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.

I'm confused about the distinction that's being drawn between care costs and living costs. When my MIL was in a care home there was just one fee, are care homes now going to be required to split the two elements out? In principle it doesn't seem to me to be wrong that people are expected to cover their living costs, but in practice what happens when they run out of money? The costs are likely to be higher than people would face living in their own homes given that many old people would otherwise be living in a property they own outright.

The bigger problem with the government announcement seems to be that they haven't actually worked out how to fund it. The money from the much publicised NI rise is supposed to go temporarily to the NHS, but does anyone really believe the NHS will stop needing it in a few years time?

I suspect it would then fall to the local authority to fund as it does now when assets/savings etc drop below £14k ish

"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?"

Just making the point because you don't see people complaining much about woeful carers allowance and shocking disability benefits. There is only a massive fuss when it's something that affects more people. Eg. worried they might most their or kids' inheritance. There is no acknowledgement that maybe they were lucky to build up these savings in the first place.

In your example person in 40s probably won't have huge assets with a severely disabled child because they have already given up work to care for them.

If it's about unfairness then focus on those who are really bottom of the pile eg. disabled and long term sick and sort out disability benefits.

@IceandIndigo. yes, that will be the plan I think. As you say, at the moment there is a flat fee but it will be billed as two elements in future. So, in a residential home that charges £800 a week, the Care element might be £500 and the "hotel" costs might be £300

Probably they’ll bring something in soon that gives them the right to euthanise anyone once tbeir care bill exceeds £86k.

@TableFlowerss

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.

There's always going to be people who play the system, though. We can't build our entire welfare system on ensuring that no one has to pay more than lazy arses that have never contributed anything in their lives.

If we want a decent healthcare and social care system we have to pay for it. It cannot just be the rich that pay for it. The top one per cent or tax payers already pay 62% tax rate as they don't have an NI cap. So you can't squeeze them any more or they will leave the Uk or develop tax schemes to hide their wealth, so it's diminishing returns.

All this 'we've worked hard all our lives' stuff just has to stop. People who are starting their working lives now will also work hard all their lives but shouldn't start out with a massive tax burden just so people can leave vastly inflated houses to their children, thus increasing inequality. Because not everyone's parents, who might also have worked hard all their lives, have massive investments to give to their children.

They're not losing their houses, they're paying for their living expenses from their assets, just like the rest of us have to all our lives. Some people are lucky and don't have to pay much, while others do. But I'd much prefer to have a functioning NHS and decent social care and have people inherit £100k rather than £800k.

Otherwise we'll end up with the US system where people who still are able to live in their houses have to sell them to pay for their cancer treatment. Who the hell wants that?

It's hardly surprising that a Tory government is lying.
It underpins many of their policies.
The foundations of Brexit= based on lies.
Covid reaction= lies.
Conservatives help you maximise your money/ assets,= lies.
Mind you we should pay for care if we have £££££ in the bank.

This thread is kind of scary in that we as a society see the elderly as an expensive waste of money...that euthenadia has been mentioned on the same thread makes me feel so depressed...life really is all about number crunching isn't it?!

Euthenasia*

I’m still not understanding it.

Current system. Elderly person in a care home, no nursing required apart from helping to get dressed etc, would pay for their room etc using their pension and assets until there was approx £21k left. Any nursing care required in future would be paid by NHS?

New system - as above but nursing care is also paid for upto £86k.

??

@Feelingoktoday. I know its complicated but you are getting (understandably) confused between nursing care and social care.

Nursing care is free to the user. Always has been and (hopefully) always will be.

There are basically two types of care homes for Older People - Residential Homes and Nursing Homes. If you are on sale residential home but need a nursing task doing (wound dressing, for example) then that will be undertaken by a visiting District Nurse.

If you have been assessed as having high nursing needs, so that you cannot be supported by a DN. but instead need nurses on hand, then you will bevassesed as needing a nursing home . A nursing home employs nurses and carers. The NHS pays the nursing fee (£187 pw) to the Home, the resident pays the rest (or the Local Authority if the person has no savings/assets). Most nursing homes quote fees EXCLUDING the nursing fee so the person may not have grasped that the nursing element is free. A Nursing Home charging £1000 per week will also be receiving £187 from the NHS for nursing care.

[quote GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER]**@Zotter, with dementia, the point is that although it’s an illness, the care needed is usually just social - washing, dressing, general supervision - someone being there 24/7. By the time a certain stage of dementia is reached, 24/7 care and supervision are usually very necessary - the person will often not be safe to be left alone at all.

Both my DM and my FiL had dementia and by the time 24/7 care and supervision were needed, both ended up in care homes, both self funded, from savings and proceeds of the sale of their houses.

Must say that we were glad to be able to choose the time and place, and not have to rely on the tender mercies of social services, who will often wait until family carers are on their knees with stress and exhaustion before residential care is offered.

Might add that the care homes we eventually chose were by no means the most expensive, but were extremely good.[/quote]
@GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER and @MereDintofPandiculation, thank you.

As people with dementia can need to be in residential care for a long time but are not viewed as needing nursing care, though do need personal care of course, I know costs can be huge. At least now the care costs will be capped. I know lodging and food costs are not part of the cap in the new system.

Andy Burnham’s proposal was very sensible, I think he said 10% of anyone who needed care’s assets would be set aside. The rest they could leave to inheritance etc. He was very against the working poor being asked to foot the bill for elderly care when the elderly sit on the biggest assets.

Agree, I liked Burnham’s proposal. It would be a universal care system, like NHS, everyone who can pays a little bit via percentage of a person’s estate (when Burnham’s White paper was written in 2010 10% was suggested) and then everyone is covered regardless how many years needed. Tories don’t like it as a universal system.

Agree, I liked Burnham’s proposal. It would be a universal care system, like NHS, everyone who can pays a little bit via percentage of a person’s estate (when Burnham’s White paper was written in 2010 10% was suggested) and then everyone is covered regardless how many years needed. Tories don’t like it as a universal system.

If 10% covers it then I think that does seem reasonable.

But I'm not sure how 10% is going to cover it? If it does that sounds great. But 'Like the NHS' does set off alarm bells, because I think everyone is in agreement that the NHS has ballooned and is, at least, not funded enough and, at worst, not fit for purpose.

If the 10% doesn't actually cover it then I feel like we need to move towards a model where you're viewing your assets, right now in your 40s, as your care fund.

You're 'working hard your whole life' to pay for the things you need when you get older. Just as we were all told to get private pensions NOW (and we can all guess that means the state pension in it's current form is probably not going to be there in future).

If you don't end up needing it - lucky kids who'll inherit your assets.

If you do end up needing it - lucky kids whose kids won't have to pay for it via taxation and lucky you for getting to pay into your own care fund instead of your landlords.

If you have no assets - the state should absolutely provide for you.

Everyone wins?

Re care in someone’s home, I have been bedridden for 10 years with severe ME and have daily care via social services direct payments scheme where I employ 2 carers. I have no assets or savings above £6000. SS pay towards paying my carers, but I still have to make a weekly contribution from my benefits. Some people with long-term complex health needs qualify for free social care arranged and funded solely by the NHS. This is known as NHS continuing healthcare but v difficult to qualify, most is social services funded.

My weekly contribution has gone up hugely in recent years as councils so cash strapped due to govt cuts during austerity. I now have to pay £127 a week, a few years ago it was only £48 a week. Grateful for benefits but certainly less than used to be due to care costs provided at home rising so much.

So disabled/long term sick needing care at home will still face large costs even with new proposals. Also access to care in the home from social services is rationed so only the most sick/disabled qualify - currently half of requests for help are turned down. National care service and fund really what we need.

Sorry @severelysound can’t write more today.

@Zotter

Re care in someone’s home, I have been bedridden for 10 years with severe ME and have daily care via social services direct payments scheme where I employ 2 carers. I have no assets or savings above £6000. SS pay towards paying my carers, but I still have to make a weekly contribution from my benefits. Some people with long-term complex health needs qualify for free social care arranged and funded solely by the NHS. This is known as NHS continuing healthcare but v difficult to qualify, most is social services funded.

My weekly contribution has gone up hugely in recent years as councils so cash strapped due to govt cuts during austerity. I now have to pay £127 a week, a few years ago it was only £48 a week. Grateful for benefits but certainly less than used to be due to care costs provided at home rising so much.

So disabled/long term sick needing care at home will still face large costs even with new proposals. Also access to care in the home from social services is rationed so only the most sick/disabled qualify - currently half of requests for help are turned down. National care service and fund really what we need.

That’s exactly what happened to me and nothing will change. One thing having Disability then try live on benefits but have some sick people have much less live on than others. It’s really unfair and postcode lottery. Scotland it’s free- so person same disability get more for everyday expenses. When we talking 20-30-40 years it’s a whole life time of having just enough or not putting the heating or doing anything above pure essentials. That’s no way to live

@EmmaGrundyForPM, v informative posts, thank you.

There will be a loophole. No doubt wealth managers and solicitors will get a bit richer advising how to exploit that loophole.

There is always a loophole so MPs and their mates are not affected.

@LegendaryReady, v true, I hear you.

@Bootikin

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.

Only the rich and those with an EU passport can leave the UK now. Or have I missed something?

@severelysound

Agree, I liked Burnham’s proposal. It would be a universal care system, like NHS, everyone who can pays a little bit via percentage of a person’s estate (when Burnham’s White paper was written in 2010 10% was suggested) and then everyone is covered regardless how many years needed. Tories don’t like it as a universal system.

If 10% covers it then I think that does seem reasonable.

But I'm not sure how 10% is going to cover it? If it does that sounds great. But 'Like the NHS' does set off alarm bells, because I think everyone is in agreement that the NHS has ballooned and is, at least, not funded enough and, at worst, not fit for purpose.

If the 10% doesn't actually cover it then I feel like we need to move towards a model where you're viewing your assets, right now in your 40s, as your care fund.

You're 'working hard your whole life' to pay for the things you need when you get older. Just as we were all told to get private pensions NOW (and we can all guess that means the state pension in it's current form is probably not going to be there in future).

If you don't end up needing it - lucky kids who'll inherit your assets.

If you do end up needing it - lucky kids whose kids won't have to pay for it via taxation and lucky you for getting to pay into your own care fund instead of your landlords.

If you have no assets - the state should absolutely provide for you.

Everyone wins?

I'm not familiar with the details of Burnham's proposal, but I would guess the 10% covers it because of the small percentage of very wealthy people for whom 10% is an enormous amount. Which is no doubt why the Tories would never accept it. It seems like the whole point of their current proposal is to try and protect the assets of wealthy people.

I agree with you about the attitude to care costs. From personal observation it's often it's the adult children rather than the people needing care who get have a problem with the costs, they don't like to see an anticipated inheritance vanishing before their eyes. Certainly that was our experience when my MIL went into a care home, self-funding. DH and I are fairly comfortable and we wanted MIL to get the best care, but my SIL was openly arguing to put her in a cheaper and less suitable home to try to preserve her inheritance. I found it fairly eye-opening!

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). That would be a fairer system than big inheritances to children of those lucky enough not to need care, nothing for those whose parents get dementia or some other condition meaning a long time in care.

They're not losing their houses, they're paying for their living expenses from their assets, just like the rest of us have to all our lives.

The rest of us don't usually have to pay £1000 a week living expenses.

Some people are lucky and don't have to pay much, while others do. But I'd much prefer to have a functioning NHS and decent social care and have people inherit £100k rather than £800k.

Or more usually £20,000 instead of £300-400k

that euthanasia has been mentioned on the same thread makes me feel so depressed. It's been mentioned by people who do not want to continue their life after everything they value has been lost, usually in the context of dementia. I don't see that as depressing. It's the disease that is making life not worth living.

From personal observation it's often it's the adult children rather than the people needing care who get have a problem with the costs, they don't like to see an anticipated inheritance vanishing before their eyes. That may be your personal observation. I strongly object to being kept alive when everything I value is lost to me, but given that there isn't a practical alternative (I believe Dignitas don't take people with dementia) I sure as hell object to my money being used to pay to keep me alive against my will.

@MereDintofPandiculation

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). That would be a fairer system than big inheritances to children of those lucky enough not to need care, nothing for those whose parents get dementia or some other condition meaning a long time in care.

Inheritance tax is huge!