness you loose your money.

Because it is confused, poorly thought out (they've had a decade) and will do absolutely nothing to address the underlying issues. It sets people against one another at a time when we should be pulling together.

First and foremost, it is designed purposefully to allow these private companies - who have been drooling at this scenario- to swoop in and take even more.