[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

noun: home; plural noun: homes
1. the place where one lives permanently, especially as a member of a family or household.
"the floods forced many people to flee their homes"

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.
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.

One of the major triggers for private care home expansion in the 1980s was that, from 1983 until the 1993 implementation of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990, private residential and nursing home care could be paid for by the DHSS from uncapped ‘supplementary benefit’ payments. This provided a perverse incentive to be cared for in private residential care rather than at home.

A key component of the Griffiths recommendations concerned the use of social security
resources within funding for social care. The ‘perverse incentives’ identified by the Audit
Commission were concerned with the use of Supplementary Benefit payments (the
equivalent to Income Support in current terms) to pay for residential care. A person who
qualified for Supplementary Benefit and who wished to enter a private or voluntary sector
residential care home could do so with their care fees being paid through the social
security system. For local authorities trying to protect limited budgets this allowed a useful
mechanism for diverting demand to another source of funding. However, the rapid growth
in the numbers of people being supported through public funds, and the clear conflict
which this introduced with an apparent objective to achieve community care, were the
major factors driving the need for reform.

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.