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.

I agree Gracesgran.

The cuts to local authorities are making the current model unworkable. Speaking to care providers it is really hard for them to provide staff at the rates that the LA's can/are willing to pay (so those paying privately end up making up the shortfall).

That's been suggested by quite a few experts on the NHS, GracesGran. It's a softening up.

Nezumi, when my husband was dying, they asked who his social worker was and seemed quite surprised that he didn't have one. I was even more surprised at the idea that he needed one. Everything that he had wrong with him was a medical condition, not social. I looked after him without help until he was bedridden, three weeks before he died. Why did they assume that he had a social worker?

The carers, sent by the local hospice, were fantastic, by the way. I am still in touch with two of them.

www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2017/may/general-election-manifestos-2017

To compare manifestos with regard to disability rights.

www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Funding%20Britain%27s%20Future.PDF

If any of you saw Barry Gardiner being questioned yesterday about what Labour would on benefits, it's all in here. He was told repeatedly that there was nothing in the manifesto about the cap. You can't do what Labour says it will do, wiithout getting rid of the cap, or making it much higher if there has to be one.

I don't understand why some people can't see that the poorest would be better of with the Conservative proposals.

My mother has weeks (maybe days) left to live. She has about £30,000 in savings with no property.

My sisters and I have been paying for a cleaner for a few months and we've been visiting almost every day - so three visits a day.

It's now got to the stage that she needs more care (maybe residential). As my mother has over £23,000 in savings, she's having to pay for it herself.

The Conservative proposals would mean that she would pay nothing and the £30,000 would remain intact.

My mother is worried about spending money, because she wants to leave something after she dies. As it is, there won't be much left after funeral costs and other expenses.

Why are people so concerned about those who have only £100,000 to leave, when they don't seem to care less about those who have less?

dd you haven't addressed the issue of the welfare state and pooling the risk through an increase in NI. It seems totally logical.
With regard to inherited wealth this is a separate issue and can be dealt with as such. It should not be conflated with welfare.

I have just started a thread called 'Dementia Tax' with a link to a petition. Please sign if you feel able to and share the link where you can.

They probably expected him to have some hands on carers or respite carers Durham (& you need a SW to commission those - they usually bugger off once they have set up a service...)

ww How about getting pensioners to pay NI for a start? I can guarantee that would cause the same kind of backlash.

It's estimated that it would cost everybody a 5% increase in tax/NI. Why should people who won't inherit have to pay for children to inherit money they have nothing to earn?

I agree that inheritance tax should be changed, but there are too many loopholes. Personally, I'd like to see the IHT at about £10k, so that people start their lives at a more even level, but that will never happen.

The median estate in the UK is £100k, so only the wealthier half will pay. In fact, they won't pay anything at all - only their children.

At the moment, people with only very modest savings leave almost nothing.

Sorry, but the left is deluded on this.

In any case, social care is the responsibility of local councils. NI doesn't fund it.

We've already had a 3% increase in council tax, which is pooled reponsibility.

there's a lot of hysteria flying round at the moment about the new arrangements announced for the elderly paying for care-the dementia tax. it is suggested (because it hasn't been decided/debated or passed yet)that all assets and property will be used to support the elderly person until those assets drop to £100k.
something that needs to be considered before leaping to criticise this announcement.

social care, at home or in a care home, isn't free. if you need social care you and your finances are assessed and if you have savings above £23000 you pay. sometimes all the cost, sometimes part of the cost. NOW
once your assets drop below £23000, you can be entitled to "free" care. NOW
your assets include the house you lived in/other property/cash/etc. NOW
if your property is used as a asset, the choice is to sell it, rent it out, or take out a loan, often through the local council, on the property, but you pay. NOW
it is an offence to not declare or hide assets, sign property over to relatives, give huge sums away, thats deprivation of assets. NOW

with the new proposal, all of the above apply but £23000 becomes £100k. so the amount the elderly person is allowed to keep rather than contribute to their care has more than quadrupled but nothing else has changed. why the hysteria?

Thank you for explaining it joolz.

It would be absolutely wonderful if everything could be paid for by some kind of Midas, but it isn't going to happen.

The situation now uses up almost all savings for the poorest. The Dilnot Review would have done the same. Care costs would be capped, but at £74k, the poorest would use up almost everything, while the estates of the wealthiest would hardly be touched.

The Conservative proposals are by no means perfect (and I expect there'll be a number of amendments), but they are actually fairer than what we now have, which is probably why they're attracting some Labour voters, who have done their sums.

joolz because I disagree with the fundamental principle. There is no hysteria, simply a debate.

Yes if we accept that what we have now is acceptable and merely raising the minimum /maximum level makes it fairer, then fine.

But I don't it isn't a fair or comprehensive system. Neither does it spread the risk fairly across the board.

Spreading the risk is what it is all about joolz and the question that is asked on the dementia tax petition sums it up. Why should a rich cancer sufferer have all the treatment free when dementia is taxed? Just because we have a poor situation NOW doesn't mean we should settle for something which is possibly worse for some. I notice you make no reference to a couple living in a house when one needs care.

I feel that our society is wedded to the idea of passing on 'wealth' to the next generation, which (amongst other things) means that children of wealthy parents already have a head start on those of poor parents. Maybe we need a radical re-think, whereby there is a cap on what can be passed on to children - so that the older generation are more willing to use their assets to pay for their care, as they can't be passed on, so they will not be depriving their children, and the new generation will start out at nearer to the same level...

angel wealth tax and welfare should not be conflated, they are separate issues and should be treated as such.

I ageree in general, ww, but in this instance I feel that attitudes to payment for welfare are heavily influenced by people's expectation that they will be passing wealth on to their children, so they are integrated.

dd I don't think the backlash would be anything like as bad as you suggest if NI was extended to all tax payers, and possibly increased if it was explained that the NHS and Social Care would be extended and funded properly.

It is not a left issue either it is across the board.

angel they are only integrated because the governments narrative suggests they are. They are not.

TM has changed her policy - well, there's a surprise!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40001221

Everyone seems to be arguing about the right of children to inherit their Parent's or Grandparent's wealth but no one seems to be considering the position of the surviving spouse, who would usually be expected to inherit all of the deceased's assets, including all of their home. If, under these proposals, dementia strikes the spouse with the bulk of the couple's assets in their name (typically the man in our over 70's generation) then all these assets could be taken to pay for domiciliary or residential care, including a repayable loan against the value of the home, leaving the surviving spouse reliant on State Pension + perhaps benefits.

You may tell me that measures will be introduced to protect the interests of the surviving spouse but the proposal as it stands makes no such promise (and we all know that such promises are easily forgotten anyway). This is a live issue now for those who are living with a dementia diagnosis or on the ever downward path towards one. It is hard enough to accept the life changing (for sufferer and family) nature of the diagnosis - which means that all plans for a comfortable, relaxing or adventurous, retirement are 'oot the windae' without having the rug pulled from under your carefully planned retirement funding.

I am horrified that this callous proposal, deliberately worded vaguely, has been put on the table, presumably as a vote catcher, during the GE campaign leading to much well-informed and ill-informed comment - including gross scaremongering (mea culpa?) by other Parties about the likely effects. Imagine, if you will, the effect this has on folks in the early stages of dementia who still follow the news and on their carers, spouses, family.

Please, if you have an ounce of compassion, vote for whichever candidate has the best chance of defeating the Conservative candidate in your seat.

the value of your home isn't taken into account if receiving care at home currently. Only your savings/income. Your home is only considered if in residential care.

The majority of people receive care at home so this policy isn't a big change.

If your care becomes eligible for health funding, rather than social care - you keep the lot. Your assists and income are not taken into account at all. However, it often requires legal action to get the CHC funding.

Agh this policy IS a big change!!! Not isn't.