Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36092349)

Again, though: in what way has he been dishonest, as claimed by TheDaddy? Yes, he’s broken his promises. Did he know before the election that he was going to do so?

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36092359)

I think the point is that everyone knows that health & social care has been in need of reform for years. In fact Boris stated himself that previous governments hadn't done it.

I think some people are of the opinion he's using Covid as an excuse to do this Believing the public will be more accepting.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36092360)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36092318)

Good summary from the Beeb - one thing that is quite important is that this is about care costs, not accommodation (so if people are in Private Care Homes, not sure how this benefits them).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58473787

My personal view (and we are actually doing this at the moment for my mum-in-law) is that if the person is in a residential care home, and has assets to pay for this (and with no partner in the family home), the home should be sold to pay for the Residential Care Home fees.

The challenge will be in 5 years time when the money runs out...

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36092359)

I think the point is that everyone knows that health & social care has been in need of reform for years. In fact Boris stated himself that previous governments hadn't done it.

I think some people are of the opinion he's using Covid as an excuse to do this Believing the public will be more accepting.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36092363)

Fair enough, if that's the argument ... I'm not here to apologise for Boris, I just think we're capable of a higher standard of political debate than calling people dishonest just because they're in the wrong party, or we didn't vote for them.

Nevertheless, the proposal that he always intended to break the manifesto pledge and only needed an excuse is very hard to prove. If there was a lesser excuse than covid, then maybe that would stand as evidence of dishonest dealing, but the truth is, covid has been a genuine emergency that has cost the country an absolute fortune. I suspect that paying it down will most likely yet involve measures that weren't in the manifesto.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36092339)

He kept his promise by breaking another, they don't cancel each other out, there is no spin you can put on this and like it has plenty of times in the past I hope his dishonesty costs him his job, it's not like he's any good at it anyway

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36092346)

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36092350)

Refresh my memory on how he planned to do it before the election please? I remember him saying he had a plan and I remember the criticism he got for being vague but that's about it, oh yes and I remember Michael Howard and The Times sacking him for being dishonest, do leopards change spots often

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36092362)

You might want to read this Hugh.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...ocial_Care.pdf

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36092375)

Thank you for this - very much appreciated.

On page 20

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36092376)

I actually didn't mind May's idea that the money for care, up to a lifetime limit, comes out of your estate if you die. I guess the big problem there was it was a lottery if you fell ill or not but raising inheritance tax before you rise NI on lower earners seems more equitable to me?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36092380)

So they save £48,000, so what? They're not able to spend it on anything. eg World Cruise, Ferrari, etc.:rolleyes: They "saved" for their retirement, and on existing rules, it would be spent on their retirement. What's the issue?
Just look at all the media articles. The complaints are about houses having to be sold. This new solution doesn't change that. For the majority, the majority of their wealth is tied up in their house. They don't have £86,000 under the mattress.

---------- Post added at 20:07 ---------- Previous post was at 20:04 ----------


As soon as somebody had to go into care, their estate would be quickly transferred, and therefore out of reach to pay for care.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36092370)

They do, actually, because the election pledge on taxes was made before the pandemic struck. I think fair-minded people would accept

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36092397)

That's not how it works - that would be regarded as "Deprivation of Capital", and the DWP would prosecute.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36092380)

So they save £48,000, so what? They're not able to spend it on anything. eg World Cruise, Ferrari, etc.:rolleyes: They "saved" for their retirement, and on existing rules, it would be spent on their retirement. What's the issue?
Just look at all the media articles. The complaints are about houses having to be sold. This new solution doesn't change that. For the majority, the majority of their wealth is tied up in their house. They don't have £86,000 under the mattress.

---------- Post added at 20:07 ---------- Previous post was at 20:04 ----------


As soon as somebody had to go into care, their estate would be quickly transferred, and therefore out of reach to pay for care.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36092397)

That's not how it works - that would be regarded as "Deprivation of Capital", and the DWP would prosecute.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36092405)

As it was in reference to the notion that any costs are levied against post-death assets, would that still apply? The bill for the costs has yet to be determined and issued.

My central point remains, why on earth can't the empty houses be sold. Little point in waiting until after death for that to go ahead anyway. There is no justification for hanging onto a house that is going to sold at some point. If it's not going to be sold, and not lived in by the owner(s), what does it achieve?

Link
So who is expected to pay the £560/week gap? If she had opted for a even more expensive care home, would that count as "deprivation of capital" as assessed by the local councils.

Right on cue, BBC News(BBC1) report about somebody complaining about potentially having to sell their parents home.

Don't see how any more money for the NHS is going to achieve anything. There aren't more staff available to employ. Same wage bill.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36092411)

Why would they be going into care if they had just died?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36092413)

:rolleyes:It's about the (imo nonsense) idea of deferring payment of any care charges until after the person has died. The primary aim of that idea is to not have to sell the empty house until after their death. My point is, what is the real difference of selling the house when then move into care, before they die?
Who covers the bill in the intervening time? There is a wide range of prices, so how do you determine what they will truly to be able to pay from their estate, after they have died? Eg Somebody could have very little of value in their estate, so are they allowed to pick a Platinum service with the taxpayer picking up the final bill, or are they to be assessed annually as to what level of service they will be able to afford from their estate after death?
As from my included quote from the BBC, June is currently paying £1,200 a week, but her funds are running out. Whatever proposals are adopted(current system, new proposals, after-death payments), which option should she have been allowed to pick in the first place? Should she have to be now moved to the cheapest available option? None of the proposals attempts to answer that. The question doesn't seems to be asked by anyone, other than by myself.

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 36092425)

Apparently, the "cap" is only on the care part of life (washing, dressing and feeding).

It will not cover any accommodation charges (typically £1,000 to £3,000 per month).

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36092416)

People have an emotional connection to their homes and hold out hope they can return to them. However, the cost of care could still be secured against the home?

Although then you a situation where people lose their homes or not based on their luck on if they need social care not. It's not really how our health care system works in principle and you might have people avoid care they need so their children can keep their homes.

That's why I think having a social care tax on inherited estates would be better.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36092370)

They do, actually, because the election pledge on taxes was made before the pandemic struck. I think fair-minded people would accept that.

---------- Post added at 19:17 ---------- Previous post was at 19:15 ----------


The NHS, of course. That’s already in the bag. Ka-ching!

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 19:17 ----------



Well, how is he funding the pandemic? I suspect he was going to borrow the money, taking advantage of low interest rates, and let growth over the years reduce the debt.

But he’s had to use that strategy to fund the pandemic.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36092432)

How would the cost be secured against the "home"(see dictionary definition above). IT IS AN ASSET. It no longer serves the function of being their home. Just as if somebody lives in a rented home, but also owns a property. Try getting that past the DWP as not being an asset. How does a person with dementia have an emotional attachment to a home they no longer live in, when they can't even recognise their own family.

I repeat(as usual) the question, of how are the appropriate levels of costs to be determined at point of incurring those costs? Are people going to be allowed to book into a very expensive care home, and because they are actually penniless, never have to pay anything. because it's supposedly all sorted out after their death?
Problem is that too many people want an expensive service, but don't want to pay for it.:mad:
The only solution would be to provide a base level service for everybody, unless they pay upfront themselves. Even then, with a £86,000 lifetime cap, what happens when then reach it?
Just as in the 1980s, when the costs of care were allowed to be passed off onto the Benefits system(Supplementary Benefit), rather than the Council budget. Because the Benefits system refunded any and all costs, the council didn't have to be too bothered about what the level of costs were, because they weren't paying.


If they have assets, they should be expected to pay. Especially as I keep pointing out, they are unable to benefit in any other manner from that wealth.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36092435)

<SNIP>

I think you're hitting yet missing a key issue. people expect that they have a right (rightly or wrongly) to be able to leave an inheritance to their children, dog, charities etc.

So, whilst the person needing residential care cannot benefit from their assets, others can.

Tie that to the common ignorance that is the payments I make via NI are for my state pension (which of course is twaddle) and you get resistance from individuals.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36092441)

This is going to raise £36 billion over three years, give or take a thousand million the cost of the world class test and trace whatever that thing was, pretty much every single worker is going to be paying more to fund this corrupt chumocracy, I'd say we deserve better but I'm not sure we do anymore :(

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36092443)

"expect they have a right" is not the same as "have a right", especially if the taxpayer is expected to pick up the bill instead.


When it comes down to it, people will still have to sell their "homes", and people will still gripe about that.
From official government document on these proposals.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36092442)

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36092432)

How would the cost be secured against the "home"(see dictionary definition above). IT IS AN ASSET. It no longer serves the function of being their home. Just as if somebody lives in a rented home, but also owns a property. Try getting that past the DWP as not being an asset. How does a person with dementia have an emotional attachment to a home they no longer live in, when they can't even recognise their own family.

I repeat(as usual) the question, of how are the appropriate levels of costs to be determined at point of incurring those costs? Are people going to be allowed to book into a very expensive care home, and because they are actually penniless, never have to pay anything. because it's supposedly all sorted out after their death?
Problem is that too many people want an expensive service, but don't want to pay for it.:mad:
The only solution would be to provide a base level service for everybody, unless they pay upfront themselves. Even then, with a £86,000 lifetime cap, what happens when then reach it?
Just as in the 1980s, when the costs of care were allowed to be passed off onto the Benefits system(Supplementary Benefit), rather than the Council budget. Because the Benefits system refunded any and all costs, the council didn't have to be too bothered about what the level of costs were, because they weren't paying.


If they have assets, they should be expected to pay. Especially as I keep pointing out, they are unable to benefit in any other manner from that wealth.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36092447)

Because nursing care in a residential home is not always permanent. It can be short or medium term after a prolonged hospital stay. It is not unheard of for an individual to be able to return home.

Furthermore living arrangements can be complex, as can house ownership. Elderly siblings sometimes live together, and sometimes elderly parents and children do. The individual who does not require nursing care may have part-ownership of the house or may simply not have anywhere else to go.

Putting a charge on the property against its eventual sale avoids a lot of potential complications, including unpleasant local newspaper stories about councils turning often quite vulnerable people out of their homes in order to pay for its owner’s care.

(Edit) it’s also the case that the capital tied up in the house will most likely increase its value in real terms, whereas if it were liquidated and then banked its value would at best keep pace with inflation but most likely would depreciate in real terms. Keeping the money that will eventually be used to pay off the bill in property rather than in the bank is financially astute.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36092458)

When are people requiring only short or medium term care ever expected to sell their home. :rolleyes:


The case study of "Yusuf" in the Government document "Build Back Better" is incorrect. It claims the cap would kick in after 3 years and 4 months. The cap only applies to eligible costs, which will usually be a lot less than the actual costs. The difference under the new proposals will be a lot less than stated. Not only would take longer to reach the cap, he would still have to pay the excess.
Things like issues of part-ownership are already taken into account.



The housing market never crashes?

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36092435)

OB i do like the way you selectively quote.

Didn't Boris say yesterday in his statement to the HoC that this action was being taken partially due to the fact that proceeding governments had kicked this particular can down the road?

Let us not say that this is entirely down to the Covid pandemic, because as your illustrious leader himself admitted yesterday. it isn't.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36092444)

[COLOR="Blue"]The Brexit dividend over three years would raise £48 billion.
What's happened to that?

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36092497)

Maybe the dividend never existed and you've been lied to.

As for healthcare we've been underfunding for decades, and saying we're happy to pay more in opinion polls. The Govt have called our bluff.

Whether it should be the young (again) to subsidise the old and wealthy is open to debate. There were other fairer taxes (eg capital gains, upper tiers of income tax, inheritance tax) - targeting those that can afford it, that could have been used. Not very Tory though.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36092509)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36092517)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36092444)

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36092522)

Whenever I see someone's salary being benchmarked to the Prime Minister's in this fashion, there's inevitably a big straw being clutched at. The Telegraph rarely disappoints in this respect these days. Alas it's followed the instant opinion, zero analysis trend.

What would be useful to know is if other roles are being removed and the benchmark salary for comparable roles.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36092522)

Whenever I see someone's salary being benchmarked to the Prime Minister's in this fashion, there's inevitably a big straw being clutched at. The Telegraph rarely disappoints in this respect these days. Alas it's followed the instant opinion, zero analysis trend.

What would be useful to know is if other roles are being removed and the benchmark salary for comparable roles.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36092467)

I think we must be at cross purposes here. It is the tax hike that was not set out in the manifesto, not the NHS/Care Services reform, which was. And the tax hike was necessary because we have already spent many sackfuls of money on Covid, which was not known about at the time.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36092528)

Debt is forecast to be 233% of GDP by 2060 regardless of Covid.

Structural reform and decisions about what we do pay for through taxation, and ultimately WHO pays, has been absolutely inevitable for some time.

I do find it odd so many arch-capitalists turn socialist in their 60s and 70s so long as they don’t have to sell their house.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36092444)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36092528)

Debt is forecast to be 233% of GDP by 2060 regardless of Covid.

Structural reform and decisions about what we do pay for through taxation, and ultimately WHO pays, has been absolutely inevitable for some time.

I do find it odd so many arch-capitalists turn socialist in their 60s and 70s so long as they don’t have to sell their house.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36092577)

Labour leading in the latest polls. Not a mark of a coherent Labour policy - I'm certain of that much - but indicative of the challenge I've described. Nobody wants to pay for generations of cans being kicked down the road.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36092618)

Hiring bureaucrats is typical. Happens all the time more money is made available because someone has to control how that money is spent and that someone is expensive. It also happen even more with Tory government, the civil service can't let them get away with doing something worthwhile so they will find a way to make it less effective without actually opposing it.


My grandmother used to say that getting rid of matron from the wards was a huge mistake. It moved control to administrators who had very different aims than running a ward well.


It's nigh on impossible to revert though. You'd need someone to monitor that it is all working better and those someones likely want to keep their cushy jobs and their agency in work so may not report favourably.


There is wastage in most parts of public service. But correcting it often creates more wastage in other areas and, for the NHS, patients will be the ones to suffer. You can't ask a sick person to wait until the system is working OK before they get treated.