Paying for social care - good news or bad news?

I do think we will move slowly (and probably in the most costly way) into paying for our medical care Nezumi65. It seems logical to me that, if you are paying for 'social' care for the elderly, those who can manage at home and also for people in homes, eventually it will be proposed that you can pay 'hotel' charges in hospital.

A lot of things that fall into 'mental' health care are basically not available unless you can find some way of paying them already and I think they are talking about limiting hip replacements, etc., which I imagine will make those who can afford to pay, do so. So the system is being changed behind our backs anyway.

Durham - health and social care are meant to work together now. My disabled son's care package is funded 50:50 health/social care. They spent nearly a year battling between themselves to get to that point. Quite often at multiagency meetings there would be a mini battle going on between the health representative and the social worker. My son should be 100% health funded (if you look at the questionnaire for CHC funding) but our first stage of appeal (which is meant to take 20 days) is estimated will take about a year (& I doubt it will be resolved then).

The system is an absolute mess.

I agree with those who think that the next stage will be an expectation to pay for medical care as well (can't see it going the other way and making social care free)- the lines between what is health and what is social care are already very blurred - as demonstrated by the huge backlogs in CHC funding appeals.

I think they're just legalising what's already happening. My DF had cancer. When DM could no longer care for him he went into care and he had to pay from his half if their savings as SS maintained she could care for him at home and he wanted to be at home. When she gave in and said she could cope with help, no care materialised so he stayed in care and paid. She was crippled with arthritis and got no help. When she got cancer the same happened. She had to pay for her care home and we were told her house would have to be sold when her savings ran out. Of course being cancer she didn't live that long. A bloke with dementia on the floor below was already paying through the sale of his house. His care would only be paid for when he got down to £23,000. Ms May is just levelling the field. Around here its already happening. Fight all you like (and we did) the only people who get their care fully funded, whether at home or in a home, are those in rented accommodation. (Or, as a friend found, if you happen to live in a posh area with consultants as neighbours. Her DH had free home nursing!)

And we certainly won't know the facts before the election cos they ain't gonna tell us!
But good to hear Boris reiterate Damian's point that 'everyone' will be able to leave £100000 to their family.
Totally out of touch as they have no understanding of the fact there may be just a few folk around who don't actually have that amount of cash!

Damian Green "they will know if they are genuine need of the Winter Fuel Payment they will still get that".

No they WILL NOT know. They have to add this belief to their list of those things they really want to believe in like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, cross their fingers and turn around three times and, possibly, pray AND THEY WILL STILL NOT KNOW!!!

This might cheer you up, GracesGran.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/21/dim-and-dimmer-damian-green-boris-johnson-tory-marr-peston

Turned on the radio because I thought it would be better but it was the news sadly. A Tory saying that we couldn't increase NI because that means the young would be paying for the old again. Is it beyond his wit to think that, in order to pay for a Care service and the increases needed in the NHS, we would take NI past the State Pension Age.

Hmm. It's going to be a fantastic earner for the firms doing the equity release.

off not of.

Just seen TM canvassing and a women down south saying she thought those in the south should be left with more money than those in the North. May said the details had not been worked out yet.

I think I am going of the forum now to have a good cry.

Oh Welshwife, it's such a mess and will be very frightening for a lot of older people.

It is possible, with the second person because, as I understand it, a spouse is going to be allowed to stay in the house although if it is some sort of equity release system the money they owe will double every ten years (at least it does for equity release) because of the interest. I suppose that when the second person needs care, if there is nothing left they will not be expected to pay. So, a company will take the interest and there will be no money to pay for the second person so it will be from taxes as it is now. And what if you are not married but living together?

We have a rapidly growing population of young people who can't afford to buy. Because of the rents they are paying many of them will never be able to buy. Their only hope has been inheriting a house or part of a house from their parents. What happens in 30 or 40 years when these people need care and have no assets?

I don't think it was thought through that far, Welshwife.

What happens if one person needs to have care and the second is OK for some years. If the first person has died does the second person still receive adequate care? Is the estate gathering increasing deferred interest all the time? This is all such a minefield. The mind just boggles.

I think that is a very good summary Jess.

"Currently, Carers put £132Bn into the Economy purely through Caring Services. This is the amount of money after all benefits – not just Attendance Allowance or Carers Allowance – are paid out. Carers are, in general, the next generation for Dementia sufferers – the children and grandchildren. In total, the Dementia Tax will be taking £286Bn from people who already pay substantial amounts into the economy and have been doing so for two generations. "

The dementia tax would bring the government £154 billion.
The government gets £132 billion as it is from carers.

Can anyone remember what the tax gap is? The latest paper by Richard Murphy suggests £122 billion.
If the government really cared it would stop the tax fraudsters. That would go a long way to paying for care.

I would imagine there will be consequences - unintended or not, I'll let you be the judge.
1. More demand for residential care - If you're going to have to re-mortgage or sell up anyway, why struggle on when you could be looked after. (this would suit Mr May...)
2. More hospital admissions because people will be less willing to ask for help if they think they will have to go through the hassle of re-mortgaging. And because they have less help their are more likely to end up in hospital due to falls, accidents and nobody noticing that they are unwell. Also poorer nutrition and hygiene - these are the things that carers maintain.
3. Continued fall in life expectancy In the last couple of years there has been the first downturn in life expectancy since WW2. For the same reasons as in 2. fragile people will struggle on without help. Some of them will be more reluctant to heat their houses as a result of winter fuel payment disappearing as well . Which will exacerbate avoidable winter deaths.
The intended consequence is that the companies that build and run care homes and the companies that do the "equity release schemes" will make lots more money.
I have to say that the thought of a frail, elderly person having to deal with making complex financial arrangements in order to pay for their care, just at the stage when they feel they can no longer cope, fills me with rage. Scams here we come.

I wonder what would happen if the house wasn't owned outright, if the mortgage was still being paid.

Just read that link dj and it prompts another auestion.
If (quite rightly) there is to be more emphasis on and money put into mental health care is dementia to be excluded from this move.
Just as you can't claim carer's allowance when you're in receipt of state pension maybe you can't be seen as having mental health needs beyond 65!

Good post mostly.
I wasn't aware of Philip May's involvement in this area. Surely a conflict of Mrs M's interests.
Also agree that McConnell outargued Green by a mile. Yes there was a shouting match but McConnell made sense and some valid points while Green insisted at least 3 or4 times that everyone would inherit £100000.
Idiot!

When my husband was dying of cancer we had carers coming to the house for the last three weeks of his life.
We were told there would be no financial worries. The second week someone came with a clipboard to ask him all sorts of financial things to find out how much we would be able to contribute. He was bedridden and unable to talk, and could hardly swallow.
She kept asking me the questions, so I told her to ask him. In the end I told her that I wasn't going to answer any more questions, and we would pay for everything ourselves rather than be subject to that. She said they would be in touch. They never were, as he died the next week. I half expected to get a bill for the week in the middle.
At least if the two systems are linked, that will not happen, as they will not be trying to separate the social care from the medical. However, that does not seem to be the intention.

The last link I put on suggested one of the main effects will be a huge drop in house prices.

"The less well understood outcome will be a house price collapse leaving first time buyers in negative equity for the first time since the 1980s. In efforts to reduce the amount paid for Care Services, it will become rational for Carers of Dementia Sufferers to undervalue the property to bring the total estate under £100,000 for the purposes of means testing. Undervaluation to receive benefits is, in Social Security Law, fraud. Which will result in a market in avoidance and evasion promoting corruption. The policy, itself, is about effective money laundering which is, always, corrupt.

This undervaluation of properties will, inevitably, signal to the markets that house prices are dropping and so provide pressure to further reduce house prices. This will leave existing first time buyers at risk of negative equity. When Dementia Sufferers within the Dementia Tax Regime begin to die, First Time Buyers will sell to escape negative equity. Resulting in an extreme boom and crash market that will last for decades. The initial boom will be hailed as an economic miracle until the initial crash reveals the depth of the problem. In 2007 the National Audit Office estimated that £102 million could be saved by reducing the time people Dementia Sufferers stay in hospital."

Please don't vote for it.

I wonder. People needing so called Social Care may not be able to get their own tablets and know which time to take them, get a meal, get to the toilet, clean and change themselves. They are now going to be treated in the same way as people receiving these services in 'Care Homes' but what really is the difference between that and receiving having these needs met in a hospital. Will we see charges for our bed and board and 'Social Care' while we are in hospital? Will this be the next step?

It would be easy to agree with this while you are well but ill and unearning and not know what that cost would be so unable to insure against it - how would it feel then.

I agree MamaCaz it affects everybody not just the old. Younger people trying to borrow money to buy a house, workers planning pensions, the middle aged worrying about caring for their parents in future. The whole principle of working hard and home ownership to make you self reliant and eventually expecting to be able to help their children in the future, has been turned upside down. Of course many people have never been able to have these expectations, but I would think it remains an almost universal ambition, particularly among Conservative voters.
Of course it may never happen, although the Tories are sticking to their guns at the moment.
Dilnot's proposal seems fairer.

Yes, it made me think I ought to get a bit more organised while I can.