Every time the government tries to improve things the moaners come out in force. It must be hard work being so relentlessly negative.
Yes, care will cost money, but it already does! It doesn’t do so fairly though, so some have to spend all their money and sell their houses to subsidise those without the means to pay.
Many people of all political stripes disagree with that- it is a major fear for older people - and if a way can be found to charge everyone a little bit along the way so nobody has to be pauperised if the lottery if life means they need social care in old age, then I’m keen for that to happen. I’d like to see geographical unfairness ruled out, too. As it stands, notional ‘caps’ on spending have all been finite, so someone whose house has a postcode premium would still have lots left over after paying up to the cap, but someone who has worked just as hard in another area loses everything. Maybe charging a maximum of X% of an estate would be more equitable?
As it stands, the system allows some to go through life with a free ride, and others are forced to pick up the tab - that has to stop somehow, or it will be too expensive for the ever-shrinking number of ‘economically active’ to cover. Obviously there are those who can’t pay for various reasons, but I’m sure the investigators will have thought of that and be looking at ways to mitigate it.
Paying NI after pension age is a good idea, but again, I’d rather see the burden be spread, so those who work don’t have to fork out for those who don’t, as usual. Also, not all people of pension age are able to work - the differential levels of heath and abilities in older people is the starting point for all of this, and can’t be ignored. Plus, we should all be able to put our feet up for a few years after decades of working. Or maybe we can’t (collectively) afford that? Again, that’s why we need a thorough investigation.
A big problem will be what to do with people like most of us here - those in older age who might have existing conditions but not enough money to plug the gap between insurance and PAYG. I wouldn’t get insurance as things stand, but I am far from unusual in that, so again, I expect the commission to look for ways around it. I guess it will mean one of two basic models - the new system (whatever it turns out to be) is for people under a certain age, so there is time to get funding in place before it starts, or it starts off being inclusive but needs a huge boost of public money. If it’s the latter, which I hope for, for obvious reasons, young people will need to be convinced that they should shoulder that burden, which after so much propaganda about generational inequality could be difficult to pull off. Who would want to pay a lot of extra tax to fund someone who begrudges them a takeaway coffee or ‘the latest phone’? 
.
I am pleased that this is cross-party. I think that is the only way to prevent social care from becoming a political football, with huge amounts of money being spent on initiatives that an incoming government scraps. I think that will be difficult to achieve, however, as we know that Reform doesn’t believe in publicly-funded healthcare, never mind social care, and how that can be factored into a compassionate system is beyond me. But that’s why a commission is needed, rather than a rush to implement an ‘oven ready deal’ that has no substance or credibility.
Anyway, I am pleased with this news. I have no problem with paying in to get out, but recognise that for people of my age (65) it is probably too late to pay my share on an insurance basis, so hope that younger people can be persuaded to do it instead.
.