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.

What’s the point of having assets?

Surely better to live off the state?

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.

I was with you until that. Despite the media myth of everyone in London rolling in gold, it's not true. Particularly some of the outer suburbs and smaller homes and flats, are less than £350,000.

And of course with London being the capital of homelessness, with 165,000 homeless, there more than anywhere else will people need to leave money to their children or grandchildren to help them escape insecure housing. Particularly when there's an adult child with disabilities or long term illness or other life circumstances (perhaps relationship breakdown) that leaves them vulnerable and in need of staying close to support networks and family. Of course the real solution is more social housing (a lot more) but unless and until that happens, inheritance is the only way for many.

And anyway the homes above £350,000. Around £500-600,000 perhaps. Say both of a couple need care, costs could easily take up all of the house sale money. The £250,000 homeowners elsewhere will simply have state funding sooner than the London ones (state pays once assets run out).

Bear in mind too that just as London's house prices are higher, so too are the care home fees.

That aside you're right. The wealthy - the people who have real assets - will continue to use legal avoidance schemes and their families will still inherit. It's the 'little people' - the people who have just a small home and a little bit of savings, who so desperately want to leave what money to they can to help their families survive in an increasingly Dickensian society. If we still had a proper safety net, this wouldn't be so much of an issue.

@Malteser71

What’s the point of having assets?

Surely better to live off the state?

I'm sure most people would prefer to choose which home to go to. If you have no assets, you have no choice - even when, as if often the case with state facilities, the option offered is not good. That goes for housing pre care home stage too - if you're lucky enough to actually get any housing. We have a public health housing emergency. In London alone (the UK's capital of homelessness) there are 165,000 homeless people.

Relying on the state can be grim. Unless you're an MP. Now that's how to get 5* state funded care without selling your home. Gold plated pension too.

Because her parents still need a home and are, presumably, expected to live for many years. Elderly people usually go into care towards the end of their lives when they can no longer live in their home.

It is unlucky if you don't inherit parental wealth because they had to go into a care home but it's still unreasonable to expect the state to foot the whole bill for very expensive care just so we can inherit.

Whenever the government wants to spend on something particularly unpopular with the public, they get the line of 'We're a rich country'. Well if we are, fat lot of good it's doing the vulnerable. The elderly in need of care, the disabled, the homeless.

still unreasonable to expect the state to foot the whole bill for very expensive care just so we can inherit.

I disagree. When disabled and long term ill and other vulnerable people are homeless or insecurely housed, it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to inherit. It is, of course, unreasonable that the state doesn't resolve the public health housing and homelessness emergency and suitably house the vulnerable and low waged.

Btw 'the state' isn't magic money. It's funded by the public through taxes. It's 'their' money. The same state money that funds MPs generous expenses, gold plated pensions, and private healthcare (shows their faith in the NHS...).

I meant to emphasis their. The state. It's their money. The public's money.

@MereDintofPandiculation

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.

That does not make any sense to me. He has a house worth £180,000 + £70,000 in savings totalling £250,000.

His care home costs £700 a week for 8 years (never increases and is cheap to start with- they usually increase by at least 10% a year). However, that accounts for £291,200 not £293,000.

He only has £250,000 to start with yet they say he would have £72,000 left in the current system.

That is because on top of that they take all of any pensions he has - state and work pensions which presumably are contributing another £115,000 across the 8 years to give the figure they have of (£293,000 + £72,000 = £365,000). So he must have about £14, 400 in pensions annually- all of which he has also paid for himself in his lifetime.

Now comes more of the smoke and mirrors - 'under the new system' - they somehow divide up his carehome costs between personal care and daily living expenses with no explanation of what that means and state he still has to pay for his daily living expenses. Having paid the £86,000, he has to pay a further £37,000 to reach their sum of £123,000 that he pays in total.

It is so vague as to be pointless but illustrates that the £86,000 is not a cap. A person in a carehome (with any savings) will be expected to pay in addition to the £86,000 for their accommodation, food, washing, personal services etc until they die. They will be very lucky to spend as little as Yusef.

My uncle pays £1100 a week for his carehome. He has no nursing care and had £117,000 of savings when he went into care last December. He has spent £40,000 on his carehome fees since December. He is just very frail and can do nothing for himself at all although has some cognition.

In addition, we can expect the cap to increase regularly as time passes and the living expenses part to increase very regularly as carehomes see it as a way to make more profit.

@NantesElephant

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

Because he said he'd Get Brexit Done.

And 'but Corbyn'.

@Tealightsandd

still unreasonable to expect the state to foot the whole bill for very expensive care just so we can inherit.

I disagree. When disabled and long term ill and other vulnerable people are homeless or insecurely housed, it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to inherit. It is, of course, unreasonable that the state doesn't resolve the public health housing and homelessness emergency and suitably house the vulnerable and low waged.

Btw 'the state' isn't magic money. It's funded by the public through taxes. It's 'their' money. The same state money that funds MPs generous expenses, gold plated pensions, and private healthcare (shows their faith in the NHS...).

Why is it reasonable to expect them to inherit? So the inheritance can be used to pay for their care?

Why is it reasonable that someone who works their whole life, pays tax and NI, pays off a mortgage, saves some money- has to sell their home and use their savings down to £20,000 to be cared for? They are no different to the people you describe except that they have contributed and cared for themselves without being a burden on the state for most if their lives but now need care because they are ill, have developed a disability or become frail just as the people you describe are ill/vulnerable/disabled.

@Tealightsandd

still unreasonable to expect the state to foot the whole bill for very expensive care just so we can inherit.

I disagree. When disabled and long term ill and other vulnerable people are homeless or insecurely housed, it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to inherit. It is, of course, unreasonable that the state doesn't resolve the public health housing and homelessness emergency and suitably house the vulnerable and low waged.

Btw 'the state' isn't magic money. It's funded by the public through taxes. It's 'their' money. The same state money that funds MPs generous expenses, gold plated pensions, and private healthcare (shows their faith in the NHS...).

I am being provocative not because that's what I think but to illustrate the difficulties in this moral maze.

@NantesElephant

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

Probably because the opposition are weak and pathetic too! All pronouns & misogyny

@Malteser71

What’s the point of having assets?

Surely better to live off the state?

I don't know. If you are compos mentis, having money means you have some choices.

However this is quite depressing and scary. I am elderly and would say I am probably in the 'middle' group with a house and some cash. I'm going to do everything I can to stay in my home but do feel just a bit worried about the future because we never know what's round the corner.

My mother in law died in 2004. She had a house and money but for her last years, was housebound with various medical problems, including Parkinson's. Initially she occupational therapy at home, various appliances were provided and some fixtures; had carers who came in during the day, which escalated as she became more disabled. We also took turns, I did all the shopping and cooking and towards the end one of us would stay overnight. She didn't have to pay anything for the carers who were excellent, though was prepared to, and if she hadn't had us, more care would have been available.

Her medical treatment was good too.

What has gone wrong since then? I expect we can work that one out.

Because he said he'd Get Brexit Done.

And 'but Corbyn'.

Yes. The opposition refused to acknowledge popular public will. Whatever you think of Brexit, it was clear the public wanted what Corbyn (but not his party) wanted. Which was Brexit. Once Cameron gave the referendum, there was no going back. If you ignore what the public vote for, they won't vote for you. Particularly if you come across as arrogant and patronising and tell everyone they're wrong or stupid.

And 'but Corbyn' isn't to be dismissed. One option being bad doesn't automatically make the other option any better. It was on Labour to make themselves electable. Blair and Corbyn both lost the Labour party many votes. Both utterly different but equally dreadful men. Many many people voted against (Jeremy Corbyn) rather than for (Boris Johnson).

Why is it reasonable to expect them to inherit? So the inheritance can be used to pay for their care?

Yes, for their care and their housing. Because unfortunately for the vulnerable and low waged the state increasingly doesn't provide (although it should).

Like I said, it shouldn't be necessary. The government should tackle the public health housing and homelessness emergency. Not least because many in vulnerable housing won't be getting an inheritance because not all families have anything to leave. But for those that can leave something, unless and until we become a civilised society and see a return of the safety net - with sufficient social housing provision and care for the vulnerable, yes it's reasonable to expect people to inherit if it gives them a way out of homelessness. It's reasonable for people to want their families to have secure affordable housing.

It should be the state that provides that - through social housing, but it often doesn't. Parents know their adult child who is unable to work due to disability or long term illness or on a low wage, and in insecure housing or homeless, needs to inherit to have one of life's most basic essentials - a secure affordable home.

I suppose I favour the idea Labour suggested a while back. For inheritance tax, to be based on the wealth of the recipient. A similar principle could be applied when it comes to paying for social care. Particularly if there's an adult child (and perhaps grandchild or other close family member) who is disabled or long term ill, or in any other way vulnerable.

Separately, there needs to be some balance. If everything is taken and people can't leave what they understandably feel is their hard-earned small pot of savings/house to their family, more and more people will start to say what I've already seen said on these threads - 'what's the point'. Some will feel they have no incentive to save. Yes, it's better to have money so you have more (often better) options, but not everyone will think about that or care. So they'll sell up and go into rented and then spend, spend, spend. There's got to be a bit of leeway. People aren't stupid. They know the really wealthy aren't selling homes to pay for care and will be able to leave inheritance. They know that state funded MPs won't have to sell their homes.

If we keep voting in a political
Party who, on the most, part lack empathy and their main aim is to maintain the status quo in terms of wealth distribution then we will keep getting policies that screw us over.

I'm shocked. Hadn't realised the government was making it worse not better. Should have guessed though given it is the conservatives. I am noticing more and more we seem to be moving into some sort of serfdom.with builders putting estate rent charges on freehold with draconian powers, low wages, this recent proposed increase in NI which affects the lowerpaid more than the better off Now nursing care having to be paid for in old age when NHS is supposed to be cradle to grave. I realise we need to pay back debt following COVID but I would much rather it be done through income tax - much fairer. The conservatives have a secret agenda to make the poor poorer and the rich richer. Hope the press pick this social care reform issue up in the next few days so it gets clearly communicated that we will be losing a chunk of NHS care. And you're so right OP, care homes will try to profit from this by upping living costs. I haven't looked into this but it sounds like the new system has not been clarified. My biggest concern is the requirement to pay for nursing care - thin end of the wedge.

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. - I don’t think that is true if you have dementia?

@Zotter

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. - I don’t think that is true if you have dementia?

This link gives details, not straightforward it seems for dementia. www.alzheimers.org.uk/confusion-over-nhs-funding-eligibility-dementia-care

@Zotter

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. - I don’t think that is true if you have dementia?

Sorry OP, I missed your post covered this.

I think they need to provide more care homes and unify the cost at the moment the care homes can charge what they like, with self funding clients having to subsidise the non paying. The whole system needs a complete overhaul. Throwing a bit more money at it is not the complete picture.

F

If they want people to stop costing the state money in their old age then allow euthanasia FFS!!!! I don’t believe many of the elderly ravaged by illness wish to be stuck in a care home. Allow people an option.