My ability to leave ratings hasn't been working for a while now which is a pain as there are a load of Agrees and Funnys I'd like to post.
Anyway, got to quote your post just to say..
I did actually laugh..
:image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7 
I assume it's been scrapped now then, but I'm sure that Cameron said nobody would pay more than £72k for their care which is why I was a bit confused.
Hence anyone with a house worth more than £172k, which is most people with a house, would potentially pay more under the new rules despite the ceiling being higher.
..But currently, if the house is lived in by a family member under 18 or over 60, the government can't count the value of the house as an asset. This is removed under the new proposal, and whilst the government won't force anyone to sell, they will class the house as an asset and take back care costs from the equity after death.
This is what I can't quite figure out, because we are always hearing about retired couples selling the family home to pay for a care home for one of them.Hence my confusion.Or are we talking about care in the home only?If I have it right there are potential benefits to people going into a care home, but penalties for care in the home?.If someone has it figured out and can explain the benefits (if any) and the shortcomings (of which there definitely some) it would be very helpful.
How the cap on care costs works - BBC News
You have an excellent memory 
It looks like that cap never actually got introduced though and most articles being written about the changes now aren't taking into account that this was proposed and would have been due to be implemented in 2020 (delayed from 2016)...
But yeah, it would appear the new proposals would be harsher than the current proposals for people with residential care needs, but the current rules are even harsher.
However the new proposals are also going to hit anyone who gets by with care at home, which neither the current rules or the current proposals would have done.
It's also interesting to see that the idea of keeping your home for the duration of your life is also in the current proposals, so not exactly a new idea.
I'm personally not sure on all of it, the care needs funding one way or another and the care at home/residential care seems a fairer way to spread the cost - that's not to say I particularly support the policy as such.
*although some things in it are interesting, you would still be expected to pay for food and lodgings in a care home ~£230 a week, even after reaching the cap.
Only what the local authority deem the cost would be included as going towards the cap, so if you choose a more expensive home and top-up this doesn't count towards the cap
And surprisingly (to me at least) it is expected only 1 out of 8 would be expected to reach the cap, as stays in residential care are generally not long enough to trigger the cap.
It's also worth noting that the different types of care will be radically different prices, a nursing home can easily be over £1k per week, a care home will be less and care at home will be less still.
Using this calculator CARE HOME COSTS & FEES in 2017 - Use our calculator to estimate your costs
I have input Lancashire and 2017 as a start date and for care home costs 3 years would be around £82k, however for care at home for 2 hours per day for 10 years it would be around 80k. Obviously the north west is going to be at the cheaper end of the scale but it shows the difference in cost, although in general people only requiring home care are probably likely to require it for longer and also potentially end up in residential care aswell.
There are so many variables going on here that's it's really to difficult to tell the effects of the policy changes without lots of numbers
Selling the home shouldn't be necessary, but if the local authority are paying then it may be that they aren't placing them in a home the family deem suitable, so maybe families are selling up to be able to pay a top up to choose a more suitable home - I don't know if this is why but it may make some sense as it's doesn't appear you would be forced to sell if a spouse is still living there
Dark Horse has missed that we were already discussing it in here and started a new thread. Please join in over here:Tory manifesto: Adult Social Care bill query