About dementia. If you have bad dementia, so bad you're a danger to yourself and\or others and you're painting your walls in poo, (exactly what my gran was like), then you don't have to pay for care in a carehome.
The trick is to get them sectioned and apply for 117 aftercare. Once they get that the council pays for the solical aspect of their care (rent and food etc) and the NHS Pays for the nursing side. 117 aftercare is completely non means tested. You can be a billionaire and qualify for it
Not sure, it's not the impression I got but could be wrong here. My impression is that a share would come off your house if you had home care and then died before you went into residential home.
Having to defend a position is forcing me to really think on it, add to the fact that some good counter arguments are being made, and yep I'm back on the fence
Still leaning towards labour, but not as strong as I was before.
Discussing instead of arguing is clearly dangerous
This is unfair due to the differences in regional property values.
My brothers house in County Durham is valued at around £110,000 and is bigger and better than my house in London which is valued at almost £500,000.
This would mean that after having paid more for my house due to a much higher mortgage than my brother, I would then have to pay much more for my care as well.
Yet another example of the south subsidising the north
Fighting talk it's why the north should break off from England and join an independent Scotland
You could make the same argument about your wage, I doubt your brother earns anyway near as much as you, so hasn't contributed as much to the state, so should get less back in return.
Blimey I really am back on the fence
Edit
The counter argument to the above is that whilst you do pay more, you get more in return. Better infrastructure, higher percentage of outstanding schools and hospitals, longer life expectancy, etc.
I guess my point is that I don't buy your argument and I'm not happy about the new changes proposed
My brother has earned about the same or more than me so has had much more disposable income than me throughout our lifetimes. I was also state educated both up north and down south and can tell you that for me the standard was much higher in Durham than in London.
I also think that things like life expectancy etc.. are not based on like for like. There are a lot of wealthier people down south, but I think that a poorer working class person's outlook will probably be similar wherever they live.
I wasn't trying to play devils advocate (however it might look), I just wanted a better case made was all as I've become unsure of this subject and its too much of a game changer to not look in depth at all cases made for and against.
Just because a house in London is worth 5x the equivalent house in Durham doesn't mean that it cost 5x as much.
We're talking about asset value of elderly peoples homes here, not their market value.
There are so many variables when we're talking cashing in property, mortgages, shared ownership, secured loans etc.
It's such a minefield, but it's one that needs tackling somehow by somebody sooner or later.
Labour offering more bribes to pensioners (as all parties have done for as long as I can remember) isn't going to change things for the better.
I can only equate this policy to the tax free income allowance.
It's inherently 'unfair' to higher earners, but they're not the ones the policy is designed around.
Dammit that Theresa woman has turned me into a socialist.
More on Theresa May saying there will be a consultation on social care which will include a cap, or as she described it, an "absolute limit" on the money people will need to pay for social care:
"We will make sure nobody has to sell their family home to pay for care. We will make sure there's an absolute limit on what people need to pay.
"And you will never have to go below £100,000 of your savings, so you will always have something to pass on to your family," she said.
I don't fully understand why this seems to be such a deal-breaker for people.
In the case of anyone who has to go into residential care this policy appears to be a rather large improvement on the current policy - people stand to keep over £75k more than they would currently be able to, to pass on to their family.
It obviously affects people who have home care significantly more, and presumably there are more people who require home care than residential care (perhaps that answers my own lack of understanding) - however the increase in the cap for those who have residential care would appear to be being paid for by the fact that more people would now be contributing to their care needs.
Ideally, I think that all care needs should be covered through general taxation as part of the NHS, but this isn't where we are and it doesn't seem to be being offered by either Labour or the Tories - so it's a non-starter at the moment.
It would seem that it comes down to personal opinion/circumstances of whether you believe its fair that you should only contribute towards your care needs with the value of your property if you require residential care, or you believe that it seems fairer that anyone who requires care to be provided for them should contribute equally until a set limit.
Author: The Dark Horse
26-11-2019 03:24:36