Conservative manifesto: Why many will pay more for care

[dutchman]

What the Conservatives have proposed for elderly care in England is complex



They are changing certain thresholds as well as what can be defined as assets and how long you wait before you have to pay your bill.

But in the end it can be summed up quite easily - they want people to pay more towards the cost of their care, but are prepared to wait until you die before taking it from your estate.

Yes, some elements of their plans sound generous and certainly some people will benefit, but large numbers won't.

Why? Because we are a nation of homeowners and these plans make sure that whatever sort of care you need, the value of your home can be taken into account.

Unlike the NHS, social care - and that covers help with daily tasks in the home, such as washing and dressing, through to round-the-clock support in a care home or nursing home - is not free.

Only the poorest receive help towards costs from their local council.

Currently anyone with assets of over £23,250 is expected to pay the full cost of their care. If you are in a care home or nursing home, the value of your house can be taken into account.

But that is not the case if you receive care in your own home. Then, it's really only your savings and income which are taken into account.

But the Tory manifesto promises to change that. Instead, the value of your home may be factored in, no matter where care is provided.

Nearly three times as many people get help in the community from their local councils than get a funded place in a care home or nursing home, so that change will have significant implications.

The manifesto argues the plans are more generous because they raise the threshold your assets have to deplete to before you get council help from £23,250 to £100,000.

That means no matter how much your care costs, you are guaranteed to be left with that amount.

However, if you look at it the other way round, the changes seem less helpful.

Three-quarters of people over the age of 65 are homeowners and the average value of a property in England is £233,000. You don't need to be a maths genius to see that means plenty of people will become liable for more of their care costs.

And for those with very high care needs - for one in 10 they exceed £100,000 - it means you will pay more than you would have under the £72,000 care cap that was the policy at the last election but has now been ditched.

So who does benefit? The Tories are not providing any modelling on numbers, but there seems to be two main groups - cash-rich non-homeowners and homeowners of low-value properties (or at least properties they don't have much equity in).

To benefit from the guarantee that £100,000 of your assets will be left untouched, your local council will have to assess your care needs as being severe enough to warrant help.

Just because you are frail and need some help with dressing or eating, it does not necessarily mean you will be entitled to protection even if you are paying for care.

Councils require you to have very high needs - essentially great difficulty with at least two daily tasks. About half of people with recognisable care needs fall outside of this definition, according to Age UK.

[rebbonk]

Wherever there's money they will try to wrest it off you. The richest have ways of preventing capital asset seizure, the poorest won't be aware of (or won't be able to afford) these ways.

Thatcher, with her right to buy, set this particular ball rolling. Did those buying houses at discount really think they'd be allowed to join the 'club'?

The CON in conservative, becomes clearer by the day.

[Melisandre]

Thatcher, with her right to buy, set this particular ball rolling. Did those buying houses at discount really think they'd be allowed to join the 'club'?

The CON in conservative, becomes clearer by the day.

Do mean like the recession that was purposely done to stop people getting rich in fear that the big boys might loose their power I recently discovered.


They are all Con s out to con us Tony Blair was a Conservative he only joined Labour as he he would become PM quicker his father was a staunch Conservative.
Perhaps people should look at the people who back these party s what their real aim is.

[dutchman]

May´s social care costs cap proposals attacked by Tory candidate



Dr Sarah Wollaston, who chaired the Commons health committee in the last parliament, said people would face a “miserable lottery” when it came to funding their future care.

Under the plans set out in the Conservative manifesto on Thursday, the party said it would not go ahead with the proposed £72,000 limit on care costs after which people would be entitled to state support. Instead, people with assets of less than £100,000 - including the value of their home - will be protected from the costs of social care, although for the first time those receiving care in their home will have to pay as well as those in residential care.

However, Dr Wollaston said that by removing the cap, it would leave people unable to get insurance to cover their future care costs as it would be impossible to know what the final bill might be.

Writing in The Times, she said: “The dropping of the care cap sadly leaves social care uninsurable leaving in place the miserable lottery of care costs.

"Also need to know whether the £100,000 asset threshold is subject to a taper rate below that? Hopefully not as that would reduce its value”

[dutchman]

Tories 'won't look again' at social care plans



Damian Green has said the Conservatives will not "look again" at plans to fund social care in England, despite fears they will be unpopular with voters.

Mr Green said the social care cap system that had been due to come in in 2020 would have unfairly benefited those with the most expensive estates to pass on.

"It's got to work for everyone, not just in Ashford and Twickenham, but also in Hartlepool and in north Wales and in Scotland and so on. Allowing everyone to know that there is this flat figure of £100,000 is fair to everyone."

He stressed a £100,000 inheritance was still "four times as good" as being left with £23,250 - the current threshold over which residential care costs must be funded.

"Everyone knows there will be a decent inheritance for them, nobody will have to lose their home during their lifetime or the lifetime of their surviving spouse."

Asked if the Tories might reconsider the plans given the criticism, Mr Green said: "No... we have set out this policy, which we're not going to look at again."

He said there would be a green paper covering both social care and health "coming out in the summer".

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron told Sky's Sophie Ridge on Sunday: "What we are seeing this weekend is the Conservatives under growing pressure because they have chosen a dementia tax."

"If you or your loved one has or will get dementia, they are coming for you".

[rebbonk]

I was halfheartedly watching the political shows earlier and Damian Green was being interviewed. Whilst I admit to not paying rapt attention, I didn't think he came over very well defending this particular item.

I have a feeling that many Tories who are 'door-stepping' at the moment are going to get a rough ride on this issue. I also note that the conservatives' poll lead is starting to be eroded since the manifestos have been published.

[dutchman]

I notice May is doing her best to draw attention away from this subject by repeating the words "Brexit, Brexit, Brexit" over and over again.

Last time I looked this was a vote about who runs Britain, not about Britain's membership of the EU.

[rebbonk]

Whoops, do I detect some back tracking?

[dutchman]

Theresa May changes social care plans



Theresa May has said proposed changes to social care funding in England will now include an "absolute limit" on the money people will have to pay.

"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."

The prime minister denied that it was a U-turn, insisting that "nothing had changed" and "the basic principles" set out in the manifesto remained in place.

Asked what level the cap would be set at, she said that would be a matter for the consultation.

This represents a complete U-turn. The cap - a 2015 election promise - was ditched last week with the Tories briefing it would be too expensive because of the ageing population.

But after a weekend of damaging headlines, there has clearly been a re-think. Merging together two policies may prove difficult however.

What they proposed in the manifesto in regards to including the value of a person's home was not in the original proposals for a cap. Are the two things compatible?

What about the level of the cap - set at £72,000 last time? And where will the money come from? The cost was estimated at £6bn over five years. These, the Tories say, are all questions for another day.

The BBC's assistant political editor Norman Smith, who was earlier told by Tory sources that there would be no "rowing back", said the prime minister was now "completely refashioning the policy" and had effectively "ripped" up a four-day-old manifesto commitment.

Former Chancellor George Osborne, now editor of the Evening Standard, tweeted that the move was a U-turn.

Former leader Nick Clegg said Theresa May had suffered a "manifesto meltdown" and the changes raised questions about her leadership. He told the BBC that she had still not provided certainty to families about how much they would have to pay for domiciliary care.

[rebbonk]

Nick Clegg said Theresa May had suffered a "manifesto meltdown" and the changes raised questions about her leadership.

Says the man who sold out for 30 pieces of silver!