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.

@Feelingoktoday

I have savings. For a rainy day. I choose not to buy new cars, luxury holidays etc etc. If the rainy day never arrived (lose my job etc etc) The intention was to help my children get a house when they are older. I don’t have savings because I am rich. I have savings because I have been bloody careful over the years. Well that’s going to change from now on. To be honest I don’t want to live in a care home with no life. We wouldn’t treat a dog like this. We need a discussion as to when we chose to say we want to die.

Me and DH have living wills. We’ll also book into dignitas if needed. It’s abhorrent and cruel to keep people alive without a decent quality of life.

Was that on the Today programme @Onandoff?

I also think it’s a mark of society as to how the most vulnerable are looked after, and I reckon the UK, after so many years of austerity falls down pitifully in this regard. My adult nephew needs round the clock care and the difficulty my sister has getting this is appalling, and if it wasn’t for her being so utter bloody minded I dread to think where he would be now.

@notanotherjacketpotato

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!

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

@notanotherjacketpotato I think it's always been the case that higher earners pay less NI, because they're less likely to qualify for means-tested benefits. Not saying that's as it should be, but I believe that's the rationale

@Blossomtoes

What most dementia patients don’t get is CHC, Continuing Health Care, which pays not just health costs but all living costs, meaning your £1000+ a week nursing home fees are paid for you

And why on earth would they get it? Why would someone with hundreds of thousands of £ in assets get their living costs paid by the state? It’s bonkers.

Because people with other health conditions get not just their medical needs paid for but their non-medical needs too.

And because the costs are open ended, there isnt insurance to cover it in the same way that you can pay for insurance for the other big risks of life

And those people who are deemed to have a primary medical need and get all those living costs paid may also have thousands of pounds of assets

@Malteser71

What’s the point of having assets?

Surely better to live off the state?

@Malteser71

Using the same logic, why would anyone buy a house rather than move to social housing? Or send their children to private school rather than a state school? Or work for a living rather than stay at home on benefits?

If you are lucky enough to be able to save, then having assets gives you options eg choose where to live, where to educate your children, what clothes to buy

Or in this scenario, choose your own care home

The whole "I'd rather go to Dignitas" is very often not correct in reality.

DH was bedbound and in a lot of pain for months before he died. He wasn't getting nursing care, but was completely dependent for personal care and could do nothing for himself.

He wasn't ready to die though. It's obviously not the life you'd choose, but he didn't have no quality of life. He still enjoyed having his children share a film with him, he enjoyed a glass of whisky with his friends, he enjoyed a political debate with my Dad, he enjoyed being "there" to offer support and advice to all of us when he could, he enjoyed his Airfiix models and reading. He still laughed.

Obviously he'd have liked to be more and he was sad when he couldn't accompany me to events he'd previously enjoyed, frustrated that he couldn't work and contribute financially, hated having me clean his bum, but he wasn't ready to die until the very last days. Meantime there was a lot of money spent on his care.

@MereDintofPandiculation

And those people who are deemed to have a primary medical need and get all those living costs paid may also have thousands of pounds of assets

Which people? What conditions do they have?

"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?"

Unfortunately life is unfair. Unless to want communism there will always be unfairnesses.

Eg. Disabled adults who can't work due to a disability are not able to buy a house or build up life savings. Why is it that any different if someone gets dementia in their 80s and has to use up their savings?

Also people who give up work to care for relatives currently get £60 per week. It's also a lottery who has to do this.

I think it's fair enough that if you managed to build up savings due to to having a good job and good health into old age that you use those savings to pay for care.

OP - Jeremy Vine had a couple of commentators on his Radio 2 show yesterday who were explaining the potential changes (before Boris's official announcement) and they did a pretty good job.

I still don’t quite understand it. I would imagine the vast majority of the cost of care in a home is just living costs? Room, food, washing, activities etc.
The nursing aspect is tiny. My mum got seen by the nurse in the home maybe once a month unless something was obviously wrong. But she was still bed bound and couldn’t do anything for herself.

The care home was £1200 p/W paid for by NHS continuing health fund because she had cancer.

@LuluJakey1 I'm not sure you have the correct information here

"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"

I thought nursing care costs in care homes are already paid for by the NHS via FNC at a rate of £183.92 per week. There is no cap on this and I don't think the new cap applies to this.

I have not done much reading on the new cap but my understanding is that is applies to the care element not the nursing element. My understanding is that you are correct in that it doesn't cover accommodation and food.

@WaltzForDebbie

"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?"

Unfortunately life is unfair. Unless to want communism there will always be unfairnesses.

Eg. Disabled adults who can't work due to a disability are not able to buy a house or build up life savings. Why is it that any different if someone gets dementia in their 80s and has to use up their savings?

Also people who give up work to care for relatives currently get £60 per week. It's also a lottery who has to do this.

I think it's fair enough that if you managed to build up savings due to to having a good job and good health into old age that you use those savings to pay for care.

So surely it is also fair that if you own a £750,000 house and have savings, are in your 40s, fit and well and work in a high-paying job you should use your house and savings to pay for the residential care of your disabled child? Sell the house and buy a house for £250,000- use the £500,000 asset to pay for your child?

I am using this as an example- not as my view. Why is this different to an elderly person whose husband/wife is frail and requires care and who has no earning potential left?

Quite frankly, I think I'll choose to save up for a one way flight to Switzerland if I hit the stage of having to go into care

I agree. The problem is I don’t think Dignitas will take someone of they’re in the early stages of dementia in case there has been coercion by relations. “Just sign here, darling mother. You won’t feel a thing”.

I’ve got it in my Will that I’m not to be resuscitated nor given anti biotics if all quality of life has gone but my mother had dementia for some time without needing antibiotics.

@Andante57

Quite frankly, I think I'll choose to save up for a one way flight to Switzerland if I hit the stage of having to go into care

I agree. The problem is I don’t think Dignitas will take someone of they’re in the early stages of dementia in case there has been coercion by relations. “Just sign here, darling mother. You won’t feel a thing”.

I’ve got it in my Will that I’m not to be resuscitated nor given anti biotics if all quality of life has gone but my mother had dementia for some time without needing antibiotics.

Dementia isn't the only reason you might need care either. See my earlier post ee DH. Perfectly with it but dependent on others entirely for personal care.

Agree on the point that the press have no idea about social care. It's disheartening (for one who works in it) the amount of inaccuracy in the reporting.
It's also fairly obvious to me that any extra money wherever it comes from won't be used to improve the system at all, for users or employees. Once the first three years have gone, as always, to the NHS, the whole thing will be forgotten about in terms of social care. Which ignores the fact that social care keeps people out of hospital and without it the NHS would truly buckle. And also ignores decades of underfunding and the fact that social care was already in crisis before Covid and no one seems to give a shit. I'm actually seething!

Why in the hell can no one see that to make it all work in terms of funding, parity for users and workers and improving the system and outcomes the two things need to be joined up and treated equally?

Yes. Even if I suddenly qualify free care it be the bare bones of care. The carer will still be mim wage not paid for travel. Low skilled probable last 2years before gives up and goes and works for Tesco’s. Some carers are amazing some really awful over worked, stressed, no incentive to do anything well. Really depressing be around barely speak to you etc. Compared to carer who’s rewarded for training and experience good terms and conditions. Genuinely chooses job not forced into by job centre over a sanction. Those carers make me feel like I have quality of life and can start day positive attitude over made feel a burden and of no worth at all.

Ideally Social care let me have a life, have hobbies go out do fun things now and again. Not just bare bones of well you are up washed and dressed here’s a ready meal for later.

News does nothing family carers either who could do with respite and why oh why can’t we increase carers allowance. It’s not even on job seekers level.

@LegendaryReady

The whole "I'd rather go to Dignitas" is very often not correct in reality.

DH was bedbound and in a lot of pain for months before he died. He wasn't getting nursing care, but was completely dependent for personal care and could do nothing for himself.

He wasn't ready to die though. It's obviously not the life you'd choose, but he didn't have no quality of life. He still enjoyed having his children share a film with him, he enjoyed a glass of whisky with his friends, he enjoyed a political debate with my Dad, he enjoyed being "there" to offer support and advice to all of us when he could, he enjoyed his Airfiix models and reading. He still laughed.

Obviously he'd have liked to be more and he was sad when he couldn't accompany me to events he'd previously enjoyed, frustrated that he couldn't work and contribute financially, hated having me clean his bum, but he wasn't ready to die until the very last days. Meantime there was a lot of money spent on his care.

I’m sorry for your loss 💐 My comment was that we should have a choice, not that people in your husbands situation have no quality of life. He sounds like he wax surrounded by a wonderful support system right up to the end. Many people don’t have that though. They’re in pain, they’re alone, they should be able to choose to have a pain free realty of the choosing.

*death

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.

Under the new system, Yusuf now has £173,000 to leave to his (lottery winning) heirs instead of £72,000.

His lottery winning heirs quite fancy moving to Wales where the average house price is £200,000.

A local couple earns £20k pa each and have saved a £20k deposit. They put in an offer of £200,000.

Heirs of Yusuf come along with their whopping deposit and offer £250,000.

Multiply this all up and down the country.

Remember when a single wage, a 'man's wage' was enough to buy house suitable for a family? Then you needed two wages. Then you needed two wages and an inheritance.

Next you'll need two wages, an inheritance, and the kids working the family business.

Is it even real? Or do we just keep printing more of it because people keep hoarding it, so average Joe feels like they have more of it but what good is having more of it when you still can't buy a home for your family?

The fact people are calling this hideous, ghastly and dreadful and they're not even being sarcastic speaks volumes.

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.

How is this not the way for every other bugger unlucky enough not to be born into wealth? The entire system is set up this way?

Surely this is just stretching that system out to cover more people (and going by that example it actually sounds like it's doing the opposite? People with assets are going to have more to pass on to their children when they die).

Agreed. It is extremely rare to get “nursing care” paid for by the state. Most people unfortunately don’t understand the full extent of care homes/nursing homes until it’s too late.

Re saving - money gives you choices. The same as if you claim benefits, you do not have the same choices as those who work and don’t. Care homes all vary and those with savings/property are asked to fund part of the care themselves at the moment but you can choose a better care home/more suitable for you, if you have your own savings rather than relying on the state choice for you i.e. where you are placed.

So many examples of people happy in care home for 5 years feel it’s their home and safe. Not talking Bupa levels of luxury and facilities but a nice home. Then boom savings run out default to only max council will pay and they have to move to the lowest low cost option available. Which surprise surprise has smallest rooms, less staff, worse food and everything else.

Many people will still “choose” pay over and above for more then bare bare mim the system will provide. If you really think your neighbour who’s “never done a days work I his life” is going have same as you or indeed you would put yourself in lowest care provision going to make a point. You will soon change your mind.

@FreeBritnee I understand that, but my point was that people talk about Dignitas as if that will remove any need to pay for care but in reality, people often need care long before death is a preferable option.

So many examples of people happy in care home for 5 years feel it’s their home and safe.

To be fair though, even with bupa levels of luxury and care only 10% of people will live there longer than 5 years.

The average stay is 24 months without nursing and 12 months with nursing.

So if people don't pay, the state pays. Which means younger people. With an ageing population (which is worse in certain parts of the UK and will only get worse since immigration policy is not devolved).

All so people can leave wealth to the young people they have personally chosen.

So we have young people paying tax so the state can pay for care so certain lucky young people can price them out of buying a home.

Why not up inheritance tax and use the proceeds to fund the next generations care? Rather than continuing to pile on debt that will have to be picked up by somebody's children (who we're having less of).

I feel like when I get to the age I'm weighing up these options, I'll probably be dead set in my 'I worked hard, I'm leaving it to my kids' ways too. Because it's likely the only way my grandkids will afford a house. But surely the bubble needs to pop at some point? At some point we need to realise 'working and paying taxes my whole life' isn't actually enough for all the things we do, because my mum was still paying off WW2, and kids right now will be paying off the bank bailouts in 08, and their kids, yet to be born, will be paying off Furlough..... when do we start paying for the next generation as opposed to paying for the previous ones?