To Think That The Press Have No Understanding About What They Are Reporting Today.

[LuluJakey1]

I am in despair and really angry about Johnson's announcements re: social care today and how badly it is being reported. They are misleading people currently in the card system and those likely to be in it in the next 10-20 years.
As I understand it from what he said, the BBC and The Guardian:
He said - 'no one will pay more than £86,000 for personal care in their lifetime'. This creates an impression that anyone in a home will only pay up to £86,000 towards that care.

Wrong! It actually only covers the nursing care aspect in a care home and what specific personal care a local authority decides you need at home.

Currently, if you require nursing care in a care home, that element is paid for by local authorities at the rate of about £550 a month. From 2023, you will be expected to pay up to £86,000 towards that. No one seems to have spotted it is currently paid for.

Most people do not require full nursing care - they might need dressings changed or particular medicines given or a medical procedure. Very few require a full-time nurse. Most care is carried out by general carers and comes under social care- help dressing, washing etc- that won't be included in this care amount cap- it will be paid for separately by the resident in the home. For example, my aunt (90) requires help to have a shower and her breakfast- that will not be covered- she will be expected to pay for that. My uncle (90) in a care home with dementia has no nursing care so will pay for everything- it is assessed as social care- see below.

According to the BBC, we will have to pay for our 'board and lodgings and other extras in care homes- for example food, renting your bedroom, social care, hair cuts or anything else you choose to have'. So we will still pay almost the whole of care home fees.

It will only apply to anyone who requires care from when the tax starts in 2023- this was said by Johnson, Sunak and Javid directly. If you are already in the system you are stuck on current rules. "This always happens. Someone always misses the start date when a new system is introduced' said Javid.

In effect, anyone with savings and a house to sell will be in the same position they are currently in- at some point it will all be used and sold to pay for care until you are down to your last £20,000. In fact people will be in a worse position- they now have to also pay up to £86,000 of nursing care fees- currently paid by local authorities.

The whole thing is a huge con. MIL rang to say she and FIL are planning to sell up when it looks like they are heading that way- put the £86,000 each aside to pay for their care and buy a small flat. She was convinced a cap had been put on care costs. It hasn't, not at all. It is no reassurance for the vulnerable and elderly.

No I was not aware of that, that’s very concerning. I don’t know if I’m being generous to BJ but I imagine he didn’t actually understand the announcement himself rather than deliberately trying to mislead. He’s just not over the detail at all.

I don’t know where this will end up.

Well why shouldn’t someone with 100s of 1000s of savings be expected to pay for their board?

As someone who will never be in a position to “put aside £86k” I can’t get too worked up about people who can afford it being asked to pay for a service they’re using!

Very interesting, thank you. But very depressing.

@MadeOfStarStuff

Well why shouldn’t someone with 100s of 1000s of savings be expected to pay for their board?

As someone who will never be in a position to “put aside £86k” I can’t get too worked up about people who can afford it being asked to pay for a service they’re using!

terrible comms by the government misleads people and then overworked social workers are left having to explain the real consequences to families usually at a time when they are already under stress. Clarity on what is being proposed is essential for all involved.

Conservative govt has done something hideous ghastly and dreadful.

Again. They are vile.

At this point though, I blame the fools who gave them an 80 seat majority. Thank god other countries treat their citizens better and we can still vote with our feet and leave the U.K. and no longer give our taxes to these venal self serving horrors.

@vincettenoir

No I was not aware of that, that’s very concerning. I don’t know if I’m being generous to BJ but I imagine he didn’t actually understand the announcement himself rather than deliberately trying to mislead. He’s just not over the detail at all.

Is that a joke?

If you have assets, why shouldn’t you pay? What’s the problem with that?

Why oh why do people vote for them? Misleading the public yet again.

If you have assets, why shouldn’t you pay? What’s the problem with that? By the same token, if you have assets, why shouldn't you pay for any medical care you need?

Surely the point is that the present system is now totally untenable. The new might not compare favourably with the old, but the one thing that is certain is that the old (i.e. current) system cannot continue.

@sst1234

If you have assets, why shouldn’t you pay? What’s the problem with that?

The problem is he is telling people they will not have to pay more than £86,000 and it is a lie. They will now be liable for everything they have paid before plus an additional £86,000.

The whole point of the social care act is to address the, long seen as, unfair and worrying issue of many people spending their whole life savings on care while others pay nothing. There needs to be a balance- people should pay, and selling a house to raise £176,000 for a couple seems, to some, fair and a relief to know that if their house is worth £250,000, they will have something left to leave their children and grandchildren. Those who have nothing, paid nothing and will still pay nothing.

It has been presented today as a cap 'no one will pay more than £86,000 for personal care in their lifetime'. Infact, they will pay more than they ever have before and they don't realise it.

In addition, it has been presented as robbing the young to pay for the old, when it is nothing of the sort. People will pay more than ever for care, including the elderly, those whose children need care, the disabled and ill. Most elderly people who enter a carehome live less than 4 years and, those who have to pay, pay at least £3,000 a month or £36,000 a year- they will still have to pay it and now pay for the nursing care on top.

Wait until it is your parent, sibling, child who needs that care and is bled dry. These care facilities are private facilities and the profits they make goes into owner's bank accounts.

In addition, younger people need to remember they and their parents and siblings will get older and need care- they will have children who need care or have debilitating health conditions themselves.

My PIL have worked all their lives and paid a fortune in tax and NI. They looked after both of their frail, elderly mothers and have paid a mortgage for 30 years to own their house. Anyone who pays a mortgage pays many thousands more in interest than the house was worth and spends many thousands on the house's upkeep over the years. Of course it has increased in value- that is what happens. It certainly is not all profit. The same will be true for anyone paying a mortgage now- in 10 years time the house will be worth more and they think they will have 'equity' in it. In 25 years they think they will have significant 'equity'.

This painting of most elderly people as leeches on the young is disgusting- most have worked hard and many have saved a bit and paid to own a house and might as well have not bothered if they lose the lot. Where is the incentive to save and pay a mortgage when there is no limit on what they can lose? It is immoral the way the message has been given that their contribution will be limited to £86,000 each when it will infact be increased by up to £86,000 each. The Press have fallen for this and are blithely repeating this absolute lie.

Yet again it will be those people who are moderately comfortable - own a small house - who will be most affected and will lose the lot. The very wealthy will be, as ever, unaffected in any real way. Those who own property in London, or very large houses will have a big cushion. It will be those who own an average house worth up to £350,000 that will see the impact and lose their homes if they need care.

It is a lottery. Don't be ill, don't get old, have an accident or have a disability. Don't need help- if you do, be clear that if you have worked, paid tax and NI, saved a bit of money and/or bought a home you are likely to lose it. If you haven't, it will be paid for. If you are rich you'll be fine.

And don't listen to the lies of Johnson and his corrupt, dishonest government. Yet again, millions who voted felt social care funding was a huge issue - whoever they voted for. Johnson promised to resolve it. He has not and yet again he has lied and the BBC and ITV are repeating his lies.

They have dressed up a tax increase to put more into the NHS as “sorting out social care”. This will do nothing to resolve the problems with recruitment and retention of carers and the fact local authorities don’t have the funding to pay adequate rates to providers.

@MereDintofPandiculation

If you have assets, why shouldn’t you pay? What’s the problem with that? By the same token, if you have assets, why shouldn't you pay for any medical care you need?

Well aime of us do, I have private dental plan and private medical insurance and I'm provisioning to have enough for care. So maybe since I cocer mt medical myself I could have my NHS tax contribution back 🤔 yeah thought not

Where does it stop...then it'll be like want children then cover cost of education yourself etc.

Their policy document "Build Back Better: Our Plan for Health and Social Care" seems to suggest there is an improvement - they give this example:

Case study - Yusuf
Yusuf is in his late 70s. He has lived on his own since his wife died from cancer ten years ago. When she died, he downsized from their family home in Hastings to a smaller property worth £180,000. As a result, he has £70,000 in savings. Yusuf develops dementia, can no longer cope at home and needs to move into residential care. His underlying health is good and he ultimately spends eight years living at the residential home. Yusuf's care home costs £700 per week.
Under the current system, Yusuf would spend about £293,000 on his care from his assets and his income, and as a result only have £72,000 left in assets.
Under the new system, Yusuf hits the £86,000 cap after three years and four months. He no longer needs to contribute for his personal care from either his assets or his income. Beyond this, he will only have to contribute towards daily living costs. He is now left with £173,000, almost 70 per cent of his original assets.
Over his whole care journey, Yusuf spends £123,000 less than under the current system.

It isn’t just nursing care - www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30922484.amp but yes there will be ongoing contributions once the cap is reached for living expenses (not care costs) and it doesn’t apply until you reach a certain threshold.

@MereDintofPandiculation

If you have assets, why shouldn’t you pay? What’s the problem with that? By the same token, if you have assets, why shouldn't you pay for any medical care you need?

I am not really up to speed on the social care issue more generally, but as far as medical care is concerned, we all expect free medical care in this country regardless of our wealth. That is why we pay for the NHS. Why should that not also be the case for those who need medical care in their old age? Should we force the wealthy to go private and keep free medical care only for the poor? That road leads to the American system and do we really want that? I don't.

Are you certain OP that the cap only applies to nursing care? I didn’t see the tv announcement but read the government’s document and it specifically said personal care, which is dressing, helping to eat etc.

Re OP, I hadnt understood that and thank you for bringing it to my attention. Total lying bastard tories again.

Also disgusted that the percentage increase on NI goes down as salaries go up. Why?!

Also can't understand why they insist on taking more and more money away from lower paid workers. Why not start at 50/60k. Other than being worried about pissing off your high earning mates of course.

No matter how much we want to support our elderly, there is no spare £20 a month to give!

The other side or this is that care costs are crippling local authorities, who have had their funding slashed massively by central government. Many, many councils are now at the point where the vast majority of their spending is on care.

This means all other council services - intervention for disabled children, roads, libraries etc are cut to the bone to cover the funding gap.

Fundamentally something has to change and that something rightfully should be people who can afford it paying more for their own care.

@vincettenoir

No I was not aware of that, that’s very concerning. I don’t know if I’m being generous to BJ but I imagine he didn’t actually understand the announcement himself rather than deliberately trying to mislead. He’s just not over the detail at all.

Is this sarcastic? He's the PM!

I’m on the fence. On the one hand I think what’s the point in saving then. People generally save and buy property to pass it down to their children. If they are going to have to sell their homes then they may as well have not bothered saving and just blown it all on world cruises etc…

The poorest won’t have to pay a penny anyway so makes no odds to them. The wealthiest are that rich it’s a drop in the ocean to them but it’s the middle earners that will lose outta usual.

My cousin is a idle as they come. His GF works hard in a NMW job, whilst he sits on his arse all day. They claim universal credit as a top up.

They were given money from inheritance, enough for a small house deposit but no no idle arse was too lazy to get a job so they could get a mortgage so they just blew the money on fags and drink and god knows what.

I often think what a shame they’ve not got anything to leave their kids. So they’ll continue renting their HA property and get all care paid when they’re older. He’s 50 now and probably worked about 8 years on and off in his life.

Unpicking the arithmetic of the Government's example a bit: (caveat - it's 11.00 at night, so please check my figures for yourself)

They're saying that under the old system he pays £700 a week for 8 years = £291200 (not sure how they get that to £293000)

Under the new system, he reaches the cap after 3.33 years. That implies £496.65 a week counts towards the cap, leaving £203.35 not qualifying for the cap.

AT this point they say he still has £173,000 (But £173k + £86k = £259k which is rather more than his original assets of £250k = £180k house and £70k savings)

From then on he would just pay "daily living costs" which is presumably the £203.35 per week. The total cost of that for 8 years is £84593.60. Add that to the £86000 and that means over the 8 years he pays £170593.60, which is a saving of £122406 over the current system, which is near the figure they give (£123,000 less than £293,000 = £170,000)

Basically, on their figures, it will make no difference to most people. But the maybe 1 in 5 or 1 in 6 that are in a care or nursing home for more than about 3 years will see their total bill reduced, in Yusuf's case, by 42%.

I think OP's point is that the currently the £700pw for Yusuf's nursing home would only be £573, because of the nursing element being paid. In which case Yusuf's payment under the current system would be actually be only £238,400, and so his saving under the new system would only be £50,000 - ish not £123,000.

But the person who is in the nursing home for 3.33 years would pay £121212 instead of £99220.

@SushiGo

The other side or this is that care costs are crippling local authorities, who have had their funding slashed massively by central government. Many, many councils are now at the point where the vast majority of their spending is on care.

This means all other council services - intervention for disabled children, roads, libraries etc are cut to the bone to cover the funding gap.

Fundamentally something has to change and that something rightfully should be people who can afford it paying more for their own care.

More than what? Many pay a fortune as it is?

If we expect the elderly or frail of any age who need care to sell their homes and spend their life-savings to pay for it, should we not expect the same of parents of a disabled child? Or a child with severe SEN? Or of an adult with learning difficulties- should their family not have to spend their savings or sell their homes to pay for care of any kind?

My god daughter has very significant learning problems and will need lifetime residential care - it is paid for by the government at the minute because she still has an EHCP. Her parents think it will continue for life. Why should they not sell their £750,000 house. huge Tesla car and use their inheritance from their parents to pay for her continuing care?

Reporters get sent press releases to regurgitate to their readers so they can get ad revenue from all the clicks and views so that the papers can stay in profit. So no I don't think most people know what they're talking about at all anymore.