Paying for social care - good news or bad news?

PS. Brexit is more likely to cause the economy to crash completely.

Luckylegs9 When the NHS was set up, it was NEVER intended to pay for social care. Being left £100k is NOT having nothing to pass on. Health tourism costs a tiny fraction of the NHS budget.

So many myths!

But will this GE be purely fought on manifestos.....probably not.
This GE is not like all others after all.Brexit takes centre stage, terrorist attacks have loomed large and it has become more personality driven than usual.
Whatever your feelings about T May, choosing Corbyn feels pretty different to choosing any other Labour Leader up to now. In the recent past, just on manifestos alone Labour should have a landslide vote for them.....but ( not long to find out now.)The outcome will tell you how much store is set by manifestos by the general public.

If you raise our Corporation Tax to the level Labour has said it would it would still be the lowest in the G7 Welshwife. Have these countries got it so wrong? It would also enable us to invest in ways that help business - including the smaller businesses.

This is not a strong economy. Starving yourself will not, eventually help you with debt - it will kill you. What is a "strong economy". Surely it is one that enables a country to look after ALL it citizens and bring wealth to ALL parts of the country. We should not be using the citizens of this country as cannon fodder (as the Tories are wont to do) for a small group of people who are far richer than anyone actually needs to be.

I am watching a business discussion at the moment where business men are discussing the manifestos and the opinion seems to be that the Conservatives is opaque and they cannot see what she really intends to do.

A strong economy is likely to take years to reach fruition - if it ever does - after any sort of Brexit. Our Corporation Tax is I understand one of the lowest in the developed world so unlikely that an extra 1% would have companies relocating - Brexit is far more likely to do that when added taxes come into force with importing and exporting costs.

Those of us who own our own homes, will, if we need care lose them, nothing to pass on to our children. The NHS is unable to copecwith all the additional new treatments and illnesses that were not around when it was originally set up, particularly health tourism. You have to be realistic. There isn't enough revenue coming in from those working to pay for our care now we are all older and need help. People have abused the system fir too many years bringing everything to its knees. It is quite depressing if you think of it, but I try not too, there is no majic pot of money. We need a good Brexit, no more winging, to get a strong economy in order enabling more money to put into the pot. More apprenticeships, silly idea of Labour thinking if taxing the 1 percent top companies, they will simply relocate, you need good business brains to out it all into action, they are not daft, thats how they made their money.

DJ I get really annoyed when the Liberals are referred to as the Third Major Party, which may be the case in England but certainly not in the UK as a whole. Also the fact that Social care is free in Scotland and plans are moving forward have one body covering all aspects of medical, health, mental health and care all free at point of use, thanks to the SNP government gets no mention whatsoever. That this is possible and affordable in one part of the UK is surely vital information when discussing alternative policies and proposals.

Perhaps the writer takes the view that since the EVEL legislation was introduced the 3rd largest Party at Westminster has to leave the chamber when such topics are discussed or voted upon and thus their policies are not relevant. However, in the run up to a GE their policies have as much right to be noted as those of any other Party.

theconversationuk.cmail20.com/t/r-l-yuktydyk-iudkikukhu-p/

From this article.

Comparison of social care by main parties.

Article about the real reasons for problems with the NHS and social care:

blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-implications-of-central-decision-making-for-the-delivery-of-frontline-services/

I think the German model only covers Social Care Norah - that was how I read it. 1.5% would not cover Health Care by any means as far as I can see.

A tiny amount of the NHS is funded by patient payments - just over 1% in 2011. The contribution from NIC is 21/22% of the cost of the NHS - but is only paid by working age people and tapers at the higher end of income, while general taxation has been the source of about 80% of the money for the NHS.* This is a bit simplistic but you get the idea.

What I am having difficulty finding is a percentage that would have to be paid to cover the whole National Health and Social Care as an insurance in the way that NICs cover in work and end of work benefits.

*http://www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/hypothecated-taxation.pdf

Ginny, just out of interest, why would you not put your Care Insurance right through working and post State Pension age so every adult was paying it? Some in their 60s might not need to call on it until they were in their 80s or 90s and would have been able to contribute for 20+ years.

No reason. It all needs to be discussed, with a commission working on it, quickly, and agreement by the main parties, not having it foisted on us by Mayhem.
The idea she presented us with was a surprise to all of her MPs.

I am still a bit confused to how this would work and why the Germany model is not sufficient? I am also confused to why social care can not be lumped to medical and mental care. Why not one set of money for care?

Jane, I think there are at least two aspects to the funding. Younger people should be able to subscribe to a care scheme, possibly similar to Germany's, so that should they need social care, whether in old age or in some cases sooner, their needs will be catered for.

For the older generation for whom such care needs might be more immediate what are we looking at? If you would be able to fund very good care without selling your home, then you are indeed fortunate.

What level of care would be provided if your home isn't worth an awful lot more than £100,000? Is the type of care to be graded according to the funds available above that? Who knows what the details are?

If you rent or own a home worth less than,£100.000 I gather the state would pay. Well I'd hope they would.

My clients recently moved into a home; their house is in trust, but I don't know what that means ! They have 3 wealthy children.

Jane you are incredibly rude. I was not spouting propaganda - they were my own thoughts after some research and I was trying to clarify how I saw it for you. Neither would I call myself a socialist.

Calling someone by names they chose not to be called in order to marginalise them had, I thought, stopped with the disappearance of the N word. I would really rather you did not try to assess my politics and don't sink to the despicable level of name calling.

I thought you were posting because you wanted to take part in a discussion. Obviously I was wrong and you, as we so often see on here, just wanted to put forward an extreme opinion and then shout at people when they don't agree.

My MIL also dj. Better social care IS possible, but the fact that it is privatised and run for profit makes this unviable. Perhaps they will re invent the model whereby councils run care homes, train the staff and give them a decent wage, likewise home care. Funding COULD be found, it's the political will that's lacking.

We know how much care costs - the whole of my mother in law's house which she lived in for seventy years after her husband had built it.
It was a cheap and nasty comment.

I'm sorry about your mother in law. I am very clear that spouting propaganda doesn't cover the issues involved. You still don't seem to get my points though. The main one being that excellent all round care just isn't sourceable or providable by any statutory agency.

How rude, Jane.
My mother in law died today after a couple of years in care with dementia.
Others on here are caring for their mothers in their 90s.

We know exactly how much care costs. That was just cheap and nasty!

You misunderstand me. Re 'gamble' I meant about whether I'll need care at all. Eg my Dad died within 4 days of becoming ill while my poor MiL dwindled on for years needing full time care. Organising this was a nightmare patchwork to arrange. It took all her pension and more. This in a country which says it provides free personal care and nursing care if required. If only it could have been found!
Sorry but your Socialist spouting doesn't mean anything in this case. Talk is cheap, care isn't.

Jane it is more simple than you think. Both of the main parties want to spend very much the same amount. The Conservatives what to use it to continue reducing tax to those who already have more; the Labour Party and many of the left of centre parties want to use it to renew our infrastructure and nurture our modern industrial and business foundation; give us the education the country needs to face the future, including life long opportunities to upskill or change skills; ensure good health and social care are available for all; help the poorest, enable those who are in no position to help themselves, including pensioners.

All you have to ask yourself is which way you would spend that same amount of money. There is no money tree for EITHER party just thought through and deliberate strategies. We do not have to be at the whim of 'there is no alternative', there is always an alternative you just have to be prepared to lead it to success.

It's the media shorthand of 'dementia tax' that leads me to think more of care of the elderly.
It's all such a gamble. No-one knows whether or how much care they might need. A concern for me is that a clear robust 'service' isn't actually available even if there was masses of money available.
The so called 'free personal care' up here is a shambles with many dying on the waiting list for even the initial assessment. Its a worry and realistically I'm sure whatever care I need will eat up every penny I've got if I live that long. I just don't have faith in 'govt' care systems.

I liked the sound of the German system Jane; they have a Care Insurance.

Just a point but Care is not about 'elderly care'; it is about Social Care which may or may not be going to an elderly person.