Health care Funding

Greg Hook

Not really looked into this too much, but I thought if your house was worth £100K or less you'd pay nothing? So are you saying the granny with a £100K house will lose it?

Stuey1

A granny with a 100k house would pay nothing, whereas at the moment they would pay around 75k of that house before she's protected

At least that's how I understand it, the big difference is that at the moment those who have care at home aren't affected by this bit anyone requiring a care home would be left with around £23k but going forward with this policy would mean anyone who requires care would be affected. So the raise in the cap is paid for by more people having to pay it

NorvernRob

So if a pensioners assets are worth £110k, the government will only take £10k and nothing else? All I can find is that if your assets are worth more than £100k, they will be used to fund your care. It would be more reassuring if the £100k was fully protected.

As I understand it, there's no limit to the amount you can be charged either. Some people will have hundreds of thousands taken - essentially making your years and years of mortgage payments just another form of taxation.

I won't vote Tory anyway, income tax and NI are going to go up, they've done absolutely nothing to lower the deficit (now they're saying 2025 before the 'books are balanced') and I don't see how many of their policies would benefit the average working person. I don't like Corbyn either so I'll likely spoil my vote.

Stuey1

The £100k is "protected" (until further governments change rules) in the same way if you are put into a nursing/care home at the moment you have to pay until you have around 23k in savings/assets left - using the proposal you would then only be liable for the bill after death and that would come from your estate and would leave £100k for inheritance. Whereas currently if you are in residential care you would have to sell the house immediately to cover your costs and be left with potentially somewhere around £23k at the end for your families inheritance

*Im not a lawyer though, so that is my interpretation of what I have read

NorvernRob

Thanks, that makes sense. So anyone with assets worth more than £172k (which is the vast majority of people who own a home) is potentially worse off than with the old cap on charges of £72k, but those with cheap houses are potentially better off.

Stuey1

Someone more knowledgable about it than me can correct me, but from what I have read anyone who goes into residential care is better off as they will be left with £100k rather than £23k (as at the present). However anyone who has care at home will be worse off as their assets (house) would now be taken into account when means testing their ability to pay (which it wouldn't be at the moment)

So essentially, currently if you only need care at home your savings are raided but you can keep your house for inheritance, but if you require residential care then your house would also be sold and you would be left with circa £23k* - however if these proposals go through everyone who requires care home/residential (may) only be left with £100k for inheritance

*All calculations assume you are in care long enough that you spend all your assets and savings worth on care

IronGiant

The positive is that people won't be forced to sell the family home if they go into care while someone is still living in it.  And some people who would be stripped of house and assets down to 23K will have more to pass on.   It's not explained very well so it's hard to judge whether the negative aspects, such as your house being an asset while you're cared for in it, outweigh the benefits of the scheme.   As Enki bumped the thread to complain about it I'm sure he can explain it to us

Ruperts slippers

My understanding is, the assets value will be drained to 100k only, then government funding will kick in.

Stuey1

They won't be drained to £100k as such as the government will fund from the beginning - just if you have assets over £100k when you die and the government have been providing you with care then they will be owed any assets over £100k from your estate.

The other potential win for the government here is that any increase in property prices once they have started to provide you with care essentially becomes theirs*

*again, subject to how long you require care for

Ruperts slippers

The other option is for the relatives to provide care, that's what my parents did with my grandparents. There's always going to be a cost, just depends who pays, either in financial terms or time.